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 (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Michcik, Adam, Polcyn, Adam, Sikora, Maciej, Wach, Tomasz, Garbacewicz, Łukasz, Drogoszewska, Barbara
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