Management of clinically negative neck in salivary gland cancers – elective neck dissection, irradiation, or surveillance?

M. Szewczyk, P. Golusiński, J. Pazdrowski, Piotr Pieńkowski, W. Golusiński
{"title":"Management of clinically negative neck in salivary gland cancers – elective neck dissection, irradiation, or surveillance?","authors":"M. Szewczyk, P. Golusiński, J. Pazdrowski, Piotr Pieńkowski, W. Golusiński","doi":"10.5114/wo.2019.89245","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim of the study To retrospectively assess treatment outcomes among patients treated for salivary gland cancers at our institution to determine which of the three most common treatment approaches – elective neck dissection (END), elective neck irradiation (ENI), or observation – provide the best results. Material and methods A total of 122 patients were identified who had undergone primary surgery for SGC followed by END, ENI, or observation. The patients were classified into three groups according to the treatment approach used to manage the neck: END, ENI, or observation. The main outcome measures were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). We also sought to identify the risk factors potentially associated with neck metastasis and treatment failure. Results 106 patients met all inclusion criteria. Of these 106 patients, 27 (25.7%) underwent END, 17 (16.0%) underwent ENI, and 62 (58.5%) observation. There were no statistically significant differences between the three groups in any of the following variables: advanced age (> 70); presence of locally advanced disease (T3 or T4); perineural invasion; lymphovascular invasion; and primary tumour location. Treatment failure was higher (non-significantly) in the END group (25.9%) vs. the observation (21.0%) and ENI (11.8%) groups. No differences (Kaplan-Meir curves) were observed among the three groups in terms of DFS or OS. Conclusions Our results show that elective neck dissection does not appear to provide any benefit to patients treated for malignant salivary gland cancer. Importantly, these findings contradict most of the currently available research. However, due to methodological differences among the available studies, our findings cannot be compared directly to other studies.","PeriodicalId":10652,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Oncology","volume":"15 1","pages":"169 - 173"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/wo.2019.89245","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Aim of the study To retrospectively assess treatment outcomes among patients treated for salivary gland cancers at our institution to determine which of the three most common treatment approaches – elective neck dissection (END), elective neck irradiation (ENI), or observation – provide the best results. Material and methods A total of 122 patients were identified who had undergone primary surgery for SGC followed by END, ENI, or observation. The patients were classified into three groups according to the treatment approach used to manage the neck: END, ENI, or observation. The main outcome measures were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). We also sought to identify the risk factors potentially associated with neck metastasis and treatment failure. Results 106 patients met all inclusion criteria. Of these 106 patients, 27 (25.7%) underwent END, 17 (16.0%) underwent ENI, and 62 (58.5%) observation. There were no statistically significant differences between the three groups in any of the following variables: advanced age (> 70); presence of locally advanced disease (T3 or T4); perineural invasion; lymphovascular invasion; and primary tumour location. Treatment failure was higher (non-significantly) in the END group (25.9%) vs. the observation (21.0%) and ENI (11.8%) groups. No differences (Kaplan-Meir curves) were observed among the three groups in terms of DFS or OS. Conclusions Our results show that elective neck dissection does not appear to provide any benefit to patients treated for malignant salivary gland cancer. Importantly, these findings contradict most of the currently available research. However, due to methodological differences among the available studies, our findings cannot be compared directly to other studies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
涎腺癌临床阴性颈部的处理——选择性颈部清扫、放疗还是监测?
本研究的目的回顾性评估我院治疗唾液腺癌患者的治疗结果,以确定三种最常见的治疗方法——选择性颈部清扫(END)、选择性颈部照射(ENI)或观察——哪一种治疗效果最好。材料和方法共有122例患者接受了SGC的初始手术,随后进行了END、ENI或观察。根据颈部治疗方法将患者分为三组:END、ENI或观察组。主要结局指标为无病生存期(DFS)和总生存期(OS)。我们还试图确定与颈部转移和治疗失败潜在相关的危险因素。结果106例患者符合全部纳入标准。在106例患者中,27例(25.7%)患者接受了END, 17例(16.0%)患者接受了ENI, 62例(58.5%)患者接受了观察。三组在以下任何变量上均无统计学差异:高龄(> 70);存在局部晚期疾病(T3或T4);围神经的入侵;lymphovascular入侵;以及原发肿瘤的位置。END组的治疗失败率(25.9%)高于观察组(21.0%)和ENI组(11.8%)(无统计学意义)。在DFS和OS方面,三组间无差异(Kaplan-Meir曲线)。结论:我们的研究结果表明,选择性颈部清扫对恶性唾液腺癌患者的治疗似乎没有任何益处。重要的是,这些发现与目前大多数可用的研究相矛盾。然而,由于现有研究的方法差异,我们的发现不能直接与其他研究进行比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Application of nitroxoline in urologic oncology – a review of evidence Health and coping styles including resources of close family members supporting leukaemia patients Clinicopathological significance of protein disulphide isomerase A3 and phosphorylated signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 in cervical carcinoma High tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes correlate with distinct gene expression profile and favourable survival in single hormone receptor-positive breast cancer The impact of altering the concentration of coffee constituents on their anticancer effect on oral squamous cell carcinoma cell line – in vitro study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1