cN+pN0 disease does not portend a less favorable prognosis compared with cN0pN0 in patients with resected oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma

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.