初治颈淋巴结转移喉癌颈清除术后的预后相关因素

目的：探讨颈淋巴结转移（cN＋）喉癌颈清除术后颈部复发相关因素、治疗及预后情况。方法：回顾性研究1992～1999年我院收治的cN＋喉癌行颈清除术53例，对其颈部复发率、复发时间、淋巴结分布、局部治疗、复发影响因素及预后进行探讨。结果：cN＋喉癌颈清除术后颈部复发率为24．53％（13／53）；3和5年生存率为39．62％和35．52％，颈部复发组生存率与无复发组相比，差异无统计学意义，P=0．6717；复发主要位于清除侧颈部（9／13），复发淋巴结位于Ⅱ、Ⅲ和Ⅳ区84．62%（11/13）；颈部复发多在18个月内（12／13）；颈部复发行挽救手术者治疗效果好。病理分化程度（P=0．6717）、病变部位（P=0．966）、临床分期（P=0．244）、初治颈清除术式（P=0．579）、颈清除术后颈部是否放疗（P=0．457）不影响颈部复发率，N分期（P=0．042）影响颈部复发。结论：cN＋喉癌颈清除术后颈部有无复发与生存率无关；复发多位于行颈清除术侧颈部（Ⅱ、Ⅲ和Ⅳ区）；N分期影响颈部复发；出现颈部复发者行挽救手术治疗效果好。     

T3-T4期声门型喉癌颈淋巴结转移情况及其与预后的关系

背景与目的:声门型喉癌颈淋巴结转移率低,有关报道不多,本研究旨在探讨T3-T4期声门型喉癌颈淋巴结转移的相关因素及其对预后的影响。方法:回顾性分析我院1992～2000年收治T3-T4期声门型喉癌83例的临床资料,对颈淋巴结转移率、转移淋巴结的分布、影响cN0颈部复发的因素(颈部预防性放疗、病理分级及T分期)、淋巴结转移与预后的关系。结果:T3-T4期声门型喉癌,总的颈淋巴结转移率为20.5%,cN0颈部复发率为14.3%。绝大多数转移淋巴结位于同侧Ⅱ、Ⅲ、Ⅳ区,仅1例位于对侧Ⅱ区。cN0者中,颈部预防性放疗与颈部观察在颈部复发率上无差异(P=0.772);病理分级影响cN0颈部复发率(P=0.028);不同T分期颈部复发率无差异(P=0.217)。cN 患者预后明显差于cN0患者(P<0.001);cN0颈部复发不影响预后(P=0.460)。对T3-T4期声门型喉癌cN 患者采用治疗性颈清扫;对cN0患者颈部可密切观察,待出现淋巴结复发再积极治疗。结论:T3-T4期声门型喉癌主要转移至同侧Ⅱ、Ⅲ、Ⅳ区;病理组织分化级别越差,cN0颈部复发的风险越大;cN0颈部复发与预后无关;对cN0患者颈部可进行密切观察;对出现淋巴结复发者应积极治疗。     

333例声门型喉癌颈淋巴结转移与预后的关系

背景与目的:声门型喉癌颈淋巴结转移率不高,颈部处理尚无统一认识.本研究探讨声门型喉癌颈淋巴结转移的预后及其影响因素.方法:收集1992年1月1日至2000年12月31日中山大学肿瘤防治中心收治的333例声门型喉癌患者的临床资料,对颈淋巴结转移情况、预后及颈部处理进行回顾性分析.结果:全组患者总的颈淋巴结转移率9.61%(32/333),隐性淋巴结转移率6.23%(20/321).绝大多数转移淋巴结位于同侧Ⅱ、Ⅲ、Ⅳ区(28/32).病理分化级别与总的淋巴结转移率(P=0.092)及隐性淋巴结转移率(P=0.067)无明显相关性.总的淋巴结转移率(P=0.002)及隐性淋巴结转移率(P=0.015)随T分期升高而增高.cN0患者颈选择性放疗对隐性淋巴结转移率的影响无显著性(P=0.363).初治cN 组(3、5年生存率分别为56.25%、46;67%)预后差于初治cN0组(3、5年生存率分别为88.70%、85.37%)(P＜0.001);初治cN0组中出现隐性淋巴结转移的预后(3、5年生存率分别为68.18%、63.31%)差于未出现隐性淋巴结转移(3、5年生存率分别为89.00%、85.55%):初治cN 组有淋巴结转移的预后(3、5年生存率分别为41.67%、16.67%)差于初治cNO组中出现隐性淋巴结转移组(3、5年生存率分别为68.18%、63.31%)(P=0.004).结论:声门型喉癌绝大多数转移淋巴结位于同侧Ⅱ、Ⅲ、Ⅳ区,最多位于同侧Ⅱ区;声门型喉癌颈淋巴结转移影响预后.     

局部晚期喉鳞癌cN0临床观察

目的：探讨喉癌cN0患者颈部处理的方法，降低颈淋巴结转移癌的复发率。方法：回顾分析87例T3、T4期cNo喉癌患者的临床资料，颈部处理方式为颈改良性清扫术或颈分区清扫术，分析手术组阳性淋巴结的分布情况及病理特点，观察颈清扫术对预后的影响，采用Kaplan—Meier方法计算肿瘤复发及生存趋势。结果：87例颈部淋巴结隐性转移率为36．8％，声门上型喉癌40．4％，声门型喉癌32．5％；淋巴结转移分布为：声门上型喉癌89．5％（17／19）位于Ⅱ和Ⅲ区，声门型喉癌92．3％（12／13）位于Ⅱ和Ⅲ区；5年颈部复发率：隐性淋巴结转移复发率为13．5％，无隐性淋巴结转移复发率6．7％；5年生存率：有淋巴结隐性转移生存率为53．8％，无隐性转移为71．1％。结论：晚期喉癌隐性转移率较高，分区清扫术后，隐性转移复发率与无隐性转移复发率无差别，分区清扫术十分必要，注意双侧Ⅱ、Ⅲ区的淋巴结清扫。     

择区性颈清扫在喉癌(声门上型)cN0中的应用

背景与目的:声门上型喉癌有较高的隐性淋巴结转移率,目前尚无法在手术治疗前判断其是否有潜在转移.因此,如何正确处理声门上型喉癌潜在隐性淋巴结转移成为影响声门上型喉癌疗效的重要因素.本文旨在研究择区性颈清扫术(selective neck dissection,SND)在喉癌(声门上型)cN0治疗中的应用.方法:125例行择区性颈清扫的喉鳞状细胞癌声门上型cN0的病例进行回顾性分析.结果:125例cN0患者行择区性清扫术后发现pN+39例(31.2%);清扫标本中共发现64枚阳性淋巴结,其在颈部的分布如下:Ⅰ区1.6%、Ⅱ区70.3%、Ⅲ区25.0%和Ⅳ区3.1%,3年生存率为87.2%.结论:声门上型喉癌患者cN0病例行择区性清扫术能有效清除头颁部癌患者颈部潜在淋巴结转移;与根治性颈清扫比较,可以达到同样的疗效,同时能避免行全颈清扫造成手术范围过大,术后并发症多的缺点;应对声门上型喉癌cN0患者重点行Ⅱ和Ⅲ区颈淋巴结清扫术尤其是Ⅱb区.     

舌鳞癌颈淋巴结复发患者挽救治疗的预后分析

目的　探讨舌鳞癌颈部淋巴结复发患者的临床特点及挽救治疗的预后影响因素。方法　回顾分析1988年1月至1999年8月在中山大学肿瘤防治中心行挽救治疗的舌鳞癌颈部淋巴结复发患者的临床病理资料,生存分析用Kaplan Meier法,组间比较用Log rank检验。结果　共42例颈部淋巴结复发患者行挽救治疗,挽救治疗后的3年,5年生存率分别是3 3 .3 % ,2 3 .2 %。影响挽救治疗生存率的预后因素为:原发肿瘤的临床分期、复发颈部淋巴结分期(rN分期)和挽救治疗方法。原发肿瘤临床分期为Ⅰ、Ⅱ期者预后较Ⅲ、Ⅳ期好(P <0 .0 5 ) ;复发颈部淋巴结分期为rN 1期者预后好于rN 2、rN 3期者好(P <0 .0 5 ) ;以手术或以手术为主综合治疗者的预后好于放化疗挽救治疗者(P <0 .0 5 )。62 %的患者在确诊为复发时,其颈部淋巴结的分期已届中晚期(rN 2、rN 3期)。结论　舌鳞癌颈部淋巴结复发患者的挽救治疗效果不佳,生存率低,复发的早期诊断及采用手术或以手术为主的综合挽救治疗有助于提高挽救生存率。     

分区性颈清扫术应用在cN0和cN1期口腔癌中的远期效果

目的头颈部鳞状细胞癌的颈淋巴结的处理与预后密切相关,本文探讨了分区性颈清扫术应用于早期口腔鳞状细胞癌颈部转移的远期效果。方法84例cN0或cN1期患者均接受了术前化疗,分区性颈清扫术及术后放疗,并复习文献对比多种术式的颈部复发率。结果84例中1例死于肿瘤复发转移,53例cN1中有10例为pN0,全组颈部复发率为13＋2％。cN0中有6例出现隐性转移,该组复发率为6．5％。按是否侵犯包膜外颈部复发率分别是20．0％和10．3％。结论分区性颈清扫术在cN0和cN1期口腔鳞状细胞癌的治疗上可以取代改良性颈清扫和全颈清扫术。     

口底鳞癌非连续性与连续性颈淋巴结清除疗效的比较分析

目的：通过比较口底鳞癌原发灶切除同时行非连续性和连续性颈淋巴结清除的疗效，探讨口底鳞癌颈淋巴结清除的合理方式。方法：回顾性分析67例行非连续性与连续性颈淋巴结清除的口底鳞癌患者的临床资料，比较两组病例的生存率和复发率。结果：非连续性颈淋巴结清除组与连续性颈淋巴结清除组相比，Ⅰ、Ⅱ期或cN0，两组病例的生存曲线差异均无统计学意义，LogRank统计值分别为1．295和1．527，P值分别为0．255和0．217；Ⅲ、Ⅳ期或cN1～cN2，连续性清除组较非连续清除组5年累积生存率高，LogRank统计值分别为7．692和8．737，P值分别为0．006和0．003。行连续性颈淋巴结清除后原发灶及Ⅰ区复发率较非连续颈淋巴结清除低，Х^2=11．995，P=0．001。结论：口底鳞癌连续性颈淋巴结清除较非连续颈淋巴结清除疗效好。     

65例T3声门型喉癌的治疗与预后分析

背景与目的:T3声门型喉癌目前临床治疗上仍有较多争议,本文旨在探讨T3声门型喉癌的不同治疗方案、颈淋巴结转移情况及切缘阳性对预后的影响。方法:回顾性研究1990年1月1日～1998年12月30日中山大学肿瘤防治中心诊治的T3声门型喉癌65例,比较不同治疗方法、切缘情况、颈淋巴结转移情况对预后的影响。结果:全组总的3、5年生存率为75.47%、65.07%。单纯手术、单纯放疗与手术 辅助放疗三组生存率无差异(P=0.914);部分喉切除术与全喉切除术生存率无差异(P=0.710);切缘阳性患者术后加放疗的生存率与切缘阴性患者无差异(P=0.176)。颈淋巴结转移率18.5%,隐性淋巴结转移率10.8%,淋巴结转移是影响预后的重要因素(P<0.001)。结论:对于T3声门型喉癌,单纯手术、单纯放疗与手术 辅助放疗患者生存率无差异;部分喉切除术患者生存率不比全喉切除术低;淋巴结转移影响预后,对cN0患者颈部主张观察;切缘阳性术后加放疗生存率不降低。     

cN0声门上型喉癌的颈部复发相关因素分析

背景与目的:声门上型喉癌的隐性淋巴结转移率高,是此类喉癌诊治的重点之一。本研究旨在探讨声门上型喉癌的隐性淋巴结转移的相关因素、预后及治疗情况。方法:回顾分析1992～1999年我科收治的cN0声门上型喉癌104例,对其隐性淋巴结转移率、转移淋巴结的分布、影响隐性淋巴结转移的因素及颈部处理等进行研究。结果:本组cN0声门上型喉癌隐性淋巴结转移率为23.1%(24/104),其中T2期23.9%(11/46),T3期30.8%(8/26),T4期18.5%(5/17)。隐性转移淋巴结主要位于病变侧Ⅱ、Ⅲ区(22/24)。出现隐性转移组预后差(log-rank=10.66,P=0.001)。切缘阳性影响隐性淋巴结转移率(χ2=10.015,P=0.002)。病理分化程度(χ2=3.349,P=0.175)、T分期(χ2=2.701,P=0.440)、原发灶处理方式(χ2=1.093,P=0.296)等对隐性淋巴结转移率影响差异无统计学意义。颈部选择性清扫能降低cN0声门上型喉癌隐性淋巴结转移率(χ2=4.070,P=0.044)。结论:cN0声门上型喉癌的隐性淋巴结转移主要位于病变侧Ⅱ、Ⅲ区;出现隐性淋巴结转移影响预后;切缘阳性影响隐性淋巴结转移率;对T1N0期喉癌颈部可观察,T2-4N0期喉癌行侧颈清扫(Ⅱ～Ⅳ区)是合理有效的。     

头颈肿瘤颈淋巴结清扫的手术选择

作为治疗与预防头颈恶性肿瘤颈部淋巴结转移的首要方法,颈淋巴结清扫术经过一百多年的发展,已经日趋规范合理。但是,由于头颈恶性肿瘤的种种特殊性导致其颈部淋巴结转移有较大的不确定性,头颈外科医师在施行原发灶手术时,往往会面临是否需要行颈淋巴结清扫术、如何确定颈淋巴结清扫范围的困惑。根据常见头颈恶性肿瘤的颈淋巴结转移特性及手术对患者的创伤程度,梳理出当前较为规范的颈淋巴结清扫术术式,为头颈外科医师提供参考,有助于改善头颈恶性肿瘤颈部淋巴结治疗和预防的总体效果。     

Extended neck dissection

From the time Crile described radical neck dissection in 1906, this surgical procedure became popular in the management of metastatic cancer in the neck. Over the past two decades, the modified neck dissection has been effectively utilized for conservation of function and cosmesis while achieving the same oncologic goals. However, there are several instances where the above standard procedures are not adequate for resection of malignant tumors. Although there is a definite trend toward conservation procedures, extended neck dissection is often necessary especially in patients with N2 and N3 disease. Apart from the standard structures removed in radical neck dissection, the other structures removed in extended neck dissection include skin, the digastric muscle, hypoglossal nerve, vagus nerve, sympathetic chain, ramus mandibularis, carotid artery, tracheo-esophageal nodes, etc. Over the past seven years, we have performed 40 extended neck dissections. All the patients had N2 or N3 disease in the neck. Nine patients had unknown primaries. Thirteen patients had their primary tumors in the oral cavity and 11 in the laryngopharynx. Five patients had primary tumor in the salivary glands and two patients had metastatic melanoma. Patients who underwent extensive skin excision had pectoralis myocutaneous flap reconstruction. All patients received postoperative radiation therapy. One patient died of cardiac problems 4 weeks after operation. Local control was achieved in 70%. The most difficult region for local control was the disease behind the mastoid process, and the most difficult problems were patients with involvement of the subdermal lymphatics. Our data suggests that there are definite situations where extended neck dissection is indicated with satisfactory local control of the nodal disease.     

Penetrating neck injuries

The incidence of penetrating and lacerated neck injuries has been rising in recent decades largely because of urban violence. Injury to the neck frequently results in multiple regional injuries and in addition poses serious threat to vital structures in the neck. From 1999 to 2005, forty-two cases of penetrating neck injuries which were treated in our hospital were included in this study. Thirty one (73.8%) injuries were due to homicide, six cases (14.2%) were due to suicide attempt and five (11.9%) were accidental injuries. Surgical management included tracheostomy neck exploration and wound repair. All the patients were followed up for a minimum period of six months. Six patients (14.2%) had unilateral vocal cord paralysis. Two patients (4.7%) developed tracheal stenosis. A proper evaluation, rapid air way intervention and proper surgical repair are essential for a successful outcome.     

Controversies in management of the neck in head and neck cancer

Opinion statement As definitive external radiation and multimodality organ preservation strategies (eg, combined chemotherapy and radiation therapy [CCRT]) improve, the role of surgery is being re-examined in the management of locally advanced head and neck cancer. Consensus regarding the use of neck dissections for complete responders and incomplete responders has yet to be achieved and the data are surprisingly controversial. A possible benefit from neck dissection after a complete response of the primary tumor after CCRT or definitive external radiation for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck may only be anticipated in patients with persisting subclinical neck disease who have no other sites of disease. Some clinicians have even argued that the salvage rate for clinically detectable residual neck disease does not justify neck dissection. Randomized data addressing these questions and a trial addressing the accuracy of new imaging modalities, such as postchemotherapy and postradiation positron emission tomography scanning, across multiple institutions would be appropriate. As a department, we are aggressive in our treatment of isolated residual neck disease after CCRT or definitive external radiation and for patients initially diagnosed with N3 nodal disease. We are investigating the use of adjuvant neck brachytherapy at the time of neck dissection and we are pleased with our early results.     

Head and neck cancer

Tumors of the head and neck comprise an important neoplasia group, the incidence of which is increasing in many parts of the world. Recent advances in diagnostic and therapeutic techniques for these lesions have yielded novel molecular targets, uncovered signal pathway dominance, and advanced early cancer detection. Proteomics is a powerful tool for investigating the distribution of proteins and small molecules within biological systems through the analysis of different types of samples. The proteomic profiles of different types of cancer have been studied, and this has provided remarkable advances in cancer understanding. This review covers recent advances for head and neck cancer; it encompasses the risk factors, pathogenesis, proteomic tools that can help in understanding cancer, and new proteomic findings in this type of cancer. Cancer 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.