PloS one · 2014
Priority of fibular reconstruction in patients with oral cavity cancer undergoing segmental mandibulectomy.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lin Chih-Hung, Kang Chung-Jan, Tsao Chung-Kan, Wallace Christopher Glenn, Lee Li-Yu, Lin Chien-Yu, Wang Hung-Ming, Ng Shu-Hang, Yen Tzu-Chen, Liao Chun-Ta
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The fibula osteoseptocutaneous free flap is generally used for segmental mandibular reconstructions following resection of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). However, less complex reconstructions may be feasible for patients with predicted poor survival. Herein, we sought to identify the main risk factors (RFs) associated with poor prognosis in OSCC patients undergoing segmental mandibulectomy to help decide between fibular and non-fibular reconstructions.
METHODS: Between 1996 and 2011, we examined the 5-year control, distant metastases, and survival rates in 310 consecutive, previously untreated patients with primary OSCC who underwent segmental mandibulectomy.
RESULTS: Margin status was the only independent RF for 5-year local control. Level IV/V metastases, extracapsular spread, and tumor depth ≥15 mm were independent RFs for poor 5-year survival. In the entire study cohort, 23% of the patients had 2 or 3 adverse RFs; such a high-risk group was characterized by a poor prognosis and may be suitable for non-fibular reconstructions. Overall, 70% of the study patients were cT1-4N0, cT1N2, cT2N1, or had tumor depth <15 mm; less than 5% of patients in this subgroup had 2 or 3 adverse RFs and were thus candidates for fibular reconstructions. Among the remaining 30% of patients who showed both advanced clinical stage (cT2N2, cT3-4N1-2) and tumor depth ≥15 mm, 70% exhibited 2 or 3 adverse RFs.
CONCLUSIONS: Level IV/V metastases, extracapsular spread, and tumor depth ≥15 mm were independent predictors of poor prognosis in OSCC patients undergoing segmental mandibulectomy. The preoperative or intraoperative identification of adverse RFs may help decide between fibular and non-fibular mandibular reconstruction. High-risk patients bearing 2 or 3 adverse RFs have poor prognosis and should not be considered as candidates for fibular reconstructions.
METHODS: Between 1996 and 2011, we examined the 5-year control, distant metastases, and survival rates in 310 consecutive, previously untreated patients with primary OSCC who underwent segmental mandibulectomy.
RESULTS: Margin status was the only independent RF for 5-year local control. Level IV/V metastases, extracapsular spread, and tumor depth ≥15 mm were independent RFs for poor 5-year survival. In the entire study cohort, 23% of the patients had 2 or 3 adverse RFs; such a high-risk group was characterized by a poor prognosis and may be suitable for non-fibular reconstructions. Overall, 70% of the study patients were cT1-4N0, cT1N2, cT2N1, or had tumor depth <15 mm; less than 5% of patients in this subgroup had 2 or 3 adverse RFs and were thus candidates for fibular reconstructions. Among the remaining 30% of patients who showed both advanced clinical stage (cT2N2, cT3-4N1-2) and tumor depth ≥15 mm, 70% exhibited 2 or 3 adverse RFs.
CONCLUSIONS: Level IV/V metastases, extracapsular spread, and tumor depth ≥15 mm were independent predictors of poor prognosis in OSCC patients undergoing segmental mandibulectomy. The preoperative or intraoperative identification of adverse RFs may help decide between fibular and non-fibular mandibular reconstruction. High-risk patients bearing 2 or 3 adverse RFs have poor prognosis and should not be considered as candidates for fibular reconstructions.