Does Operable Stage IV Gingivobuccal Cancers Need Further Prognostic Subgrouping?

Background

Operable stage IV gingivobuccal complex cancer is classified as Stage IVA and IVB. Among patients with Stage IVA disease, different subgroups with likely different prognoses are combined. Patients with advanced nodal status tend to have a poorer prognosis. We divided these patients into four groups: group I (T4aN0), group II (T4aN1-2), group III (T1-3N2) constituting stage IVA category, and group IV (TanyN3) representing stage IVB. This study assesses if these patients can be prognostically subgrouped based on nodal status.

Methods

It is a prospective observational study done at a tertiary care center from July 2017 to June 2020. This study aims to analyze survival outcomes in these subgroups using Kaplan Meir, univariate and multivariate analysis.

Results

The study enrolled 113 patients of operable gingivobuccal complex stage IVA cancer with a median follow up of 26 months, disease-free survival (DFS) was 74% for group 1, while it was 55%, 26% and 32.2% for group 2, group 3 and group 4 respectively. Patients with T4N3 disease had DFS of just 15%. Patients in group 3 and 4 had the worst outcomes in terms of DFS and Overall Survival(OS) with HR-3.7 and 3.3 and 3.3 and 3.8 respectively (p value-0.001).

Conclusion

The nodal status is the most important prognostic factor affecting DFS and OS. Patients with small primary but advanced nodal stage do poorly than patients with advanced primary and node-negative disease. There is a need for subgrouping patients with Stage IVA tumors based on nodal status for better prognostication.

Imaging in oral cancers: A comprehensive review

This review aims at simplifying the relevant imaging anatomy, guiding the optimal imaging method and highlighting the key imaging findings that influence prognosis and management of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). Early OSCC can be treated with either surgery alone while advanced cancers are treated with a combination of surgery, radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. Considering the complex anatomy of the oral cavity and its surrounding structures, imaging plays an indispensable role not only in locoregional staging but also in the distant metastatic work-up and post treatment follow-up. Knowledge of the anatomy with understanding of common routes of spread of cancer, allows the radiologist to accurately determine disease extent and augment clinical findings to plan appropriate therapy. This review aims at simplifying the relevant imaging anatomy, guiding the optimal imaging method and highlighting the key imaging findings that influence prognosis and management.

Do we need a different staging system for tongue and gingivobuccal complex squamous cell cancers?

OBJECTIVES

To determine the need for a separate staging system for gingivobuccal complex squamous cell cancers (GBCSCC) based on 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS) data from one institution.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved retrospective analysis was performed on an oral cavity cancer patient database. Patients from 1985 to 2012 with primary surgical treatment for biopsy-proven squamous cell cancer (SCC) from either the oral tongue (TSCC Group) or gingivobuccal complex (GBCSCC Group), were selected as two separate subgroups. The clinicopathologic data were used to stage the patients based on the American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition. Survival outcomes including 5-year OS, RFS, and DSS were calculated and analyzed. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify if subsite was an independent predictor for the survival outcomes, adjusting for other variables. A p-value of less than .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

936 patients with TSCC and 486 patients with GBCSCC were considered eligible for the analysis. Patients with GBCSCC were more likely to be older (p < .001) and presented with more advanced disease (p < .001) compared to patients with TSCC. Unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) suggested GBCSCC had poor OS compared to TSCC. However, after adjusting for other variables, the adjusted HR was not significant (p = .593). There was no difference in 5-year DSS or RFS in either of the study groups.

CONCLUSION

With similar survival outcomes by stage, there is no justification for using a different staging system for GBCSCC.