24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Association of Quantitative Metastatic Lymph Node Burden With Survival in Hypopharyngeal and Laryngeal Cancer

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-cbr170031-1"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9665325e490">Question</h5> <p id="d9665325e492">What is the independent impact of quantitative metastatic nodal burden in hypopharyngeal and laryngeal malignancies? </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-cbr170031-2"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9665325e495">Findings</h5> <p id="d9665325e497">This study of 8351 cases identified continuously escalating mortality risk with increasing number of metastatic lymph nodes, eclipsing conventional nodal staging factors such as node size and contralaterality. A simplified nodal staging system based on metastatic node number exhibited improved prognostic value and discrimination compared with the TNM staging system outlined in the American Joint Committee on Cancer’s <i>AJCC Staging Manual</i>, 8th edition. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-cbr170031-3"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9665325e503">Meaning</h5> <p id="d9665325e505">Greater incorporation of numerical metastatic nodal burden into nodal classification for hypopharyngeal and laryngeal cancers may streamline staging, refine patient prognosis, and triage patients who may benefit from adjuvant treatment. </p> </div><p class="first" id="d9665325e508">This analysis examines the association between metastatic lymph node burden and overall survival in patients with laryngohypopharyngeal cancers. </p><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-cbr170031-4"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9665325e513">Importance</h5> <p id="d9665325e515">Nodal staging for laryngohypopharyngeal cancers is based primarily on size and laterality, with less value placed on absolute number of metastatic lymph nodes (LNs). We are aware of no studies to date that have specifically addressed the prognostic effect of quantitative nodal burden in larynx or hypopharynx malignancies. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-cbr170031-5"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9665325e518">Objective</h5> <p id="d9665325e520">To assess the independent impact of quantitative metastatic LN burden on mortality risk. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-cbr170031-6"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9665325e523">Design, Setting, and Participants</h5> <p id="d9665325e525">Univariate and multivariable models were constructed to evaluate the association between patients’ number of metastatic LNs and their survival, adjusting for factors such as nodal size, laterality, extranodal extension, margin status, and adjuvant treatment. Participants were patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx or hypopharynx undergoing upfront surgical resection for curative intent at a US hospital between 2004 and 2013, as identified in the National Cancer Database. A neck dissection of a minimum of 10 LNs was required. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-cbr170031-7"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9665325e528">Main Outcomes and Measures</h5> <p id="d9665325e530">Overall survival.</p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-cbr170031-8"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9665325e533">Results</h5> <p id="d9665325e535">Overall, 8351 cases were included (mean [SD] age, 61 [10.1] years; 6499 men [77.8%]; 4710 patients with metastatic LNs and 3641 with no metastatic LNs). Mortality risk escalated continuously without plateau as number of metastatic nodes increased, with the hazard per node (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.16-1.23; <i>P</i> &lt; .001) most pronounced up to 5 positive LNs. Extranodal extension was also associated with increased mortality (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.13-1.59; <i>P</i> &lt; .001). Increasing number of nodes examined was associated with improved survival, albeit to a lesser degree (per 10 LNs: HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.98; <i>P</i> &lt; .001) and without a detectable change point. Other nodal factors, including nodal size, contralateral LN involvement (TNM stage N2c), and lower LN involvement (levels 4-5), were not associated with mortality in multivariable models when accounting for number of positive LNs. A novel, parsimonious nodal staging system derived by recursive partitioning analysis exhibited greater concordance with survival than the TNM staging system outlined in the American Joint Committee on Cancer’s <i>AJCC Staging Manual</i>, 8th edition. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-cbr170031-9"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9665325e550">Conclusions and Relevance</h5> <p id="d9665325e552">The number of metastatic nodes is a predominant independent factor associated with mortality in hypopharyngeal and laryngeal cancers. Moreover, standard nodal staging factors like LN size and contralaterality have no independent prognostic value when accounting for positive LN number. Deeper integration of quantitative metastatic nodal disease may simplify staging and better triage the need for adjuvant therapy. </p> </div>

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          JAMA Oncology
          JAMA Oncol
          American Medical Association (AMA)
          2374-2437
          July 01 2018
          July 01 2018
          : 4
          : 7
          : 985
          Affiliations
          [1 ]Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
          [2 ]Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
          [3 ]Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Research Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
          [4 ]Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
          [5 ]Department of Pathology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
          [6 ]Department of Radiology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
          [7 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
          [8 ]Advanced Clinical Biosystems Research Institute, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
          Article
          10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.3852
          6584272
          29192305
          53aa8413-28ce-4acf-ad8d-3bb0ae96a713
          © 2018
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article

          scite_
          0
          0
          0
          0
          Smart Citations
          0
          0
          0
          0
          Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
          View Citations

          See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

          scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

          Similar content3,639

          Cited by45