4.5 Article

Cutaneous head and neck SCCs and risk of nodal metastasis - UK experience

期刊

JOURNAL OF CRANIO-MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
卷 37, 期 8, 页码 443-447

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2009.07.007

关键词

cutaneous SCC; metastasis; node; head and neck

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To identify the risk of developing metastases to regional nodes in patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (CSCCs) of the head and neck. Methods: A retrospective study of patients with CSCC treated with surgical excision alone between 2000 and 2002 was performed. Demographic details of the patients, the site, size, differentiation, depth of invasion, clearance of surgical margins, and the presence of perineural or lymphovascular invasion of the lesion were documented. During the follow up period, patients with regional metastases were identified. The site of the metastasis and the time after the primary resection were documented and statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square and logistic regression analysis. Results: One hundered and ninety-four patients were included and 218 CSCCs were excised in total during the period of 3 years. The scalp was the most common site of skin lesion, followed by the ear. The incidence of regional metastatic disease was found to be 5.15%. The parotid gland was the most common area of regional metastasis. No metastases occurred after the first 2 years of follow up. The pinna, the poor differentiation and incomplete excision margins were found to be associated with regional metastasis independently, with odds ratio of 16, 21, and 2 respectively. Conclusions: The rate of regional metastasis from CSCC remains low. The parotid gland was the most favoured metastatic site. Patients with poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) located on the ear and incomplete excision margins were at the greatest risk for developing regional lymph node metastasis and require close follow up. (C) 2009 European Association for Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据