Tumor thickness influences prognosis of T1 and T2 oral cavity cancer - But what thickness?

被引:124
作者
O'Brien, CJ [1 ]
Lauer, CS [1 ]
Fredricks, S [1 ]
Clifford, AR [1 ]
McNeil, EB [1 ]
Bagia, JS [1 ]
Koulmandas, C [1 ]
机构
[1] Sydney Head & Neck Canc Inst, Royal Prince Alfred Med Ctr, Sydney, NSW 2042, Australia
来源
HEAD AND NECK-JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENCES AND SPECIALTIES OF THE HEAD AND NECK | 2003年 / 25卷 / 11期
关键词
oral cancer; tongue cancer; tumor thickness; SCC prognosis;
D O I
10.1002/hed.10324
中图分类号
R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100213 ;
摘要
Background. Previous studies have demonstrated that tumor thickness might influence prognosis in oral cancer, but the significant point at which outcome changes has varied from 1.5 mm to 6 mm. The clinical relevance of thickness remains unclear, and a reproducible prognostic "breakpoint" needs to be defined. Methods. Tumor thickness was measured in 145 oral cavity squamous cancers, clinically staged T1 (n = 62) or T2 (n = 83). Clinical and pathologic data were collected prospectively between 1988 and 2000, but thickness was measured on paraffin sections for this study. Minimum follow-up was 2 years, and thickness was correlated with local control, cervical node involvement, and survival. Patients with clinically positive nodes (n = 21) were not excluded. Overall, 55 patients had pathologic node involvement at some time in their disease. Results. Median tumor thickness was 6.2 mm, and there was little variation between sites: tongue, 6.4 mm; floor of mouth, 6.6 mm; and other sites, 5.7 mm. Median thickness for T1 tumors was 4.3 mm, significantly less than the T2 group, 8 mm (p < .01). Median thickness also varied significantly for tumors with associated nodal disease (8.5 mm) and without nodal disease (5.8 mm) (p < .01). Prognosis changed significantly at a cutoff of 4 mm with local control, nodal disease, and survival rates of 91%, 8%, and 100%, respectively, for tumors <4 mm compared with 84%, 48%, and 74% for those 4 mm or more thick (p < .01). Subgrouping greater than and less than 3 mm and 5 mm also showed a difference but with poorer discrimination. Thickness and pathologic nodal involvement were highly significant independent prognostic factors. Conclusions. Tumor thickness is a highly significant, objectively measurable prognostic factor in early stage oral cancers. There is a need to standardize techniques of measurement to allow a multiinstitutional study to be carried out. This will facilitate the development of strategies aimed at improving the outcome of higher risk patients. (C) 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:937 / 945
页数:9
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]  
Beenken SW, 1999, HEAD NECK-J SCI SPEC, V21, P124, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0347(199903)21:2<124::AID-HED5>3.0.CO
[2]  
2-A
[3]  
Bova RJ, 1999, CLIN CANCER RES, V5, P2810
[4]   Histopathologic parameters in the evaluation of T1 squamous cell carcinomas of the oral cavity [J].
Bundgaard, T ;
Rossen, K ;
Henriksen, SD ;
Charabi, S ;
Sogaard, H ;
Grau, C .
HEAD AND NECK-JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENCES AND SPECIALTIES OF THE HEAD AND NECK, 2002, 24 (07) :656-660
[5]  
ES RJJ, 1996, ARCH OTOLARYNGOL, V122, P521
[6]   Importance of tumour thickness measurement in prognosis of tongue cancer [J].
Gonzalez-Moles, MA ;
Esteban, F ;
Rodriguez-Archilla, A ;
Ruiz-Avila, I ;
Gonzalez-Moles, S .
ORAL ONCOLOGY, 2002, 38 (04) :394-397
[7]  
JONES KR, 1992, ARCH OTOLARYNGOL, V118, P483
[8]   Risk factors for late cervical lymph node metastases in patients with stage I or II carcinoma of the tongue [J].
Kurokawa, H ;
Yamashita, Y ;
Takeda, S ;
Zhang, M ;
Fukuyama, H ;
Takahashi, T .
HEAD AND NECK-JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENCES AND SPECIALTIES OF THE HEAD AND NECK, 2002, 24 (08) :731-736
[9]   TREATMENT OF STAGE-I AND STAGE-II ORAL TONGUE CANCER [J].
LYDIATT, DD ;
ROBBINS, KT ;
BYERS, RM ;
WOLF, PF .
HEAD AND NECK-JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENCES AND SPECIALTIES OF THE HEAD AND NECK, 1993, 15 (04) :308-312
[10]   Tumour thickness and relationship to locoregional failure in cancer of the buccal mucosa [J].
Mishra, RC ;
Parida, G ;
Mishra, TK ;
Mohanty, S .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 1999, 25 (02) :186-189