Search

Importance: The presence of extracapsular spread (ECS) of metastatic nodes is considered a poor prognosticator in head and neck cancer, with postoperative chemoradiation therapy often recommended over radiation therapy alone in such cases. However, there is less clarity regarding the effect of ECS on human papillomavirus-associated oropharynx squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) or carcinoma of unknown primary site (CUP)., Objective: To investigate the association of ECS according to human papillomavirus status in OPSCC and CUP with survival., Design, Setting, and Participants: This investigation was a retrospective cohort study performed between August 1998 and March 2015 at an academic teaching hospital. Participants were 83 patients with OPSCC (n = 62) or CUP (n = 21) undergoing neck dissection as part of initial treatment., Main Outcome and Measures: Human papillomavirus status was determined by p16 immunohistochemistry. The presence of ECS was extrapolated from pathology reports, and the extent of ECS was determined by rereview of original pathology slides. Disease-specific survival (DSS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were assessed., Results: Among 83 patients (71 male), there were 45 p16-positive and 38 p16-negative tumors. Fifty-one patients had ECS, which was graded as extensive in 43 cases. The median follow-up was 31 months for all patients and 50 months for surviving patients. Among the entire cohort, adverse predictors of RFS were p16-negative status (hazard ratio [HR], 9.4; 95% CI, 3.3-27.2) and ECS (HR, 6.5; 95% CI, 2.0-21.6). Adverse predictors of DSS were p16-negative status (HR, 16.8; 95% CI, 3.9-71.2) and ECS (HR, 8.3; 95% CI, 2.0-35.3). Among p16-negative patients, ECS was significantly associated with worse RFS (HR, 9.7; 95% CI, 1.3-72.3) and DSS (HR, 8.7; 95% CI, 1.1-62.7). In contrast, among p16-positive patients, ECS had no effect on RFS (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.2-7.8) or DSS (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.1-18.7)., Conclusions and Relevance: The presence of ECS appears to be associated with survival in OPSCC and CUP according to p16 status. Our findings raise questions regarding the benefits of postoperative chemoradiation therapy in p16-positive patients with ECS.

Importance: The follicular variant (FV) of papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) is an important subtype that can be difficult to diagnose using preoperative cytologic analysis., Objective: To compare conventional and FV PTC with regard to preoperative cytologic diagnosis using a tiered thyroid cytologic reporting system, tumor size at diagnosis, presence of invasion, and implications on prognostic scores., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective study was conducted in an academic teaching hospital and included 99 patients with conventional (n = 65) or FV (n = 34) PTC., Interventions: Preoperative thyroid cytologic findings, originally reported using the tiered British Thy system, were recategorized according to the Bethesda classification system. Pathologic features recorded included tumor size, presence of extrathyroid extension (ETE), and metastases. Prognostic scores were calculated according to the MACIS system., Main Outcomes and Measures: Differences in patient demographics, preoperative cytologic findings, tumor pathologic features, and prognostic risk categories between conventional and FV PTC were studied., Results: There were no differences in patient age or sex. Cytologic findings from FV PTC were significantly more likely to be reported in a lower-risk category than those from conventional PTC for (1) malignant vs lower-risk category (22 [56%] vs 2 [8%]); (2) suspected malignant or malignant vs lower-risk category (26 [66%] vs 6 [23%]); and (3) follicular neoplasm or higher-risk category vs lower-risk category (34 [87%] vs 10 [38%]) (P < .001 for all 3 comparisons). There was also a significantly higher likelihood of false-negative cytologic findings among FV PTC cases (5 [19%] vs 1 [3%]) (P = .03). The mean size of FV PTC lesions (25.9 mm) at the time of pathologic diagnosis was significantly greater than that of conventional PTC lesions (15.5 mm) (P = .02). Even after exclusion of "coincidental" carcinomas, FV PTC tumors were significantly larger than conventional PTC tumors (31.7 vs 22.4 mm; P = .03). In contrast, FV PTC was significantly less likely to show ETE (0 of 34 vs 10 of 65; P = .01). There were no significant differences between FV PTC and conventional PTC in proportion of patients in intermediate- and high-risk prognostic groups combined (21 [62%] vs 38 [58%]) (P = .83) or in mean MACIS scores (4.68 and 4.38, respectively; P = .18)., Conclusions and Relevance: Preoperative cytologic findings from FV PTC were more likely than those from conventional PTC to indicate a lower risk category, and FV PTC tumors were larger at time of diagnosis. On the other hand, owing to a lower incidence of ETE in conventional PTC, there was no difference in prognostic score at diagnosis.