Risk factors for local and nodal recurrence in patients with head and neck cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in a high-reference oncological center in Poland

Background

The behavior of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) of the head and neck remains poorly understood. There is much controversy regarding the risk of local and nodal recurrences, as well as individual/environmental factors that increase the risk, such as tumor size, perineural invasion, and the state of the immune system. The objective was to analyze factors influencing local and/or regional lymph node recurrence in patients with cSCC in the head and neck region.

Material and methods

This retrospective single-centre study included 521 patients with cSCC of the head and neck region, with local recurrence observed in 11% and nodal recurrence in 5%. Various potential risk factors were analyzed.

Results

Statistically significant risk factors for both local and nodal recurrence include: tumor recurrence (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001 respectively), tissue inflammation confirmed histopathologically (p < 0.0001, p = 0.0019, respectively), tumor size ≥ 10 mm (p = 0.018, p = 0.0056, respectively), invasion depth > 2 mm (p = 0.0238, p = 0.0031, respectively). Risk factors significant only for local recurrence include: surgical margins (p = 0.0056), tumor differentiation grade (p = 0.0149). No risk factors were found to be significant solely for nodal recurrence.

Conclusion

The authors argue that, in addition to classically recognized risk factors for local and nodal recurrence, attention should be paid to the presence of tissue inflammation confirmed histopathologically. It is also suggested to consider a tumor size of 10 mm as a threshold, increasing the risk of recurrence, instead of the frequently proposed 20 mm.

Prognostic factors of head and neck cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Head and neck cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (HNCSCC) is a non-melanoma skin cancer that is mostly caused by solar ultraviolet radiation exposure. While it usually has an excellent prognosis, a subset of patients (5%) develops nodal metastasis and has poor outcomes. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature and evaluate the prognostic factors of HNCSCC in order to better understand which patients are the most likely to develop metastatic disease.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed on PubMed and EMBASE to identify the studies that evaluated the prognostic factors of HNCSCC. Prognostic factors were deemed significant if they had a reported p-value of < 0.05. Proportions of studies that reported a given factor to be statistically significant were calculated for each prognostic factor.

RESULTS

The search yielded a total of 958 citations. Forty studies, involving a total of 8535 patients, were included in the final analysis. The pre-operative/clinical prognostic factors with the highest proportion of significance were state of immunosuppression (73.3%) and age (53.3%); while post-operative/pathological prognostic factors of importance were number of lymph nodes involved with carcinoma (70.0%), margins involved with carcinoma (66.7%), and tumor depth (50.0%).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review is aimed to aid physicians in assessing the prognosis of HNCSCC and identifying the subsets of patients that are most susceptible to metastasis. It also suggests that immunosuppressed patients with a high-risk feature on biopsy, such as invasion beyond subcutaneous fat, could possibly benefit from a sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Sentinel Node Biopsy for Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer of the Head and Neck

Sentinel lymph node biopsy has the potential to impact regional control and survival for high-risk cutaneous malignancy. The outcome of sentinel lymph node biopsy is a potential guide for treatment and surveillance. The population of high-risk nonmelanoma patients that will benefit from sentinel lymph node biopsy remains to be determined. Any cutaneous malignancy with a greater than 10% risk of occult metastasis should be considered for sentinel lymph node biopsy or active surveillance. Localized cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma lesions with multiple high-risk features and nearly all patients with localized Merkel cell carcinoma should be considered for sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Increase of sentinel lymph node melanoma staging in The Netherlands; still room and need for further improvement

Aim:

To investigate implementation of the seventh American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging with sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and associations with socioeconomic status (SES).

Patients & methods:

Data from The Netherlands Cancer Registry on patient and tumor characteristics were analyzed for all stage IB–II melanoma cases diagnosed 2010–2016, along with SES data from The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.

Results:

The proportion of SLNB-staged patients increased from 40% to 65% (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that being female, elderly, or having head-and-neck disease reduced the likelihood of SLNB staging.

Conclusion:

SLNB staging increased by 25% during the study period but lagged among elderly patients and those with head-and-neck melanoma. In The Netherlands, SES no longer affects SLNB staging performance.

Systematic review of sentinel lymph node biopsy in Merkel cell carcinoma of the head and neck

BACKGROUND

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare and aggressive cutaneous neuroendocrine tumor arising on the head and neck in 40%-50% of patients. Between 20% and 40% will harbor subclinical nodal metastasis.

METHODS

Using search terms 'Merkel AND sentinel', MEDLINE, PUMED, and EMBASE databases were systematically reviewed for publications regarding sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in classification I and II MCC of the head and neck.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine publications encompassing 136 patients were included. The SLNB finding was positive in 42 patients (30.9%). Primary MCC was located on the malar/zygomatic (34.4%), forehead/frontal (13.5%), and nasal (13.5%) regions. Recurrence in an SLNB negative nodal basin result occurred in 10 patients (false negative rate of 19.2%). Site of primary MCC was not associated with a false-negative SLNB result; however, there was a non-statistically significant trend for increased frequency among midline lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is recommended for eligible patients with classification I and II head and neck MCC.

Adjuvant treatment with pegylated interferon α-2a versus low-dose interferon α-2a in patients with high-risk melanoma: a randomized phase III DeCOG trial

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant treatment with interferon (IFN)-α-2a improved disease-free survival (DFS) and showed a trend for improving overall survival (OS) in melanoma. This trial was designed to examine whether PEG-IFN is superior to IFN with regard to distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), DFS and OS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this multicenter, open-label, prospective randomized phase III trial, patients with resected cutaneous melanoma stage IIA(T3a)-IIIB (AJCC 2002) were randomized to receive PEG-IFN (180 μg subcutaneously 1×/week; 24 months) or IFN α-2a (3MIU subcutaneously 3×/week; 24 months). Randomization was stratified for stage, number of metastatic nodes, age and previous IFN treatment. The primary end point was DMFS; secondary end points were OS, DFS, quality of life (QoL) and tolerability.

RESULTS

A total of 909 patients were enrolled (451 PEG-IFN versus 458 IFN). Neither 5-year DMFS [PEG-IFN 61.0% versus IFN 67.3%; hazard ratio (HR) 1.16, P = 0.21] nor 5-year OS (PEG-IFN 73.2% versus IFN 75.2%; HR 1.05, P = 0.70) nor 5-year DFS (PEG-IFN 57.3% versus IFN 60.9%; HR 1.09, P = 0.40) showed significant differences. Subgroup analyses in patients ± ulcerated primaries and of different tumor stages did not find differences in DMFS, OS or DFS between the treatment groups. One hundred and eighteen patients (26.2%) in the PEG-IFN and 61 patients (13.3%) in the IFN population did not receive the full dosage and length of treatment due to adverse events (P < 0.001). Leukopenia and elevation of liver enzymes were more common in the PEG-IFN arm (56% versus 23.5% LCP; 19.1% versus 9.4% AST; 33.0% versus 16.5% ALT). QoL was identical for nearly all domains.

CONCLUSION

PEG-IFN did not improve the outcome over IFN. A higher percentage of patients under PEG-IFN discontinued treatment due to toxicity.

CLINICAL TRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER

NCT00204529.