Cargando…

Variability in Recommendations for Cervical Lymph Node Pathology for Staging of Canine Oral Neoplasia: A Survey Study

There is no clear guideline regarding the indication for routine lymph node extirpation and pathologic evaluation during staging of canine oral tumors, despite a relatively high reported nodal metastatic rate for select tumor types. It is particularly unclear if clinicians recommend removal of lymph...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Congiusta, Michael, Lawrence, Jessica, Rendahl, Aaron, Goldschmidt, Stephanie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7438545/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32903520
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00506
_version_ 1783572813083312128
author Congiusta, Michael
Lawrence, Jessica
Rendahl, Aaron
Goldschmidt, Stephanie
author_facet Congiusta, Michael
Lawrence, Jessica
Rendahl, Aaron
Goldschmidt, Stephanie
author_sort Congiusta, Michael
collection PubMed
description There is no clear guideline regarding the indication for routine lymph node extirpation and pathologic evaluation during staging of canine oral tumors, despite a relatively high reported nodal metastatic rate for select tumor types. It is particularly unclear if clinicians recommend removal of lymph nodes only when there is confirmation of metastasis, defined as the N+ neck, or if elective neck dissection (END) is routinely recommended to confirm the true pathologic metastatic status of lymph nodes in the clinical N0 neck (no evidence of metastasis on clinical staging with diagnostic imaging or cytology). When clinicians are recommending END as a staging tool to confirm nodal status, there is also ambiguity regarding the surgical extent for subsequent histopathologic evaluation. The objective of this cross-sectional survey study was to determine the current recommendations given by practicing specialists regarding lymph node removal for dogs with oral tumors. Overall, 87 responses were obtained from 49 private practices (56%) and 38 academic institutions (44%). Respondents identified as oncologists (44%, N = 38), soft tissue surgeons (40%, N = 35), and dentists (16%, N = 14). Regardless of tumor type and stage, extirpation and histopathology were most commonly recommended in the clinical N+ neck only. The recommendation to routinely perform END in the N0 neck was significantly associated with tumor type. Bilateral removal of the mandibular and retropharyngeal lymph nodes was recommended more often for oral malignant melanoma (OMM) than for oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC; p ≤ 0.0039) or for oral fibrosarcoma (OFSA; p ≤ 0.0007). The likelihood of recommending END increased with increasing tumor size. Academic clinicians were significantly (p < 0.01) more likely to recommend END compared to private practitioners for canine T1–T3 OMM, T3 OSCC, T2 OFSA, and MCT. This study highlights the variability in recommendations for lymph node pathology for dogs with oral tumors. While tumor type and size influenced the decision to pursue END, it was not routinely recommended, even for tumor types with a known propensity for metastasis. Prospective studies are warranted to determine the potential diagnostic and therapeutic value of END in the N0 neck in veterinary patients such that a consensus approach can be made.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7438545
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74385452020-09-03 Variability in Recommendations for Cervical Lymph Node Pathology for Staging of Canine Oral Neoplasia: A Survey Study Congiusta, Michael Lawrence, Jessica Rendahl, Aaron Goldschmidt, Stephanie Front Vet Sci Veterinary Science There is no clear guideline regarding the indication for routine lymph node extirpation and pathologic evaluation during staging of canine oral tumors, despite a relatively high reported nodal metastatic rate for select tumor types. It is particularly unclear if clinicians recommend removal of lymph nodes only when there is confirmation of metastasis, defined as the N+ neck, or if elective neck dissection (END) is routinely recommended to confirm the true pathologic metastatic status of lymph nodes in the clinical N0 neck (no evidence of metastasis on clinical staging with diagnostic imaging or cytology). When clinicians are recommending END as a staging tool to confirm nodal status, there is also ambiguity regarding the surgical extent for subsequent histopathologic evaluation. The objective of this cross-sectional survey study was to determine the current recommendations given by practicing specialists regarding lymph node removal for dogs with oral tumors. Overall, 87 responses were obtained from 49 private practices (56%) and 38 academic institutions (44%). Respondents identified as oncologists (44%, N = 38), soft tissue surgeons (40%, N = 35), and dentists (16%, N = 14). Regardless of tumor type and stage, extirpation and histopathology were most commonly recommended in the clinical N+ neck only. The recommendation to routinely perform END in the N0 neck was significantly associated with tumor type. Bilateral removal of the mandibular and retropharyngeal lymph nodes was recommended more often for oral malignant melanoma (OMM) than for oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC; p ≤ 0.0039) or for oral fibrosarcoma (OFSA; p ≤ 0.0007). The likelihood of recommending END increased with increasing tumor size. Academic clinicians were significantly (p < 0.01) more likely to recommend END compared to private practitioners for canine T1–T3 OMM, T3 OSCC, T2 OFSA, and MCT. This study highlights the variability in recommendations for lymph node pathology for dogs with oral tumors. While tumor type and size influenced the decision to pursue END, it was not routinely recommended, even for tumor types with a known propensity for metastasis. Prospective studies are warranted to determine the potential diagnostic and therapeutic value of END in the N0 neck in veterinary patients such that a consensus approach can be made. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-08-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7438545/ /pubmed/32903520 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00506 Text en Copyright © 2020 Congiusta, Lawrence, Rendahl and Goldschmidt. http://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 Veterinary Science
Congiusta, Michael
Lawrence, Jessica
Rendahl, Aaron
Goldschmidt, Stephanie
Variability in Recommendations for Cervical Lymph Node Pathology for Staging of Canine Oral Neoplasia: A Survey Study
title Variability in Recommendations for Cervical Lymph Node Pathology for Staging of Canine Oral Neoplasia: A Survey Study
title_full Variability in Recommendations for Cervical Lymph Node Pathology for Staging of Canine Oral Neoplasia: A Survey Study
title_fullStr Variability in Recommendations for Cervical Lymph Node Pathology for Staging of Canine Oral Neoplasia: A Survey Study
title_full_unstemmed Variability in Recommendations for Cervical Lymph Node Pathology for Staging of Canine Oral Neoplasia: A Survey Study
title_short Variability in Recommendations for Cervical Lymph Node Pathology for Staging of Canine Oral Neoplasia: A Survey Study
title_sort variability in recommendations for cervical lymph node pathology for staging of canine oral neoplasia: a survey study
topic Veterinary Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7438545/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32903520
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00506
work_keys_str_mv AT congiustamichael variabilityinrecommendationsforcervicallymphnodepathologyforstagingofcanineoralneoplasiaasurveystudy
AT lawrencejessica variabilityinrecommendationsforcervicallymphnodepathologyforstagingofcanineoralneoplasiaasurveystudy
AT rendahlaaron variabilityinrecommendationsforcervicallymphnodepathologyforstagingofcanineoralneoplasiaasurveystudy
AT goldschmidtstephanie variabilityinrecommendationsforcervicallymphnodepathologyforstagingofcanineoralneoplasiaasurveystudy