Mamelle G, Pampurik J, Luboinski B, Lancar R, Lusinchi A, Bosq J
Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Institut Gustave-Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Am J Surg. 1994 Nov;168(5):494-8. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9610(05)80109-6.
This retrospective study included 914 patients who underwent a lymph node dissection at our institute between 1980 and 1985. The primary tumor sites were oral cavity, 287; hypopharynx, 249; larynx, 247; and oropharynx, 131.
On the basis of anatomic considerations, the sentinel nodes for well-lateralized oral cavity tumors were defined as homolateral levels I, II, and III; for oropharyngeal, hypopharyngeal, and laryngeal tumors, the sentinel nodes were defined as levels II and III. We took into account the ipsilateral side of the neck for well-lateralized tumors, and both sides for medium or large tumors. For clinically positive nodes of more than 3 cm, a radical neck dissection was performed. Other patients underwent a selective neck dissection on sentinel nodes, with immediate pathologic evaluation. Modified radical neck dissections with contralateral selective dissection were performed when frozen sections were positive. Patients with positive nodes were given postoperative radiotherapy.
The prognostic factors studied, using the Cox survival model adjusted on the primary tumor site, surprisingly showed a nonsignificant value for extracapsular spread (P = 0.09), and a significant value for the number of positive nodes (P < 0.001) and for the positive node in or out of the sentinel node sites (P < 0.001). Although the node location factor can be used instead of positive node in or out of the sentinel node site, it has a less significant prognostic value.
The most significant prognostic factors are the site of the positive node in or out of the sentinel node and the number of positive nodes; and a more accurate approach can be obtained by combining both factors. Node location in the upper or lower neck remains a substitute prognostic factor for the site of the positive node in or out of the sentinel node.
这项回顾性研究纳入了1980年至1985年间在我院接受淋巴结清扫术的914例患者。原发肿瘤部位为口腔287例、下咽249例、喉247例、口咽131例。
基于解剖学考虑,口腔肿瘤侧别明确的前哨淋巴结定义为同侧Ⅰ、Ⅱ和Ⅲ区;口咽、下咽和喉肿瘤的前哨淋巴结定义为Ⅱ和Ⅲ区。对于侧别明确的肿瘤,考虑颈部同侧;对于中等或大肿瘤,则考虑双侧。对于临床阳性且直径超过3 cm的淋巴结,行根治性颈清扫术。其他患者对前哨淋巴结进行选择性颈清扫,并立即进行病理评估。当冰冻切片阳性时,行改良根治性颈清扫并对侧选择性清扫。淋巴结阳性的患者术后接受放疗。
使用根据原发肿瘤部位调整的Cox生存模型研究的预后因素,令人惊讶的是,包膜外扩散显示无显著意义(P = 0.09),阳性淋巴结数量(P < 0.001)以及前哨淋巴结部位内外的阳性淋巴结显示有显著意义(P < 0.001)。尽管淋巴结位置因素可替代前哨淋巴结部位内外的阳性淋巴结,但预后价值较小。
最重要的预后因素是前哨淋巴结部位内外的阳性淋巴结部位和阳性淋巴结数量;将这两个因素结合可获得更准确的方法。上颈部或下颈部的淋巴结位置仍然是前哨淋巴结部位内外阳性淋巴结部位的替代预后因素。