Search

The purpose of this study was to suggest general guidelines in the management of the N0 neck of oral cavity and oropharyngeal adenoid cystic carcinoma (AdCC) in order to improve the survival of these patients and/or reduce the risk of neck recurrences. The incidence of cervical node metastasis at diagnosis of head and neck AdCC is variable, and ranges between 3% and 16%. Metastasis to the cervical lymph nodes of intraoral and oropharyngeal AdCC varies from 2% to 43%, with the lower rates pertaining to palatal AdCC and the higher rates to base of the tongue. Neck node recurrence may happen after treatment in 0-14% of AdCC, is highly dependent on the extent of the treatment and is very rare in patients who have been treated with therapeutic or elective neck dissections, or elective neck irradiation. Lymph node involvement with or without extracapsular extension in AdCC has been shown in most reports to be independently associated with decreased overall and cause-specific survival, probably because lymph node involvement is a risk factor for subsequent distant metastasis. The overall rate of occult neck metastasis in patients with head and neck AdCC ranges from 15% to 44%, but occult neck metastasis from oral cavity and/or oropharynx seems to occur more frequently than from other locations, such as the sinonasal tract and major salivary glands. Nevertheless, the benefit of elective neck dissection (END) in AdCC is not comparable to that of squamous cell carcinoma, because the main cause of failure is not related to neck or local recurrence, but rather, to distant failure. Therefore, END should be considered in patients with a cN0 neck with AdCC in some high risk oral and oropharyngeal locations when postoperative RT is not planned, or the rare AdCC-high grade transformation., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Adenoid cystic carcinoma (AdCC) of the head and neck is a well-recognized pathologic entity that rarely occurs in the larynx. Although the 5-year locoregional control rates are high, distant metastasis has a tendency to appear more than 5 years post treatment. Because AdCC of the larynx is uncommon, it is difficult to standardize a treatment protocol. One of the controversial points is the decision whether or not to perform an elective neck dissection on these patients. Because there is contradictory information about this issue, we have critically reviewed the literature from 1912 to 2015 on all reported cases of AdCC of the larynx in order to clarify this issue. During the most recent period of our review (1991-2015) with a more exact diagnosis of the tumor histology, 142 cases were observed of AdCC of the larynx, of which 91 patients had data pertaining to lymph node status. Eleven of the 91 patients (12.1%) had nodal metastasis and, based on this low proportion of patients, routine elective neck dissection is therefore not recommended.

Neck dissection is an important treatment for metastases from upper aerodigestive carcinoma; an event that markedly reduces survival. Since its inception, the philosophy of the procedure has undergone significant change from one of radicalism to the current conservative approach. Furthermore, nonsurgical modalities have been introduced, and, in many situations, have supplanted neck surgery. The refinements of imaging the neck based on the concept of neck level involvement has encouraged new philosophies to evolve that seem to benefit patient outcomes particularly as this relates to diminished morbidity. The purpose of this review was to highlight the new paradigms for surgical removal of neck metastases using an evidence-based approach., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

In 2003, a panel of experts published a set of consensus guidelines for the delineation of the neck node levels in node negative patients (Radiother Oncol, 69: 227-36, 2003). In 2006, these guidelines were extended to include the characteristics of the node positive and the post-operative neck (Radiother Oncol, 79: 15-20, 2006). These guidelines did not fully address all nodal regions and some of the anatomic descriptions were ambiguous, thereby limiting consistent use of the recommendations. In this framework, a task force comprising opinion leaders in the field of head and neck radiation oncology from European, Asian, Australia/New Zealand and North American clinical research organizations was formed to review and update the previously published guidelines on nodal level delineation. Based on the nomenclature proposed by the American Head and Neck Society and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, and in alignment with the TNM atlas for lymph nodes in the neck, 10 node groups (some being divided into several levels) were defined with a concise description of their main anatomic boundaries, the normal structures juxtaposed to these nodes, and the main tumor sites at risk for harboring metastases in those levels. Emphasis was placed on those levels not adequately considered previously (or not addressed at all); these included the lower neck (e.g. supraclavicular nodes), the scalp (e.g. retroauricular and occipital nodes), and the face (e.g. buccal and parotid nodes). Lastly, peculiarities pertaining to the node-positive and the post-operative clinical scenarios were also discussed. In conclusion, implementation of these guidelines in the daily practice of radiation oncology should contribute to the reduction of treatment variations from clinician to clinician and facilitate the conduct of multi-institutional clinical trials., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

It has been established that an appropriately indicated selective neck dissection can achieve the same oncologic results as more extensive dissections. An even more modified selective neck dissection, termed superselective neck dissection, involves the compartmental removal of the fibrofatty tissue contents within the defined boundaries of two or fewer contiguous neck levels. Evidence from retrospective studies suggests that superselective neck dissection (SSND) is oncologically sound for two indications: elective treatment of the clinically N0 neck and salvage treatment of persistent lymph node disease after chemoradiotherapy. While there is broader support for the former scenario, evidence that SSND may constitute optimal treatment in the latter is in conformity with the trend toward developing surgical techniques that provide better functional outcomes without compromising efficacy.

Cancer spreads locally through direct infiltration into soft tissues or at distance by invading vascular structures, then migrating through the lymphatic or blood flow. Although cancer cells carried in the blood can end in virtually any corner of the body, lymphatic migration is usually stepwise, through successive nodal stops, which can temporarily delay further progression. In radiotherapy, irradiation of lymphatic paths relevant to the localisation of the primary has been common practice for decades. Similarly, excision of cancer is often completed by lymphatic dissection. Both in radiotherapy and in surgery, advanced knowledge of the lymphatic pathways relevant to any tumor location is an important information for treatment preparation and execution. This first part describes the major collecting trunks of the lymphatic system and then the lymphatics of the head and neck providing anatomical bases for the radiological delineation of lymph node areas in the cervical region, it adds to the existing nomenclature of six nodal levels (I-VI), three new areas listed as parotid, buccal and external jugular levels.

Background and Purpose: In 2003, a panel of experts published a set of consensus guidelines regarding the delineation of the neck node levels (Radiother Oncol, 2003; 69: 227-36). These recommendations were applicable for the node-negative and the N1-neck, but were found too restrictive for the node-positive and the post-operative neck., Patients and Methods: In this framework, using the previous recommendations as a backbone, new guidelines have been proposed taking into account the specificities of the node-positive and the post-operative neck., Results: Inclusion of the retrostyloid space cranially and the supra-clavicular fossa caudally is proposed in case of neck nodes (defined radiologically or on the surgical specimen) located in levels II, and IV or Vb, respectively. When extra-capsular rupture is suspected (on imaging) or demonstrated on the pathological specimen, adjacent muscles should also be included in the CTV. For node(s) located at the boundary between contiguous levels (e.g. levels II and Ib), these two levels should be delineated. In the post-operative setting, the entire 'surgical bed' should be included. Last, the retropharyngeal space should be delineated in case of positive neck from pharyngeal tumors., Conclusions: The objective of the manuscript is to give a comprehensive description of the new set of guidelines for CTV delineation in the node-positive neck and the post-operative neck, with a complementary atlas of the new anatomical structures to be included.

Background: We assessed the prevalence of histologically proven normal or invaded lymph nodes in the apex of level V., Methods: Seventy neck dissections were performed in 41 patients with mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Fifty-one neck dissections were performed in 30 previously untreated patients (group 1); 19 neck dissections were carried out in 11 patients previously irradiated (group 2)., Results: Pathologic analysis was unable to identify any lymph node in 70% of the apex specimens. In group 1, no lymph nodes were detected in 63%, whereas one or more noninvaded lymph nodes were present in 37%; in group 2, no lymph nodes were identified in 89%, whereas one or more normal lymph nodes were found in 11% (p = .03). Metastatic lymph nodes were never identified., Conclusions: The prevalence of lymph nodes in the apex was 30%. No invaded lymph nodes were identified. In addition to anatomic evidence, these results suggest that dissection of the apex is not necessary in mucosal head and neck SCC., ((c) 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Purpose: The objectives of this study are to discuss the intraoperative validation of CT-based boundaries of lymph nodal levels in the neck, and in particular the clinical relevance of the delineation of sublevels IIa and IIb in case of selective radiation therapy (RT)., Methods and Materials: To validate the radiologically defined level contours, clips were positioned intraoperatively at the level boundaries defined by surgical anatomy. In 10 consecutive patients, clips were placed, at the time of a neck dissection being performed, at the most cranial border of the neck. Anterior-posterior and lateral X-ray films were obtained intraoperatively. Next, in 3 patients, neck levels were contoured on preoperative contrast-enhanced CT scans according to the international consensus guidelines. From each of these 3 patients, an intraoperative CT scan was also obtained, with clips placed at the surgical-anatomy-based level boundaries. The preoperative (CT-based) and intraoperative (surgery-defined) CT scans were matched., Results: Clips placed at the most cranial part of the neck lined up at the caudal part of the transverse process of the cervical vertebra C-I. The posterior border of surgical level IIa (spinal accessory nerve [SAN]) did not match with the posterior border of CT-based level IIa (internal jugular vein [IJV]). Other surgical boundaries and CT-based contours were in good agreement., Conclusions: The cranial border of the neck, i.e., the cranial border of level IIa/IIb, corresponds to the caudal edge of the lateral process of C-I. Except for the posterior border between level IIa and level IIb, a perfect match was observed between the other surgical-clip-identified levels II-V boundaries (surgical-anatomy) and the CT-based delineation contours. It is argued that (1) because of the parotid gland overlapping part of level II, and (2) the frequent infestation of occult metastatic cells in the lymph channels around the IJV, the division of level II into radiologic sublevels IIa and IIb may not be relevant. Sparing of, for example, the ipsilateral parotid gland in selective RT can even be a treacherous undertaking with respect to regional tumor control. In contrast, the surgeon's reasoning for preserving the surgical sublevel IIb is that the morbidity associated with dissection of the supraspinal accessory nerve compartment of level II is reduced, whereas there is evidence from the surgical literature that no extra risk for regional tumor control is observed. Therefore, in selective neck dissections, the division into surgical sublevels IIa/IIb makes sense.

Purpose/objective: Rotterdam and Brussels have independently published guidelines for the definition and delineation of CT-based neck nodal Levels I-VI. This paper first reports on the adequacy of contouring of the Rotterdam delineation protocol. Rotterdam and Brussels differed slightly in translating the original surgical level definitions as proposed by the 2002 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) to CT guidelines. To adapt to the surgical level definitions to come to a unifying concept, adjustments of both CT-based classifications are proposed., Methods and Materials: The clinical neck nodal target volumes of patients irradiated in Rotterdam by three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) between December 1998 and March 2001 were reviewed. Thirty-four patients with N0 and 27 patients with N+ disease with primary tumors located in the oral cavity (n = 1) oropharynx (n = 24), hypopharynx (n = 7), and larynx (n = 29) were evaluated. Seven patients underwent unilateral (3 N0 patients, 4 N+ patients) and 54 underwent bilateral (31 N0 patients, 23 N+ patients) irradiation of the neck. In 11 N+ patients, 3D-CRT of the neck was followed by unilateral neck dissection. The dose to the primary and nonresected N+ necks was 70 Gy and to the N0 neck was 46 Gy. Neck levels were analyzed for adequacy of contouring, dose distribution, and patterns of relapse. The mean dose and the percentage of the volume receiving a minimum of 95% (V95) or >107% (V107) of the prescribed dose was computed., Results: In 4 patients treated with bilateral 3D-CRT, contouring was not in concordance with the guidelines of the protocol. The V95 and V107 in the 81 adequately contoured N0 necks (63 irradiated N0 necks from 33 N0 patients, 18 irradiated N0 necks from 24 N+ patients) was 95.6% and 6.3%, respectively. For the 26 N+ necks (15 N+ necks from 13 N+ RT-only patients, 11 N+ necks from 11 preoperatively irradiated patients), the V95 and V107 was 94.6% and 6.7%, respectively. With a median follow-up of 29 months, in 4 (8.6%) of 46 patients treated by 3D-CRT only, regional relapse was found. An actuarial regional and locoregional relapse-free survival and disease-free survival rate at 3 years of 90%, 78%, and 68%, respectively, was observed. All regional relapses were observed in the N0 necks of patients with supraglottic laryngeal carcinoma. Taking the surgical 2002 AAO-HNS classification as a reference, adjustments are proposed for the Rotterdam and Brussels delineation protocols to arrive at a unified CT-based neck nodal classification., Conclusion: Adequate dose coverage for the Rotterdam CT-based contours of the neck nodal levels was found. In the RT-only patients, only four failures were observed: one regional and three locoregional relapses. As a next step in optimizing the current Rotterdam and Brussels CT-based delineation protocols, adaptations are proposed to resolve the discrepancies compared with the 2002 AAO-HNS surgical classification.

Background and Purpose: The appropriate application of 3-D CRT and IMRT for HNSCC requires a standardization of the procedures for the delineation of the target volumes. Over the past few years, two proposals--the so-called Brussels guidelines from Grégoire et al., and the so-called Rotterdam guidelines from Nowak et al.--emerged from the literature for the delineation of the neck node levels. Detailed examination of these proposals however revealed some important discrepancies., Materials and Methods: Within this framework, the Brussels and Rotterdam groups decided to review their guidelines and derive a common set of recommendations for delineation of neck node levels. This proposal was then discussed with representatives of major cooperative groups in Europe (DAHANCA, EORTC, GORTEC) and in North America (NCIC, RTOG), which, after some additional refinements, have endorsed them. The objective of the present article is to present the consensus guidelines for the delineation of the node levels in the node-negative neck., Results and Conclusions: First a short discussion of the discrepancies between the previous Brussels and the Rotterdam guidelines is presented. The general philosophy of the consensus guidelines and the methodology used to resolve the various discrepancies are then described. The consensus proposal is then presented and representative CTVs that are consistent with these guidelines are illustrated on CT sections. Last, the limitations of the consensus guidelines are discussed and some concerns about the direct applications of these guidelines to the node-positive neck and the post-operative neck are described.

Simple Summary: In non-well differentiated thyroid cancer, the rate of nodal involvement is variable and depends on the histology of the tumor. We aim to highlight the opinions of several experts from different parts of the world on the current management of the less common types of thyroid cancer to provide a consensus on the treatment of regional lymphatics for these entities. The rate of lymph node involvement is variable and depends on the histology of the tumor. Within undifferentiated tumors', there is an established consensus on the treatment of anaplastic carcinoma, medullary carcinoma and poorly differentiated carcinoma of the thyroid. However, treatment of other rarer tumors must be individualized, taking into account both the aggressiveness of the histology and the anatomical distribution of the disease. In general, prophylactic treatment of the neck is not indicated. Lymph node metastases in non-well differentiated thyroid cancer (non-WDTC) are common, both in the central compartment (levels VI and VII) and in the lateral neck (Levels II to V). Nodal metastases negatively affect prognosis and should be treated to maximize locoregional control while minimizing morbidity. In non-WDTC, the rate of nodal involvement is variable and depends on the histology of the tumor. For medullary thyroid carcinomas, poorly differentiated thyroid carcinomas, and anaplastic thyroid carcinomas, the high frequency of lymph node metastases makes central compartment dissection generally necessary. In mucoepidermoid carcinomas, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors, sarcomas, and malignant thyroid teratomas or thyroblastomas, central compartment dissection is less often necessary, as clinical lymphnode involvement is less common. We aim to summarize the medical literature and the opinions of several experts from different parts of the world on the current philosophy for managing the neck in less common types of thyroid cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Quality assurance is much more difficult to achieve in surgical oncology than in medical oncology and radiotherapy where doses are standardized and toxicities are well-classified. To better define what is required in surgery, we analyzed recent articles addressing the point in head and neck surgery.Results: The surgical report should match with the pathological description of the resected specimen with accurate delineation of the margins, number and level(s) of lymph nodes (capsular rupture if any). Complications (minor and major) should be standardized and meticulously recorded; as well as comorbidities and patient status. The acuity of the procedure should be defined by metrics collected in check-lists. Age > 60 years, male gender, tumor site and T4 stage, neck dissection(s), flap reconstruction, alcohol and tobacco consumption, are acknowledged risk factors for more complications and longer hospital stay (or readmission).Needs: Randomized controlled trials should be designed adopting the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT). Training young head and neck surgeons should encompass formation in designing, conducting and interpreting clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although most malignant lymphadenopathy in the neck represent lymphomas or metastases from head and neck primary tumors, occasionally, metastatic disease from remote, usually infraclavicular, sites presents as cervical lymphadenopathy with or without an obvious primary tumor. In general, these tumors metastasize to supraclavicular lymph nodes, but occasionally may present at an isolated higher neck level. A search for the primary tumor includes information gained by histology, immunohistochemistry, and evaluation of molecular markers that may be unique to the primary tumor site. In addition, 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglocose positron emission tomography combined with CT (FDG-PET/CT) has greatly improved the ability to detect the location of an unknown primary tumor, particularly when in a remote location. Although cervical metastatic disease from a remote primary site is often incurable, there are situations in which meaningful survival can be achieved with appropriate local treatment. Management is quite complex and requires a truly multidisciplinary approach. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: E2374-E2385, 2016 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neck dissection is an important part of the surgical treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The historical concept of neck dissection implied the removal of all lymph node-bearing tissue in the neck, which began in the late nineteenth century. However, more conservative variations of neck dissection have been performed and promoted as well. Anatomic, pathologic, clinical investigations, and prospective studies have demonstrated that the lymphatic dissemination of HNSCC occurs in predictable patterns. Supported by these studies, selective neck dissection (SND), which consists of the removal of select levels of lymph nodes in the neck that have the highest risk of harboring undetected metastases, has become widely accepted in the treatment of the clinically uninvolved neck. More recently, evidence supports using SND in a therapeutic setting in selected cases of HNSCC with limited metastatic disease. Additionally, even more targeted dissections referred to as super-selective neck dissection have been explored for selected patients undergoing elective node dissection for supraglottic cancer and as an adjuvant therapy for salvage of residual lymphadenopathy confined to a single neck level following chemoradiation. In the future, the trend to tailor treatment to individual patients and to limit toxicity and morbidity may further increase the use of SND. The indications have to be guided by further research, in relation with non-surgical treatment options while optimizing oncological effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For patients with advanced regional disease, neck dissection following (chemo)radiotherapy remains controversial. Selective neck dissection (SND) was reported as suitable after chemoradiation in patients with advanced regional disease. Reduced morbidity represents the major advantage of SND. In a situation in which there is a major fibrosis around the previously invaded nodes, resection of 1 or more nonlymphatic structures may be required. The current classification of SND could be implemented by the addition of extended selective neck dissection (ESND). The standard basic procedures for SND spare the sternocleidomastoid muscle (SCM), the internal jugular vein (IJV), and the spinal accessory nerve (SAN). When an SND is associated with the resection of 1 or more nonlymphatic structures, it should be termed ESND. All additional nonlymphatic structure(s) removed should be identified in parentheses. The proposal to subclassify SND not only in accord with the resected lymph node levels but also upon the nonlymphatic structures removed may be of some help to avoid potential misinterpretation. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck, 2010 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Selective neck dissection (SND) is known to be a valid procedure to stage the clinically N0 neck but its reliability to control metastatic neck disease remains controversial. This study analysed if selective neck dissection is a reliable procedure to prevent regional metastatic disease in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We retrospectively analysed the medical records of 163 previously untreated patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx and hypopharynx treated initially in our departement from January 1990 to December 2002. All patients had unilateral or bilateral SND, in combination with surgical resection of the primary tumour. SND was performed in 281 necks. Finally, 146 patients who underwent 249 SND (39 I–III, I–IV, 210 II–IV, II–V) had adequate follow-up and were assessed for the regional control. The median follow-up was 37 months (1–180 months). The end points of the study were neck control following SND and overall survival. Twenty-five percent (30/119) of patients staged cN0 had lymph node (LN) metastasis. Overall, regional recurrence was observed in 2.8% of the necks (7/249): 1.6% (4/249) in dissected field and 1.2% (3/249) in undissected field. Seventy-eight percent (194/249) of the necks were staged pN0 with a subsequent failure rate of 1.5% (3/194); 16% (39/249) were staged pN1 and postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) was proposed in 21 of these patients. The failure rate with PORT was 9.5% and 5.5% without PORT. Six percent (16/249) of the necks were staged pN2b and all had PORT with one subsequent recurrence. Extracapsular spread (ECS) was reported in 16.5% of positive SND specimens (9/55); all by one were treated by PORT with a subsequent failure rate of 22% (2/9). At 3 years, overall survival for the whole population was 70% and statistically highly correlated with pN stage ( p<0.001). These results support the reliability of SND to stage the clinically N0 neck. SND is a definitive operation not only in pN0 but also in most pN1 and pN2b necks. PORT is not justified in pN1 neck without ECS. In pN2b necks, the low rate of recurrence supports adjuvant PORT. The presence of ECS, despite adjuvant PORT, remains associated with a higher risk of recurrence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Larynx cancer is a common site for tumors of the upper aerodigestive tract. In cases with a clinically negative neck, the indications for an elective neck treatment are still debated. The objective is to define the prevalence of occult metastasis based on the subsite of the primary tumor, T classification and neck node levels involved. Methods: All studies included provided the rate of occult metastases in cN0 larynx squamous cell carcinoma patients. The main outcome was the incidence of occult metastasis. The pooled incidence was calculated with random effects analysis. Results: 36 studies with 3803 patients fulfilled the criteria. The incidence of lymph node metastases for supraglottic and glottic tumors was 19.9% (95% CI 16.4–23.4) and 8.0% (95% CI 2.7–13.3), respectively. The incidence of occult metastasis for level I, level IV and level V was 2.4% (95% CI 0–6.1%), 2.0% (95% CI 0.9–3.1) and 0.4% (95% CI 0–1.0%), respectively. For all tumors, the incidence for sublevel IIB was 0.5% (95% CI 0–1.3). Conclusions: The incidence of occult lymph node metastasis is higher in supraglottic and T3–4 tumors. Level I and V and sublevel IIB should not be routinely included in the elective neck treatment of cN0 laryngeal cancer and, in addition, level IV should not be routinely included in cases of supraglottic tumors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]