Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T15:10:11.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Tumour–node–metastasis staging of human papillomavirus negative upper aerodigestive tract cancers: a critical appraisal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2015

U Aydil*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, Gazi University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
U Duvvuri
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pennsylvania, USA Section of Otolaryngology, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Health System, Pennsylvania, USA
Y Kizil
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, Gazi University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
A Köybaşioğlu
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, Memorial Ankara Hospital, Turkey
*
Address for correspondence: Dr U Aydil, Gazi Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi KBB AD, 06500 Beşevler, Ankara, Turkey Fax: +90 312 202 4357 E-mail: utkuaydil@yahoo.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

The tumour–node–metastasis staging system has a dynamic structure that is continuously being updated as scientific data develops. This review discusses some suggested revisions on tumour–node–metastasis staging of human papillomavirus negative upper aerodigestive tract cancers.

Methods:

The seventh edition of The American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual was reviewed and important issues that could be considered for revision were identified and discussed.

Results:

According to our assessment of the oncological outcomes of previous studies, the following factors should be considered for revision: anterior commissure involvement and subglottic extension in laryngeal cancers; underlying bone involvement in hard palate and upper alveolar ridge cancers; tumour thickness in oral cancers; and extracapsular spread and carotid artery involvement in neck metastases.

Conclusion:

Sufficient data on the prognostic importance of these issues have been reported. Suggested revisions in line with current knowledge on the clinical behaviour of upper aerodigestive tract cancers would improve the relevancy of staging.

Type
Review Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2015 

Introduction

The most widely used cancer staging system for head and neck cancers is the tumour–node–metastasis (TNM) staging system maintained jointly by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) and the International Union for Cancer Control.Reference Edge, Byrd, Compton, Fritz, Greene and Trotti1 The first international TNM recommendations were published by the International Union Against Cancer as a pocketbook in 1968.Reference Sobin2 The most recent, seventh, edition of The AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, used for TNM classification of cancer, became available in January 2010.Reference Edge, Byrd, Compton, Fritz, Greene and Trotti1 As data accumulate on the clinical behaviour of tumours and the factors which may determine treatment preferences and prognosis, the staging system has continued to evolve since then.

However, some issues are still being debated. According to Ferlito and Rinaldo, laryngeal cancer staging could be improved by a better description of the anatomical boundaries and the incorporation of non-anatomical data.Reference Ferlito and Rinaldo3 Takes et al. comprehensively discussed the TNM classification and staging system for head and neck cancers.Reference Takes, Rinaldo, Silver, Piccirillo, Haigentz and Suárez4 According to these authors, tumour-related factors such as tumour volume, tumour grade, histological factors, growth pattern and metastatic lymph node location in the neck; molecular biological factors; host-related factors such as immune competence, age, sex, co-morbidities and nutritional status; and environment-related prognostic factors could be considered in the next revision of TNM staging for head and neck cancers. However, staging systems should be basic, easily applicable, user friendly and universal.Reference Shah5

This review discusses some of the pitfalls and controversies within the current TNM staging system of human papilloma virus (HPV) negative upper aerodigestive tract cancers and suggests some revisions. It focuses on some practical points that may impact prognosis and oncological outcomes, and determine treatment policies where there are adequate scientific data for discussion.

Larynx

Anterior commissure involvement

The optimal treatment for early glottic cancer is currently under debate.Reference Yoo, Lacchetti, Hammond and Gilbert6, Reference Hartl, Ferlito, Brasnu, Langendijk, Rinaldo and Silver7 Anterior commissure involvement has been reported in between 17.6 and 45.4 per cent of cases. However, although this is of the utmost clinical importance, it currently has no impact on laryngeal cancer staging.Reference Aydil, Akmansu, Kizil, Yazici, Ustün and Karaloğlu8Reference Reddy, Mohideen, Marra and Marks12

Anterior commissure involvement is a challenging issue for head and neck oncologists and surgeons for several reasons. Anatomically, the thyroid cartilage is in close proximity, there are no anatomical barriers to prevent tumour spread to the supraglottic portion and cricothyroid membrane, and the perichondrium is absent at this location. These factors can all lead to understaging of the tumour extent. Ossification occurs earlier at this point, which may facilitate tumour invasion, and overstaging is possible if sclerosis encountered in the radiological evaluation is assumed to be cartilage invasion.Reference Hartl, Landry, Bidault, Hans, Julieron and Mamelle13 The small size of this region makes radiological evaluation difficult. Tumours may show occult progression without any change in vocal fold mobility, and laryngological examination and endoscopic surgical exposure are suboptimal.

Treatment options for early glottic cancers include radiotherapy (RT), endolaryngeal surgery with or without laser, and open partial laryngectomy. The most important tumour-related factors for deciding between RT and endolaryngeal surgery are probably tumour location and extent. The anterior commissure is a glottic subsite with a high risk of local recurrence, and this should always be considered during treatment planning.

The impact of anterior commissure involvement on local control is considered differently from surgical and RT standpoints. For surgeons, anterior commissure involvement is important for surgical modality selection. Open surgical procedures are suggested to provide the best oncological clearance in cases of anterior commissure involvement.Reference Agrawal and Ha14 According to Rifai and Khattab, tumours with anterior commissure involvement have a higher tendency toward cartilage invasion, and the anterior portion of the thyroid cartilage should be excised.Reference Rifai and Khattab15 Many surgeons perform open partial laryngectomy in the presence of anterior commissure involvement, and more extended procedures such as supracricoid laryngectomy are often considered.Reference Spector, Sessions, Chao, Haughey, Hanson and Simpson16 Anterior commissure involvement is believed to have a large impact on local control; numerous histological and clinical studies have published on this issue.Reference Rifai and Khattab15, Reference Bradley, Rinaldo, Suárez, Shaha, Leemans and Langendijk17Reference Nozaki, Furuta, Murakami, Izawa, Iwasaki and Takahashi22 A consensus statement paper from the UK stated that ‘tumours involving the anterior commissure are associated with a higher local residual tumour and recurrence rate than those without anterior commissure involvement’.Reference Bradley, Mackenzie, Wight, Pracy and Paleri23 In 2007, a new cordectomy type (type VI), encompassing the anterior commissure and the anterior part of both vocal folds, was proposed by European Laryngological Society Working Committee on Nomenclature.Reference Remacle, Van Haverbeke, Eckel, Bradley, Chevalier and Djukic24

Sachse et al. reported that anterior commissure involvement is associated with an increased recurrence rate (23 per cent) compared with an absence of anterior commissure involvement (5 per cent), and that four out of five recurrences are located at the anterior commissure.Reference Sachse, Stoll and Rudack25 Laccourreye et al. reported that the local failure rate was 23 per cent if there is anterior commissure involvement; this rate is higher than for any other glottic subsite involvement in early glottic cancers.Reference Laccourreye, Weinstein, Brasnu, Trotoux and Laccourreye26

There is also a higher tumour recurrence rate after endolaryngeal surgery for lesions with anterior commissure involvement (Table I). In a large series comprising 263 patients treated by laser microsurgery, the 5-year local control rates for patients with and without anterior commissure involvement were 84 per cent and 90 per cent, respectively, for pathologically staged T1a tumours and 73 per cent and 92 per cent, respectively, for pathologically staged T1b tumours.Reference Steiner, Ambrosch, Rödel and Kron21 In this series, 62 per cent of patients with local failure initially had anterior commissure involvement, whereas the anterior commissure was tumour free in only 38 per cent of patients with local failure.

Table I Impact of ACI on local control in patients with early glottic cancer treated by endolaryngeal laser surgery

ACI = anterior commissure involvement; w/o = without

Although the local control rate is almost always worse in the presence of anterior commissure involvement after RT, it has not always reached statistical significance in multivariate analyses (Table II). Published reports indicate that anterior commissure involvement is an important tumour parameter for deciding on glottic tumour treatment and an important prognostic factor for local control. In our opinion, the effect of anterior commissure involvement on glottic cancer is comparable with the effect of pre-epiglottic space invasion on supraglottic cancer in terms of occult invasion, and may lead to understaging and an unfavourable outcome if not managed properly.

Table II Impact of ACI on local control in patients with early glottic cancer treated by radiotherapy

ACI = anterior commissure involvement; w/o = without; UVA = univariate analysis; MVA = multivariate analysis; N/A = not available

Subglottic location or extension

Only 1–2 per cent of all laryngeal cancers are derived from the subglottic region: direct invasion of glottic cancers or supraglottic cancer spread via the paraglottic space are more common.Reference Dahm, Sessions, Paniello and Harvey46Reference Smee, Williams and Bridger48 The rate of subglottic extension is reported to be roughly 10 per cent in early glottic cancers.Reference Khan, Koyfman, Hunter, Reddy and Saxton41, Reference Murakami, Nishimura, Baba, Furusawa, Ogata and Yumoto44 On the other hand, 13 per cent of patients who underwent total laryngectomy for advanced local disease had subglottic extension, and the subglottic extension rate was 31 per cent for those with a transglottic tumour.Reference Dadas, Uslu, Cakir, Ozdoğan, Caliş and Turgut49

Since the subglottic mucosa is thin, involvement of the underlying cartilage framework and spread to the neck through the cartilage or cricothyroid membrane can easily occur. In many cases, subglottic extension is considered a contraindication for conservative laryngeal surgery. The prognosis of primary subglottic cancer is generally believed to be poor.Reference Dahm, Sessions, Paniello and Harvey46, Reference Garas and McGuirt47, Reference Paisley, Warde, O'Sullivan, Waldron, Gullane and Payne50, Reference Hata, Taguchi, Koike, Nishimura, Takahashi and Komatsu51 According to Chen et al., the subglottic extension of glottic cancer predicts a poorer outcome and the 5-year local control rates for patients with and without subglottic extension are 9 per cent and 77 per cent, respectively.Reference Dagan, Morris, Bennett, Mancuso, Amdur and Hinerman52 In two separate studies, subglottic extension was the only tumour-related factor to affect RT outcomes in T2 glottic cancers in multivariate analyses.Reference Garden, Forster, Wong, Morrison, Schechter and Ang53, Reference Chen, Chang, Tsang, Liao and Chen54 Mortuaire et al. reported that subglottic invasion has a significant impact on the local control rate.Reference Mortuaire, Francois, Wiel and Chevalier55 Subglottic extension is also an independent risk factor for thyroid gland involvement and level VI lymph node metastasis.Reference Mendelson, Al-Khatib, Julien, Payne, Black and Hier56, Reference Medina, Ferlito, Robbins, Silver, Rodrigo and de Bree57

Stomal recurrence is the most devastating event and has the highest mortality rate (2.6–5 per cent) after total laryngectomy.Reference Rubin, Johnson and Myers58Reference Yuen, Wei, Ho and Hui62 Almost all patients with stomal recurrence die within 12 months despite aggressive therapy.Reference Ampil, Ghali, Caldito and Baluna61Reference Reddy, Narayana, Melian, Kathuria, Leman and Emami63 The most important risk factor for stomal recurrence is believed to be subglottic extension. Rubin et al. reported that 80 per cent of patients with stomal recurrence had subglottic extension.Reference Rubin, Johnson and Myers58 Reddy et al. reported that stomal recurrence occurred in 100 per cent and 6 per cent, respectively, of patients with and without subglottic extension.Reference Reddy, Narayana, Melian, Kathuria, Leman and Emami63

Currently, impaired vocal fold mobility and subglottic extension have the same impact on tumour staging for glottic cancer. Since subglottic extension is a significant negative prognostic indicator, it should be categorised as a higher tumour stage and primary subglottic cancer staging should start at a higher tumour stage (Table III).

Table III Suggested changes to laryngeal, upper/alveolar ridge and hard palate cancer staging

Oral cavity

Underlying bone invasion in hard palate and maxillary alveolar ridge cancers

The hard palate mucosa is very close to the underlying bone; tumours derived from the hard palate can easily invade the underlying bone at an early stage of development. The same is true for cancers of the upper alveolar ridge. Most studies report that the incidence of T4 tumours at these locations may be abnormally high: some have reported that 58–71 per cent of upper alveolar ridge and the hard palate tumours are T4 stage.Reference Aydil, Kızıl, Bakkal, Köybaşıoğlu and Uslu64Reference Brown, Bekiroglu, Shaw, Woolgar and Rogers67 According to a detailed radiological study, maxillary floor perforation was detected in 57 per cent of cases of maxillary alveolar ridge cancer.Reference Ogura, Kurabayashi, Sasaki, Amagasa, Okada and Kaneda68 However, it is doubtful that bone invasion is an important poor prognostic factor for cancer of these locations. The local failure rate was only 12 per cent in a series reported by Mourouzis et al., despite almost three-quarters of tumours being initially staged as T4.Reference Mourouzis, Pratt and Brennan65 Brown et al. reported local recurrence in 8 out of 43 patients despite 25 tumours being classified as T4 stage.Reference Brown, Bekiroglu, Shaw, Woolgar and Rogers67 In two large series comprising 139 and 97 patients, nearly half of the tumours were T4 stage.Reference Morris, Patel, Shah and Ganly69, Reference Eskander, Givi, Gullane, Irish, Brown and Gilbert70 In one of these studies, the five-year disease-specific survival rate was 78 per cent; this is surprisingly high considering the large proportion of T4 tumours.Reference Eskander, Givi, Gullane, Irish, Brown and Gilbert70 The other study also reported a high five-year survival rate of 81 per cent in the absence of regional recurrence.Reference Morris, Patel, Shah and Ganly69

In our opinion, invasion of the upper and lower jaw should not be considered in the same way. Unlike the mandible, the hard palate is not a mobile part of the maxillofacial skeleton and prosthetic rehabilitation is much easier to achieve and more effective. Bone invasion may not result in serious morbidity related to surgical treatment and may not have much impact on the survival rate. In contrast, maxillary cancers causing bone erosion or destruction including extension into the hard palate and/or middle nasal meatus are categorised as T2. In conclusion, the effect of bone invasion should be decreased for tumour staging of malignant hard palate and upper alveolar ridge neoplasms in the next edition of The AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, similar to maxillary cancer staging (Table III).

Tumour thickness in early oral cancer

The histopathological characteristics of oral cancer specimens (including surgical margin clearance, tumour thickness and perineural and lymphovascular invasion) are probably more important than their gross clinical and radiological features. Tumour thickness was shown to be the most important predictor of survival for early oral cancer in a large retrospective study, and integrating tumour thickness into routine staging was suggested.Reference Hubert Low, Gao, Elliott and Clark71 In their prospective studies, Po Wing Yuen et al. and Yuen et al. reported that tumour thickness was the only factor to significantly influence nodal metastasis, local recurrence rate and survival.Reference Po Wing Yuen, Lam, Lam, Ho, Wong and Chow72, Reference Yuen, Lam, Wei, Lam, Ho and Chow73 Liao et al. also identified tumour thickness as an independent risk factor for neck control and survival in early oral cancer in a large series.Reference Liao, Lin, Fan, Wang, Ng and Lee74 According to Gonzalez-Moles et al., tumour thickness has the greatest influence on survival among many factors including tumour and nodal stages in tongue cancer.Reference Gonzalez-Moles, Esteban, Rodriguez-Archilla, Ruiz-Avila and Gonzalez-Moles75 Numerous other studies have investigated the relationship between tumour thickness and neck metastasis, and tumour thickness was consistently identified as a strong predictor of cervical metastasis in a meta-analysis.Reference Huang, Hwang, Lockwood, Goldstein and O'Sullivan76 In conclusion, there is strong evidence that tumour thickness has a significant influence on disease control and survival compared with many other factors influencing oral cancer. Therefore, tumour thickness should be considered in oral cancer staging.

Neck nodes

Carotid artery involvement

Carotid artery involvement usually has catastrophic consequences: surgical treatment is difficult, complication and mortality rates are high, quality of life is low, and survival is dismal even after complete resection of the tumour.Reference Freeman, Hamaker, Borrowdale and Huntley77Reference Biller, Urken, Lawson and Haimov83 Freeman et al. reported a 1-year survival rate of only 40 per cent, and only 2 out of 58 patients were alive at the third year despite aggressive surgical intervention.Reference Freeman, Hamaker, Borrowdale and Huntley77 According to Roh et al., the 2-year survival rate is 13 per cent.Reference Roh, Kim, Choi, Lee, Cho and Nam78 Studies with the most optimistic results reported 2- and 5-year survival rates of 21–32 per cent and 12–28 per cent, respectively.Reference Zhengang, Colbert, Brennan, Xue, Yongfa and Pingzhang79, Reference Ozer, Agrawal, Ozer and Schuller80 Unfortunately more than half of patients had locoregional recurrence.Reference Freeman, Hamaker, Borrowdale and Huntley77, Reference Manzoor, Russell, Bricker, Koyfman, Scharpf and Burkey81 It was reported that 16 per cent to 33 per cent of patients had distant metastasis within a relatively short follow-up period.Reference Freeman, Hamaker, Borrowdale and Huntley77, Reference Ozer, Agrawal, Ozer and Schuller80Reference Biller, Urken, Lawson and Haimov83

In the case of direct invasion of the carotid artery by a primary tumour, the tumour stage is classified as T4b. However, carotid artery involvement almost always results from extracapsular spread of a metastatic neck node; direct invasion of the carotid artery by a primary tumour is rare.Reference Freeman, Hamaker, Borrowdale and Huntley77, Reference Ozer, Agrawal, Ozer and Schuller80, Reference Manzoor, Russell, Bricker, Koyfman, Scharpf and Burkey81, Reference Freeman84, Reference Pons, Ukkola-Pons, Clément, Gauthier and Conessa85 Although the main route of carotid artery invasion is via neck nodes, carotid artery involvement is not taken into account in neck node staging. It is clear that carotid artery involvement is an important prognostic indicator that should be independently incorporated into nodal staging rather than into primary tumour assessment. Since it is a very poor prognostic indicator, carotid artery involvement should be considered separately; our suggested stage for carotid artery involvement is N3b. In our opinion, carotid artery involvement should be taken into account in both clinical (radiological) and pathological node staging processes. However, there is evidence that extracapsular spread may not affect prognosis in the same manner in HPV-positive patients. This will be discussed in the next section. Similarly, nodal staging of nasopharyngeal cancer differs from that of other mucosal head and neck cancers, and the adverse prognostic effect of carotid artery involvement in nasopharyngeal cancer is currently unclear. For these reasons, we do not suggest making changes to nodal staging for nasopharyngeal cancer and HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer.

Extracapsular spread of human papillomavirus negative tumours

It is clear that the prognosis of patients with extracapsular spread in neck nodes is very poor.Reference Cooper, Pajak, Forastiere, Jacobs, Campbell and Saxman86Reference de Juan, García, López, Orús, Esteller and Quer90 The presence of extracapsular spread increases the regional failure rate and the incidence of distant metastasis.Reference Myers, Greenberg, Mo and Roberts91Reference Greenberg, Fowler, Gomez, Mo, Roberts and El Naggar93 The incidence of extracapsular spread within neck dissection specimens is reported to be between 17 per cent and 36 per cent.Reference Myers, Greenberg, Mo and Roberts91Reference Jose, Coatesworth, Johnston and MacLennan95 Alvi and Johnson reported that extracapsular spread is even present in 17 per cent of N0 necks and predicts a poor outcome in patients with occult cervical metastasis.Reference Alvi and Johnson96 Jose et al. prospectively investigated the importance of microscopic extracapsular spread and found no difference in actual or recurrence-free survival between microscopic and macroscopic extracapsular spread.Reference Jose, Coatesworth, Johnston and MacLennan95 According to these authors, both forms of extracapsular spread are of prognostic importance in survival. Greenberg et al. also reported that survival is not significantly different in patients with extracapsular spread of either less than or more than 2 mm.Reference Greenberg, Fowler, Gomez, Mo, Roberts and El Naggar93

It should be kept in mind that extracapsular spread does not indicate a large, fixed neck mass. Ghadjar et al. retrospectively analysed the dimensions of nodes with extracapsular spread and found that 60 per cent of patients with at least one extracapsular spread positive lymph node have at least one extracapsular spread positive node smaller than 10 mm.Reference Ghadjar, Simcock, Schreiber-Facklam, Zimmer, Gräter and Evers97 The median diameter of the small extracapsular spread positive lymph nodes was 7 mm, and presence of an extracapsular spread positive lymph node smaller than 7 mm was a significant prognostic factor for decreased regional relapse-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival. According to these authors, small extracapsular spread positive metastatic nodes may represent a more invasive tumour. Ghadjar et al. also reported the mean and median extent of extracapsular spread as 2 mm and 1 mm, respectively.Reference Ghadjar, Simcock, Schreiber-Facklam, Zimmer, Gräter and Evers97 These authors reported that more than 90 per cent of extracapsular spread positive lymph nodes are smaller than 2 cm and the extent of extracapsular spread is less than 5 mm in 97 per cent of nodes. These results are almost the same as those of a previous study by Apisarnthanarax et al., which showed that extracapsular spread positive nodes are usually smaller than the 3 cm cut-off value between N1 and N2a.Reference Apisarnthanarax, Elliott, El-Naggar, Asper, Blanco and Ang98

Extracapsular spread was previously considered one of the worst prognostic features of head and neck cancers, and patients with extracapsular spread were reported to benefit from adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in two landmark clinical trials.Reference Cooper, Pajak, Forastiere, Jacobs, Campbell and Saxman86, Reference Bernier, Domenge, Ozsahin, Matuszewska, Lefèbvre and Greiner87 Today, regardless of metastatic node size and number, extracapsular spread is considered one of the two main adjuvant chemoradiotherapy indications (together with a positive surgical margin). As the most important tumour-related adverse feature to predict survival, extracapsular spread should be considered in nodal staging, as previously advocated by de Juan et al. and Shaw et al.Reference de Juan, García, López, Orús, Esteller and Quer90, Reference Shaw, Lowe, Woolgar, Brown, Vaughan and Evans94 In our opinion, extracapsular spread should have more impact on nodal staging. As it is a very important independent poor prognostic indicator and the depth of extracapsular spread is not related to the oncological outcome, the pathological nodal stage should be N3 in the presence of extracapsular spread, regardless of node size or depth of extracapsular spread. However, the effect of extracapsular spread on prognosis is not the same in HPV-positive patients. Sinha et al. reported that extracapsular spread is not associated with poorer survival in HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer patients.Reference Sinha, Lewis, Piccirillo, Kallogjeri and Haughey99 More recently, Maxwell et al. also showed that extracapsular spread was not associated with worse disease-specific survival in HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer patients.Reference Maxwell, Ferris, Gooding, Cunningham, Mehta and Kim100

Conclusion

According to Gospodarowicz et al., the first two criteria for instituting changes to the TNM classification are clinical relevance in terms of assessment, treatment and outcome and evidence of improved prognostic ability.Reference Gospodarowicz, Miller, Groome, Greene, Logan and Sobin101 The suggested changes in this review largely meet these criteria. In our opinion, without sacrificing its practical structure, some points of the TNM staging system should be revised based on the current data.

References

1Edge, SB, Byrd, DR, Compton, CC, Fritz, AG, Greene, FL, Trotti, A, eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 7th edn.New York: Springer, 2010:5767Google ScholarPubMed
2Sobin, LH. TNM: evolution and relation to other prognostic factors. Semin Surg Oncol 2003;21:37CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Ferlito, A, Rinaldo, A. The future of the TNM staging system in laryngeal cancer: time for a debate? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008;265:1441–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Takes, RP, Rinaldo, A, Silver, CE, Piccirillo, JF, Haigentz, M Jr, Suárez, C et al. Future of the TNM classification and staging system in head and neck cancer. Head Neck 2010;32:1693–711CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Shah, J. Concerning the editorial “The future of the TNM staging system in laryngeal cancer: time for a debate?” by Ferlito and Rinaldo. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009;266:155; author reply 157–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Yoo, J, Lacchetti, C, Hammond, JA, Gilbert, RW; Head and Neck Cancer Disease Site Group. Role of endolaryngeal surgery (with or without laser) compared with radiotherapy in the management of early (T1) glottic cancer: a clinical practice guideline. Curr Oncol 2013;20:e132–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Hartl, DM, Ferlito, A, Brasnu, DF, Langendijk, JA, Rinaldo, A, Silver, CE et al. Evidence-based review of treatment options for patients with glottic cancer. Head Neck 2011;33:1638–48CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Aydil, U, Akmansu, M, Kizil, Y, Yazici, O, Ustün, S, Karaloğlu, F et al. An individualised treatment algorithm for tumour stage 1 glottic squamous cell carcinoma. J Laryngol Otol 2013;127:1127–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Peretti, G, Piazza, C, Cocco, D, De Benedetto, L, Del Bon, F, Redaelli De Zinis, LO et al. Transoral CO(2) laser treatment for T(is)–T(3) glottic cancer: the University of Brescia experience on 595 patients. Head Neck 2010;32:977–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Tong, CC, Au, KH, Ngan, RK, Chow, SM, Cheung, FY, Fu, YT et al. Impact and relationship of anterior commissure and time-dose factor on the local control of T1N0 glottic cancer treated by 6 MV photons. Radiat Oncol 2011;6:53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Rosier, JF, Grégoire, V, Counoy, H, Octave-Prignot, M, Rombaut, P, Scalliet, P et al. Comparison of external radiotherapy, laser microsurgery and partial laryngectomy for the treatment of T1N0M0 glottic carcinomas: a retrospective evaluation. Radiother Oncol 1998;48:175–83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Reddy, SP, Mohideen, N, Marra, S, Marks, JE. Effect of tumor bulk on local control and survival of patients with T1 glottic cancer. Radiother Oncol 1997;47:161–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Hartl, DM, Landry, G, Bidault, F, Hans, S, Julieron, M, Mamelle, G et al. CT-scan prediction of thyroid cartilage invasion for early laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013;270:287–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Agrawal, N, Ha, PK. Management of early-stage laryngeal cancer. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2008;41:757–69CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Rifai, M, Khattab, H. Anterior commissure carcinoma: I-histopathologic study. Am J Otolaryngol 2000;21:294–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Spector, JG, Sessions, DG, Chao, KS, Haughey, BH, Hanson, JM, Simpson, JR et al. Stage I (T1 N0 M0) squamous cell carcinoma of the laryngeal glottis: therapeutic results and voice preservation. Head Neck 1999;21:707–173.0.CO;2-2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Bradley, PJ, Rinaldo, A, Suárez, C, Shaha, AR, Leemans, CR, Langendijk, JA et al. Primary treatment of the anterior vocal commissure squamous carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2006;263:879–88CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Rucci, L, Gammarota, L, Borghi Cirri, MB. Carcinoma of the anterior commissure of the larynx: I. Embryological and anatomic considerations. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996;105:303–8Google ScholarPubMed
19Rucci, L, Bocciolini, C, Romagnoli, P, Olofsson, J. Risk factors and prognosis of anterior commissure versus posterior commissure T1-T2 glottic cancer. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2003;112:223–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Rifai, M, Heiba, MH, Salah, H. Anterior commissure carcinoma II: the role of salvage supracricoid laryngectomy. Am J Otolaryngol 2002;23:13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Steiner, W, Ambrosch, P, Rödel, RM, Kron, M. Impact of anterior commissure involvement on local control of early glottic carcinoma treated by laser microresection. Laryngoscope 2004;114:1485–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Nozaki, M, Furuta, M, Murakami, Y, Izawa, Y, Iwasaki, N, Takahashi, H et al. Radiation therapy for T1 glottic cancer: involvement of the anterior commissure. Anticancer Res 2000;20:1121–4Google ScholarPubMed
23Bradley, PJ, Mackenzie, K, Wight, R, Pracy, P, Paleri, V; ENT-UK Head & Neck Group. Consensus statement on management in the UK: transoral laser assisted microsurgical resection of early glottic cancer. Clin Otolaryngol 2009;34:367–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Remacle, M, Van Haverbeke, C, Eckel, H, Bradley, P, Chevalier, D, Djukic, V et al. Proposal for revision of the European Laryngological Society classification of endoscopic cordectomies. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2007;264:499504CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Sachse, F, Stoll, W, Rudack, C. Evaluation of treatment results with regard to initial anterior commissure involvement in early glottic carcinoma treated by external partial surgery or transoral laser microresection. Head Neck 2009;31:531–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Laccourreye, O, Weinstein, G, Brasnu, D, Trotoux, J, Laccourreye, H. Vertical partial laryngectomy: a critical analysis of local recurrence. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991;100:6871CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Chone, CT, Yonehara, E, Martins, JE, Altemani, A, Crespo, AN. Importance of anterior commissure in recurrence of early glottic cancer after laser endoscopic resection. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;133:882–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Pradhan, SA, Pai, PS, Neeli, SI, D'Cruz, AK. Transoral laser surgery for early glottic cancers. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:623–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Rödel, RM, Steiner, W, Müller, RM, Kron, M, Matthias, C. Endoscopic laser surgery of early glottic cancer: involvement of the anterior commissure. Head Neck 2009;31:583–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Hakeem, AH, Tubachi, J, Pradhan, SA. Significance of anterior commissure involvement in early glottic squamous cell carcinoma treated with trans-oral CO2 laser microsurgery. Laryngoscope 2013;123:1912–17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Ferri, E, Armato, E. Diode laser microsurgery for treatment of Tis and T1 glottic carcinomas. Am J Otolaryngol 2008;29:101–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32Peretti, G, Nicolai, P, Redaelli De Zinis, LO, Berlucchi, M, Bazzana, T et al. Endoscopic CO2 laser excision for tis, T1, and T2 glottic carcinomas: cure rate and prognostic factors. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;123:124–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33Ledda, GP, Puxeddu, R. Carbon dioxide laser microsurgery for early glottic carcinoma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;134:911–15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34Rucci, L, Romagnoli, P, Scala, J. CO(2) laser therapy in Tis and T1 glottic cancer: indications and results. Head Neck 2010;32:392–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35Zouhair, A, Azria, D, Coucke, P, Matzinger, O, Bron, L, Moeckli, R et al. Decreased local control following radiation therapy alone in early-stage glottic carcinoma with anterior commissure extension. Strahlenther Onkol 2004;180:8490CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36Cellai, E, Frata, P, Magrini, SM, Paiar, F, Barca, R, Fondelli, S et al. Radical radiotherapy for early glottic cancer: results in a series of 1087 patients from two Italian radiation oncology centers. I. The case of T1N0 disease. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;63:1378–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37Jin, J, Liao, Z, Gao, L, Huang, X, Xu, G. Analysis of prognostic factors for T(1)N(0)M(0) glottic cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy alone: experience of the cancer hospital of Peking Union Medical College and the Chinese Academy Of Medical Sciences. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54:471–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38Marshak, G, Brenner, B, Shvero, J, Shapira, J, Ophir, D, Hochman, I et al. Prognostic factors for local control of early glottic cancer: the Rabin Medical Center retrospective study on 207 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;43:1009–13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39Smee, RI, Meagher, NS, Williams, JR, Broadley, K, Bridger, GP. Role of radiotherapy in early glottic carcinoma. Head Neck 2010;32:850–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40Laskar, SG, Baijal, G, Murthy, V, Chilukuri, S, Budrukkar, A, Gupta, T et al. Hypofractionated radiotherapy for T1N0M0 glottic cancer: retrospective analysis of two different cohorts of dose-fractionation schedules from a single institution. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2012;24:e180–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41Khan, MK, Koyfman, SA, Hunter, GK, Reddy, CA, Saxton, JP. Definitive radiotherapy for early (T1–T2) glottic squamous cell carcinoma: a 20 year Cleveland Clinic experience. Radiat Oncol 2012;7:193CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42Hermans, R, Van den Bogaert, W, Rijnders, A, Baert, AL. Value of computed tomography as outcome predictor of supraglottic squamous cell carcinoma treated by definitive radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;44:755–65CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43Burke, LS, Greven, KM, McGuirt, WT, Case, D, Hoen, HM, Raben, M. Definitive radiotherapy for early glottic carcinoma: prognostic factors and implications for treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997;38:1001–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44Murakami, R, Nishimura, R, Baba, Y, Furusawa, M, Ogata, N, Yumoto, E et al. Prognostic factors of glottic carcinomas treated with radiation therapy: value of the adjacent sign on radiological examinations in the sixth edition of the UICC TNM staging system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;61:471–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45Mendenhall, WM, Amdur, RJ, Morris, CG, Hinerman, RW. T1–T2N0 squamous cell carcinoma of the glottic larynx treated with radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:4029–36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46Dahm, JD, Sessions, DG, Paniello, RC, Harvey, J. Primary subglottic cancer. Laryngoscope 1998;108:741–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47Garas, J, McGuirt, WF Sr.Squamous cell carcinoma of the subglottis. Am J Otolaryngol 2006;27:14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48Smee, RI, Williams, JR, Bridger, GP. The management dilemmas of invasive subglottic carcinoma. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2008;20:751–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49Dadas, B, Uslu, B, Cakir, B, Ozdoğan, HC, Caliş, AB, Turgut, S. Intraoperative management of the thyroid gland in laryngeal cancer surgery. J Otolaryngol 2001;30:179–83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50Paisley, S, Warde, PR, O'Sullivan, B, Waldron, J, Gullane, PJ, Payne, D et al. Results of radiotherapy for primary subglottic squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;52:1245–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51Hata, M, Taguchi, T, Koike, I, Nishimura, G, Takahashi, M, Komatsu, M et al. Efficacy and toxicity of (chemo)radiotherapy for primary subglottic cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2013;189:2632CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52Dagan, R, Morris, CG, Bennett, JA, Mancuso, AA, Amdur, RJ, Hinerman, RW et al. Prognostic significance of paraglottic space invasion in T2N0 glottic carcinoma. Am J Clin Oncol 2007;30:186–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53Garden, AS, Forster, K, Wong, PF, Morrison, WH, Schechter, NR, Ang, KK. Results of radiotherapy for T2N0 glottic carcinoma: does the “2” stand for twice-daily treatment? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;55:322–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
54Chen, MF, Chang, JT, Tsang, NM, Liao, CT, Chen, WC. Radiotherapy of early-stage glottic cancer: analysis of factors affecting prognosis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2003;112:904–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
55Mortuaire, G, Francois, J, Wiel, E, Chevalier, D. Local recurrence after CO2 laser cordectomy for early glottic carcinoma. Laryngoscope 2006;116:101–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
56Mendelson, AA, Al-Khatib, TA, Julien, M, Payne, RJ, Black, MJ, Hier, MP. Thyroid gland management in total laryngectomy: meta-analysis and surgical recommendations. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;140:298305CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
57Medina, JE, Ferlito, A, Robbins, KT, Silver, CE, Rodrigo, JP, de Bree, R et al. Central compartment dissection in laryngeal cancer. Head Neck 2011;33:746–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
58Rubin, J, Johnson, JT, Myers, EN. Stomal recurrence after laryngectomy: interrelated risk factor study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990;103:805–12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
59Mantravadi, R, Katz, AM, Skolnik, EM, Becker, S, Freehling, DJ, Friedman, M. Stomal recurrence. A critical analysis of risk factors. Arch Otolaryngol 1981;107:735–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
60Oztürkcan, S, Calli, C, Dündar, R, Tuna, B, Katilmiş, H, Aslan, H et al. Stomal recurrence after total laryngectomy: clinical and pathological analysis of risk factors [in Turkish]. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg 2009;19:146–50Google ScholarPubMed
61Ampil, F, Ghali, G, Caldito, G, Baluna, R. Post-laryngectomy stomal cancer recurrences, re-treatment decisions and outcomes: case series. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2009;37:349–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
62Yuen, AP, Wei, WI, Ho, WK, Hui, Y. Risk factors of tracheostomal recurrence after laryngectomy for laryngeal carcinoma. Am J Surg 1996;172:263–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
63Reddy, SP, Narayana, A, Melian, E, Kathuria, S, Leman, C, Emami, B. Stomal recurrence in patients with T1 glottic cancer after salvage laryngectomy for radiotherapy failures: role of p53 overexpression and subglottic extension. Am J Clin Oncol 2001;24:124–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
64Aydil, U, Kızıl, Y, Bakkal, FK, Köybaşıoğlu, A, Uslu, S. Neoplasms of the hard palate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;72:619–26CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
65Mourouzis, C, Pratt, C, Brennan, PA. Squamous cell carcinoma of the maxillary gingiva, alveolus, and hard palate: is there a need for elective neck dissection? Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;48:345–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
66Beltramini, GA, Massarelli, O, Demarchi, M, Copelli, C, Cassoni, A, Valentini, V et al. Is neck dissection needed in squamous-cell carcinoma of the maxillary gingiva, alveolus, and hard palate? A multicentre Italian study of 65 cases and literature review. Oral Oncol 2012;48:97101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
67Brown, JS, Bekiroglu, F, Shaw, RJ, Woolgar, JA, Rogers, SN. Management of the neck and regional recurrence in squamous cell carcinoma of the maxillary alveolus and hard palate compared with other sites in the oral cavity. Head Neck 2013;35:265–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
68Ogura, I, Kurabayashi, T, Sasaki, T, Amagasa, T, Okada, N, Kaneda, T. Maxillary bone invasion by gingival carcinoma as an indicator of cervical metastasis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003;32:291–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
69Morris, LG, Patel, SG, Shah, JP, Ganly, I. High rates of regional failure in squamous cell carcinoma of the hard palate and maxillary alveolus. Head Neck 2011;33:824–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
70Eskander, A, Givi, B, Gullane, PJ, Irish, J, Brown, D, Gilbert, RW et al. Outcome predictors in squamous cell carcinoma of the maxillary alveolus and hard palate. Laryngoscope 2013;123:2453–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
71Hubert Low, TH, Gao, K, Elliott, M, Clark, JR. Tumor classification for early oral cancer: re-evaluate the current TNM classification. Head Neck 2015;37:223–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
72Po Wing Yuen, A, Lam, KY, Lam, LK, Ho, CM, Wong, A, Chow, TL et al. Prognostic factors of clinically stage I and II oral tongue carcinoma-A comparative study of stage, thickness, shape, growth pattern, invasive front malignancy grading, Martinez-Gimeno score, and pathologic features. Head Neck 2002;24:513–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
73Yuen, AP, Lam, KY, Wei, WI, Lam, KY, Ho, CM, Chow, TL et al. A comparison of the prognostic significance of tumor diameter, length, width, thickness, area, volume, and clinicopathological features of oral tongue carcinoma. Am J Surg 2000;180:139–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
74Liao, CT, Lin, CY, Fan, KH, Wang, HM, Ng, SH, Lee, LY et al. Identification of a high-risk group among patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma and pT1–2N0 disease. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;82:284–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
75Gonzalez-Moles, MA, Esteban, F, Rodriguez-Archilla, A, Ruiz-Avila, I, Gonzalez-Moles, S. Importance of tumour thickness measurement in prognosis of tongue cancer. Oral Oncol 2002;38:394–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
76Huang, SH, Hwang, D, Lockwood, G, Goldstein, DP, O'Sullivan, B. Predictive value of tumor thickness for cervical lymph-node involvement in squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity: a meta-analysis of reported studies. Cancer 2009;115:1489–97CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
77Freeman, SB, Hamaker, RC, Borrowdale, RW, Huntley, TC. Management of neck metastasis with carotid artery involvement. The management of the carotid artery, intraoperative radiation, survival, and complications are reviewed in 58 patients who underwent resection of their carotid arteries over a 13-year period. Laryngoscope 2004;114:20–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
78Roh, JL, Kim, MR, Choi, SH, Lee, JH, Cho, KJ, Nam, SY et al. Can patients with head and neck cancers invading carotid artery gain survival benefit from surgery? Acta Otolaryngol 2008;128:1370–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
79Zhengang, X, Colbert, S, Brennan, PA, Xue, B, Yongfa, Q, Pingzhang, T et al. Surgical management of metastases that involve the carotid artery in cases of primary squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;42:440–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
80Ozer, E, Agrawal, A, Ozer, HG, Schuller, DE, The Impact of Surgery in the Management of the Head and Neck Carcinoma Involving the Carotid Artery. Laryngoscope 2008;118:1771–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
81Manzoor, NF, Russell, JO, Bricker, A, Koyfman, S, Scharpf, J, Burkey, B et al. Impact of surgical resection on survival in patients with advanced head and neck cancer involving the carotid artery. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;139:1219–25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
82Meleca, RJ, Marks, SC. Carotid artery resection for cancer of the head and neck. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994;120:974–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
83Biller, HF, Urken, M, Lawson, W, Haimov, M. Carotid artery resection and bypass for neck carcinoma. Laryngoscope 1988;98:181–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
84Freeman, SB. Advanced cervical metastasis involving the carotid artery. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;13:107–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
85Pons, Y, Ukkola-Pons, E, Clément, P, Gauthier, J, Conessa, C. Relevance of 5 different imaging signs in the evaluation of carotid artery invasion by cervical lymphadenopathy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;109:775–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
86Cooper, JS, Pajak, TF, Forastiere, AA, Jacobs, J, Campbell, BH, Saxman, SB et al. ; Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9501/Intergroup. Postoperative concurrent radiotherapy and chemotherapy for high-risk squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med 2004;350:1937–44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
87Bernier, J, Domenge, C, Ozsahin, M, Matuszewska, K, Lefèbvre, JL, Greiner, RH et al. ; European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Trial 22931. Postoperative irradiation with or without concomitant chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;350:1945–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
88Puri, SK, Fan, CY, Hanna, E. Significance of extracapsular lymph node metastases in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;11:119–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
89Ferlito, A, Rinaldo, A, Devaney, KO, MacLennan, K, Myers, JN, Petruzzelli, GJ et al. Prognostic significance of microscopic and macroscopic extracapsular spread from metastatic tumor in the cervical lymph nodes. Oral Oncol 2002;38:747–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
90de Juan, J, García, J, López, M, Orús, C, Esteller, E, Quer, M et al. Inclusion of extracapsular spread in the pTNM classification system: a proposal for patients with head and neck carcinoma. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;139:483–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
91Myers, JN, Greenberg, JS, Mo, V, Roberts, D. Extracapsular spread. A significant predictor of treatment failure in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue. Cancer 2001;92:3030–63.0.CO;2-P>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
92Oosterkamp, S, de Jong, JM, Van den Ende, PL, Manni, JJ, Dehing-Oberije, C, Kremer, B. Predictive value of lymph node metastases and extracapsular extension for the risk of distant metastases in laryngeal carcinoma. Laryngoscope 2006;116:2067–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
93Greenberg, JS, Fowler, R, Gomez, J, Mo, V, Roberts, D, El Naggar, AK et al. Extent of extracapsular spread: a critical prognosticator in oral tongue cancer. Cancer 2003;97:1464–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
94Shaw, RJ, Lowe, D, Woolgar, JA, Brown, JS, Vaughan, ED, Evans, C et al. Extracapsular spread in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck 2010;32:714–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
95Jose, J, Coatesworth, AP, Johnston, C, MacLennan, K. Cervical node metastases in squamous cell carcinoma of the upper aerodigestive tract: the significance of extracapsular spread and soft tissue deposits. Head Neck 2003;25:451–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
96Alvi, A, Johnson, JT. Extracapsular spread in the clinically negative neck (N0): implications and outcome. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996;114:6570CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
97Ghadjar, P, Simcock, M, Schreiber-Facklam, H, Zimmer, Y, Gräter, R, Evers, C et al. Incidence of small lymph node metastases with evidence of extracapsular extension: clinical implications in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;78:1366–72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
98Apisarnthanarax, S, Elliott, DD, El-Naggar, AK, Asper, JA, Blanco, A, Ang, KK et al. Determining optimal clinical target volume margins in head-and-neck cancer based on microscopic extracapsular extension of metastatic neck nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;64:678–83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
99Sinha, P, Lewis, JS Jr, Piccirillo, JF, Kallogjeri, D, Haughey, BH. Extracapsular spread and adjuvant therapy in human papillomavirus-related, p16-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer 2012;118:3519–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
100Maxwell, JH, Ferris, RL, Gooding, W, Cunningham, D, Mehta, V, Kim, S et al. Extracapsular spread in head and neck carcinoma: impact of site and human papillomavirus status. Cancer 2013;119:3302–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
101Gospodarowicz, MK, Miller, D, Groome, PA, Greene, FL, Logan, PA, Sobin, LH. The process for continuous improvement of the TNM classification. Cancer 2004;100:15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table I Impact of ACI on local control in patients with early glottic cancer treated by endolaryngeal laser surgery

Figure 1

Table II Impact of ACI on local control in patients with early glottic cancer treated by radiotherapy

Figure 2

Table III Suggested changes to laryngeal, upper/alveolar ridge and hard palate cancer staging