Controversies in relation to neck management in N0 early oral tongue cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 297-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nobuhiro Hanai ◽  
Takahiro Asakage ◽  
Naomi Kiyota ◽  
Akihiro Homma ◽  
Ryuichi Hayashi

Abstract The standard local treatment for early-stage tongue cancer with no clinical lymph node metastases is partial glossectomy. The frequency of occult lymph node metastasis is ~20–30%. Thus, whether prophylactic neck dissection with glossectomy or glossectomy alone should be performed has been a controversial issue since the 1980s. Both treatments have advantages and disadvantages; however, especially in cases involving prophylactic neck dissection, surgical invasion and complications including the cosmetic disadvantage caused by neck skin incision, accessory nerve paralysis or facial nerve (mandibular marginal branch) paralysis, stiffness of the shoulder or neck and a feeling of neck tightness have been considered issues that could be solved by providing less-invasive treatment to the 70–80% of patients without occult lymph node metastasis. A more accurate preoperative diagnosis and strict follow-up are required to provide minimally invasive treatment while ensuring the therapeutic effect. It is also necessary to narrow down the target based on the risk–benefit balance. The depth of invasion should be considered in cases involving oral cavity malignancies. This was also taken into account in recent revisions of eighth edition of the TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors and it is an important factor for N0 neck management. This review article summarizes previous and recent reports on neck management, focusing on the risk–benefit and future perspectives of the diagnosis and treatment of early-stage oral tongue cancer. This effort is an attempt to establish treatment from the patient’s point of view, with the patient’s quality of life taken into account.

Author(s):  
Hideya Yamazaki ◽  
Takehiro Inoue ◽  
Ken Yoshida ◽  
Eiichi Tanaka ◽  
Yasuo Yoshioka ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Rattawut Wiengnon ◽  
worawat rawangban ◽  
Chakkrapong Chakkabatr ◽  
Napadon Tangjaturonrasme

Objectives Oral tongue cancer is the most prevalent type of oral cavity cancer and presents the worst prognosis. With the use of tumor, lymph node, distant metastasis (TNM) staging system, only the tumor and lymph node size are taken into account. However, several studies have considered the tumor volume as a possible significant prognostic factor of oral tongue cancer with cervical lymph node metastasis. Our study, therefore, aimed to explore the prognostic implications of the relevant nodal volume. Design, Setting and Participants Medical records and imaging (either from computed tomography scan, CT scan or magnetic resonance imaging scan, MRI scan) of 70 patients diagnosed with oral tongue cancer with cervical lymph node metastasis between January 2011 and December 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Main outcome measures The nodal volume was measured from the imaging using the Eclipse application (Version 15.6.05, Varian company) and was further analyzed for its prognostic implications, particularly on overall survival, disease-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival. Results From a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, the optimal cut-off value of the nodal volume was 3.95 cm3, to predict the disease prognosis, in terms of overall survival and metastatic-free survival (p= <0.001 and p=0.005, respectively), but not the disease-free survival (p=0.241). For the multivariable analysis, the nodal volume, but not TNM staging, was a significant prognostic factor for distant metastasis (HR=4.5, 95%CI 1.1-17.94, p=0.036 vs p=0.459, respectively). Conclusions In patients with oral tongue cancer and cervical lymph node metastasis, the presence of a nodal volume of 3.95 cm3 was a poor prognostic factor for distant metastasis. Therefore, the lymph node volume from the current imaging protocol may be useful in adjunct with the current staging system to predict the disease prognosis


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document