Search

Aims: In the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging manual, tumour infiltration depth and extranodal extension are added to the pathological classification for oral squamous cell carcinoma. The currently available 8th TNM validation studies lack patients with conservative neck treatment, and changes in the classification especially affect patients with small tumours. The aim of this study was to determine the potential impact of the changes in the 8th edition pTNM classification on the prognosis and treatment strategy for oral squamous cell carcinoma in a well‐defined series of pT1–T2 patients with long‐term follow‐up. Methods and results: Two hundred and eleven first primary pT1–T2 oral squamous cell carcinoma patients, with surgical resection as primary treatment, were analysed retrospectively. One hundred and seventy‐three patients underwent a neck dissection, and 38 patients had frequent clinical neck assessments. Long‐term follow‐up (median 64 months) and reassessed tumour infiltration depth were available. Classification according to the 8th edition criteria resulted in 36% total upstaging with the T classification and 16% total upstaging with the N classification. T3‐restaged patients (n = 30, 14%) had lower 5‐year disease‐specific survival rates than T2‐staged patients (81% versus 67%, P = 0.042). Postoperative (chemo)radiotherapy could have been considered in another seven (3%) patients on the basis of the 8th edition criteria. Conclusions: Addition of tumour infiltration depth and extranodal extension in the 8th TNM classification leads to the identification of oral squamous cell carcinoma patients with a worse prognosis who might benefit from an improved postoperative treatment strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has been introduced as a diagnostic staging modality for detection of occult metastases in patients with early stage oral cancer. Comparisons regarding accuracy to the routinely used elective neck dissection (END) are lacking in literature. Methods: A retrospective, multicenter cohort study included 390 patients staged by END and 488 by SLNB. Results: The overall sensitivity (84% vs. 81%, p = 0.612) and negative predictive value (NPV) (93%, p = 1.000) were comparable between END and SLNB patients. The END cohort contained more pT2 tumours (51%) compared to the SLNB cohort (23%) (p < 0.001). No differences were found for sensitivity and NPV between SLNB and END divided by pT stage. In floor-of-mouth (FOM) tumours, SLNB had a lower sensitivity (63% vs. 92%, p = 0.006) and NPV (90% vs. 97%, p = 0.057) compared to END. Higher disease-specific survival (DSS) rates were found for pT1 SLNB patients compared to pT1 END patients (96% vs. 90%, p = 0.048). Conclusion: In the absence of randomized clinical trials, this study provides the highest available evidence that, in oral cancer, SLNB is as accurate as END in detecting occult lymph node metastases, except for floor-of-mouth tumours. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]