cN+pN0 disease does not portend a less favorable prognosis compared with cN0pN0 in patients with resected oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma.
Aged
Analysis of Variance
Areca
Cohort Studies
Disease-Free Survival
Female
Humans
Lymph Nodes
/ pathology
Male
Middle Aged
Mouth Neoplasms
/ mortality
Neck
Neck Dissection
Neoplasm Invasiveness
Neoplasm Staging
Prognosis
Propensity Score
Radiotherapy, Adjuvant
Retrospective Studies
Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and Neck
/ mortality
Time Factors
adjuvant therapy
clinical outcomes
oral cavity cancer
pathologically negative nodes
squamous cell carcinoma
Journal
Cancer medicine
ISSN: 2045-7634
Titre abrégé: Cancer Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101595310
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2021
10 2021
Historique:
revised:
22
05
2021
received:
08
04
2021
accepted:
06
06
2021
pubmed:
25
9
2021
medline:
9
3
2022
entrez:
24
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We compared the clinical outcomes of patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) with cN+pN0 versus cN0pN0 disease. A total of 1309 OCSCC patients with pN0 disease were included. Of them, 1019 and 290 cases had cN0pN0 and cN+pN0 disease, respectively. For comparison purposes, we also examined 799 patients with pN+disease (cN0pN+/cN+pN+, n = 239/560). Subgroup analysis was performed in a propensity score-matched cohort with cN0pN0 and cN+pN0 disease (n = 284 each). Compared with cN0pN0, patients with cN+pN0 had a higher prevalence of the following variables: betel chewing, pT3-4, depth ≥10 mm, perineural invasion, and treatment with surgery and adjuvant therapy. The prognosis of patients with cN+pN0 (mean: 52 nodes) and cN0pN0 (mean: 39 nodes) disease was similar both in the original cohort and after propensity score matching. However, the 5-year outcomes were more favorable for cN+pN0/cN0pN0 compared with cN0pN+/cN+pN+ (local control, 88%/88%/83%/81%; neck control, 94%/93%/82%/76%; distant metastases, 4%/3%/13%/31%; disease-free survival, 84%/83%/68%/52%; disease-specific survival, 92%/92%/77%/57%; overall survival, 81%/82%/59%/42%; all p values <0.001; cN+pN0 versus cN0pN0, all p values >0.05). cN+pN0 disease (vs. cN0pN0) was not significantly associated with local control, neck control, distant metastases, and survivals either in univariable or multivariable analyses. Despite a higher risk factor burden, the prognosis of patients with cN+pN0 disease did not differ from that of cases with cN0pN0. The higher nodal yield and the more frequent use of adjuvant therapy in cN+pN0 disease may explain the lack of significant differences in terms of neck control compared with cN0pN0 disease.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
We compared the clinical outcomes of patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) with cN+pN0 versus cN0pN0 disease.
METHODS
A total of 1309 OCSCC patients with pN0 disease were included. Of them, 1019 and 290 cases had cN0pN0 and cN+pN0 disease, respectively. For comparison purposes, we also examined 799 patients with pN+disease (cN0pN+/cN+pN+, n = 239/560). Subgroup analysis was performed in a propensity score-matched cohort with cN0pN0 and cN+pN0 disease (n = 284 each).
RESULTS
Compared with cN0pN0, patients with cN+pN0 had a higher prevalence of the following variables: betel chewing, pT3-4, depth ≥10 mm, perineural invasion, and treatment with surgery and adjuvant therapy. The prognosis of patients with cN+pN0 (mean: 52 nodes) and cN0pN0 (mean: 39 nodes) disease was similar both in the original cohort and after propensity score matching. However, the 5-year outcomes were more favorable for cN+pN0/cN0pN0 compared with cN0pN+/cN+pN+ (local control, 88%/88%/83%/81%; neck control, 94%/93%/82%/76%; distant metastases, 4%/3%/13%/31%; disease-free survival, 84%/83%/68%/52%; disease-specific survival, 92%/92%/77%/57%; overall survival, 81%/82%/59%/42%; all p values <0.001; cN+pN0 versus cN0pN0, all p values >0.05). cN+pN0 disease (vs. cN0pN0) was not significantly associated with local control, neck control, distant metastases, and survivals either in univariable or multivariable analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite a higher risk factor burden, the prognosis of patients with cN+pN0 disease did not differ from that of cases with cN0pN0. The higher nodal yield and the more frequent use of adjuvant therapy in cN+pN0 disease may explain the lack of significant differences in terms of neck control compared with cN0pN0 disease.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34558224
doi: 10.1002/cam4.4187
pmc: PMC8525126
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6947-6958Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Oncology (Williston Park). 1996 Aug;10(8):1221-6; discussion 1226, 1229
pubmed: 8869961
Head Neck. 2005 Oct;27(10):843-50
pubmed: 16161069
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017 Apr 1;143(4):382-388
pubmed: 28097311
Oral Oncol. 2018 Nov;86:188-194
pubmed: 30409299
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 1;37(28):2548-2555
pubmed: 31246526
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Nov 15;81(4):930-7
pubmed: 20934267
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Nov 15;78(4):1011-9
pubmed: 20434273
N Engl J Med. 2004 May 6;350(19):1937-44
pubmed: 15128893
Oral Oncol. 2002 Jan;38(1):3-5
pubmed: 11755814
Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Apr;17(4):1118-26
pubmed: 20135357
N Engl J Med. 2004 May 6;350(19):1945-52
pubmed: 15128894
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Jul;76(7):1565-1570
pubmed: 29438656
Head Neck. 2018 Jan;40(1):163-169
pubmed: 29083541
Oral Oncol. 2012 Apr;48(4):329-36
pubmed: 22104249
Cancer. 2004 Oct 15;101(8):1818-23
pubmed: 15386306
Oral Oncol. 2019 Aug;95:65-73
pubmed: 31345396
Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Oct;20(11):3575-81
pubmed: 23775408
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013 Dec;149(6):893-9
pubmed: 24154744
Cancer Med. 2021 Oct;10(20):6947-6958
pubmed: 34558224
Oral Oncol. 2006 Mar;42(3):229-39
pubmed: 16150633
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Jul 15;77(4):1024-9
pubmed: 20610038
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020 Apr 1;106(5):916-925
pubmed: 31499138