Neck dissection of cN0 maxillary oral squamous cell carcinoma: A study based on SEER database.

OBJECTIVE

For patients with clinical nodal-negative (cN0) maxillary oral squamous cell carcinoma (MOSCC), neck dissection (ND) and clinical observation are the main two management strategies for the neck. However, the indications corresponding to these two options remain controversial. This study aimed to elucidate the clinical factors affecting ND treatment and to identify clinical characteristics of the population that may benefit from ND based on a retrospective analysis of cN0 MOSCC patient data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.

METHODS

8846 MOSCC patients were identified in the SEER database from 2000 to 2020. The Kaplan-Meier method was utilized to examine overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS), while the hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using the stepwise multivariate Cox regression model. Furthermore, multi-subgroup analyses of DSS and OS were performed to compare ND and No ND.

RESULTS

We included 2,512 cN0 MOSCC patients. Basic survival analysis and Cox regression modeling showed that ND was an independent prognostic factor that promoted DSS and OS. Additional subgroup analyses revealed that the primary site and T-stage might influence the efficacy of ND modality. Moreover, patients with T3/T4 stage of upper gingival squamous cell carcinoma (UGSCC) (DSS p = 0.009, OS p = 0.004), hard palate squamous cell carcinoma (HPSCC) (DSS p = 0.001, OS p < 0.001), and soft palate squamous cell carcinoma (SPSCC) (p = 0.029) showed a better survival benefit with ND in OS and DSS. Nonetheless, no differences were observed in OS and DSS between ND and No ND at the T1/T2 stage of the abovementioned primary tumor sites. Additionally, the DSS outcomes for T1/T2 stage upper lip squamous cell carcinoma (ULSCC) patients were significantly worse in the ND group than in the No ND group (p = 0.018). However, no significant differences were noted in OS (p = 0.140) as well as OS (p = 0.248) and DSS (p = 0.627) for T1/T2 and T3/T4 patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Active surveillance might be a feasible strategy for managing all T-staged ULSCC as well as early-stage (T1/T2) UGSCC, SPSCC, and HPSCC, provided regular and meticulous follow-up is performed. Hence, concurrent ND is recommended for patients with intermediate to advanced (T3/T4) stage UGSCC, SPSCC, and HPSCC.