4.1 Article

Lymph node density predicts lung metastases in oral squamous cell carcinoma

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
Volume 54, Issue 2, Pages 213-218

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2015.11.002

Keywords

Lymph node density; Oral squamous cell carcinoma; Lung metastasis

Funding

  1. JSPS [24791821]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24791821] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The association between lymph node density and survival free of lung metastases in oral squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), has not been investigated so far to our knowledge. Lymph node density >= 0.07 has been reported by a multicentre international study to be a significant predictor of shorter survival in patients with oral SCC who have invaded nodes. We investigated whether a lymph node density of >= 0.07 correlates with shorter overall survival, survival free of distant metastases, and survival free of lung metastases, in patients with oral SCC and invaded lymph nodes. Thirty-five patients with histologically-confirmed invaded lymph nodes werestudied. Their density was calculated as the ratio of the number of invaded lymph nodes:total number of nodes. A density of >= 0.07 correlated significantly with shorter overall survival (p < 0.02), survival free of distant metastases (p < 0.01), and survival free of lung metastases (p < 0.01) on log rank testing. On testing by Cox's proportional hazards model of multivariate survival analysis with adjustment for the pathological stage (pstage IV/pstage III), and invaded surgical margins or extracapsular spread, or both, we found that lymph node density >= 0.07 was associated with significantly shorter survival (p < 0.02). We conclude that lymph node density predicts lung metastases in patients with oral SCC. (C) 2015 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available