Cargando…
Oral squamous cell carcinoma – do we always need elective neck dissection? evaluation of clinicopathological factors of greatest prognostic significance: a cross-sectional observational study
The aim of the study was to find clinical and pathological factors with the greatest prognostic significance in patients with OSCC. The analysis included 125 patients grouped according to the tumor primary site (TPS): the floor of the mouth (FOM), tongue (TC) and retromolar triangle (RMT). Grading (...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10539602/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37781178 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1203439 |
_version_ | 1785113536235569152 |
---|---|
author | Michcik, Adam Polcyn, Adam Sikora, Maciej Wach, Tomasz Garbacewicz, Łukasz Drogoszewska, Barbara |
author_facet | Michcik, Adam Polcyn, Adam Sikora, Maciej Wach, Tomasz Garbacewicz, Łukasz Drogoszewska, Barbara |
author_sort | Michcik, Adam |
collection | PubMed |
description | The aim of the study was to find clinical and pathological factors with the greatest prognostic significance in patients with OSCC. The analysis included 125 patients grouped according to the tumor primary site (TPS): the floor of the mouth (FOM), tongue (TC) and retromolar triangle (RMT). Grading (G), tumor size (pT), nodal metastases (NM), local recurrence (LR), nodal recurrence (NR), perineural invasion (PNI), lymphovascular invasion (LVI), extranodal extension (pENE), and nodal yield (NY) were evaluated in each group. RESULTS: With regard to TPS, FOM appeared to be the most metastatic. However, the recurrence rate was similar to TC tumors, which were characterized by higher G than those in other locations. When analyzing G, the highest percentage of LR (40.5%) and NM (34.5%) was observed among patients with G2. As G increased, so did the number of pENE G1 – 7.4%; G2 – 31%; G3 – 35.7%; LVI: G1 – 25.9%; G2 – 50%; G3 – 57.1%; PNI: G1 – 29.6%; G2 – 47.6%; G3 – 92.9%; NR G1 – 14.8%; G2 – 32.1%; G3 – 21.4%. Grading did not affect the type of growth and did not directly affect the occurrence of NR. pT and DOI increased the frequency of NM but we did not observe any effect of pT and DOI on LR, PNI, and LVI. NY in the study group did not increase the risk of NR. CONCLUSION: Tumor primary sites within the FOM, TC, and pT classification are the factors that increase the risk of NM and LR. However, apart from the primary site predisposing to the occurrence of NM, the histological structure of the tumor turned out to be the most important feature affecting the patient’s prognosis. The number of cases of pENE+, LVI+, PNI+, NM+, and NR+ increased with the increase in G. Although the pT, DOI increased the frequency of NM, we did not observe the effect of the pT and DOI on LR, PNI and LVI. Thus, even in the case of a small tumor of the FOM and TC with at least G2, elective neck dissection should be performed each time. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10539602 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105396022023-09-30 Oral squamous cell carcinoma – do we always need elective neck dissection? evaluation of clinicopathological factors of greatest prognostic significance: a cross-sectional observational study Michcik, Adam Polcyn, Adam Sikora, Maciej Wach, Tomasz Garbacewicz, Łukasz Drogoszewska, Barbara Front Oncol Oncology The aim of the study was to find clinical and pathological factors with the greatest prognostic significance in patients with OSCC. The analysis included 125 patients grouped according to the tumor primary site (TPS): the floor of the mouth (FOM), tongue (TC) and retromolar triangle (RMT). Grading (G), tumor size (pT), nodal metastases (NM), local recurrence (LR), nodal recurrence (NR), perineural invasion (PNI), lymphovascular invasion (LVI), extranodal extension (pENE), and nodal yield (NY) were evaluated in each group. RESULTS: With regard to TPS, FOM appeared to be the most metastatic. However, the recurrence rate was similar to TC tumors, which were characterized by higher G than those in other locations. When analyzing G, the highest percentage of LR (40.5%) and NM (34.5%) was observed among patients with G2. As G increased, so did the number of pENE G1 – 7.4%; G2 – 31%; G3 – 35.7%; LVI: G1 – 25.9%; G2 – 50%; G3 – 57.1%; PNI: G1 – 29.6%; G2 – 47.6%; G3 – 92.9%; NR G1 – 14.8%; G2 – 32.1%; G3 – 21.4%. Grading did not affect the type of growth and did not directly affect the occurrence of NR. pT and DOI increased the frequency of NM but we did not observe any effect of pT and DOI on LR, PNI, and LVI. NY in the study group did not increase the risk of NR. CONCLUSION: Tumor primary sites within the FOM, TC, and pT classification are the factors that increase the risk of NM and LR. However, apart from the primary site predisposing to the occurrence of NM, the histological structure of the tumor turned out to be the most important feature affecting the patient’s prognosis. The number of cases of pENE+, LVI+, PNI+, NM+, and NR+ increased with the increase in G. Although the pT, DOI increased the frequency of NM, we did not observe the effect of the pT and DOI on LR, PNI and LVI. Thus, even in the case of a small tumor of the FOM and TC with at least G2, elective neck dissection should be performed each time. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-09-14 /pmc/articles/PMC10539602/ /pubmed/37781178 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1203439 Text en Copyright © 2023 Michcik, Polcyn, Sikora, Wach, Garbacewicz and Drogoszewska https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Oncology Michcik, Adam Polcyn, Adam Sikora, Maciej Wach, Tomasz Garbacewicz, Łukasz Drogoszewska, Barbara Oral squamous cell carcinoma – do we always need elective neck dissection? evaluation of clinicopathological factors of greatest prognostic significance: a cross-sectional observational study |
title | Oral squamous cell carcinoma – do we always need elective neck dissection? evaluation of clinicopathological factors of greatest prognostic significance: a cross-sectional observational study |
title_full | Oral squamous cell carcinoma – do we always need elective neck dissection? evaluation of clinicopathological factors of greatest prognostic significance: a cross-sectional observational study |
title_fullStr | Oral squamous cell carcinoma – do we always need elective neck dissection? evaluation of clinicopathological factors of greatest prognostic significance: a cross-sectional observational study |
title_full_unstemmed | Oral squamous cell carcinoma – do we always need elective neck dissection? evaluation of clinicopathological factors of greatest prognostic significance: a cross-sectional observational study |
title_short | Oral squamous cell carcinoma – do we always need elective neck dissection? evaluation of clinicopathological factors of greatest prognostic significance: a cross-sectional observational study |
title_sort | oral squamous cell carcinoma – do we always need elective neck dissection? evaluation of clinicopathological factors of greatest prognostic significance: a cross-sectional observational study |
topic | Oncology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10539602/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37781178 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1203439 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT michcikadam oralsquamouscellcarcinomadowealwaysneedelectiveneckdissectionevaluationofclinicopathologicalfactorsofgreatestprognosticsignificanceacrosssectionalobservationalstudy AT polcynadam oralsquamouscellcarcinomadowealwaysneedelectiveneckdissectionevaluationofclinicopathologicalfactorsofgreatestprognosticsignificanceacrosssectionalobservationalstudy AT sikoramaciej oralsquamouscellcarcinomadowealwaysneedelectiveneckdissectionevaluationofclinicopathologicalfactorsofgreatestprognosticsignificanceacrosssectionalobservationalstudy AT wachtomasz oralsquamouscellcarcinomadowealwaysneedelectiveneckdissectionevaluationofclinicopathologicalfactorsofgreatestprognosticsignificanceacrosssectionalobservationalstudy AT garbacewiczłukasz oralsquamouscellcarcinomadowealwaysneedelectiveneckdissectionevaluationofclinicopathologicalfactorsofgreatestprognosticsignificanceacrosssectionalobservationalstudy AT drogoszewskabarbara oralsquamouscellcarcinomadowealwaysneedelectiveneckdissectionevaluationofclinicopathologicalfactorsofgreatestprognosticsignificanceacrosssectionalobservationalstudy |