Extent of Extranodal Extension in Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinoma is Not Independently Associated With Overall or Disease-Free Survival at a 2.0-mm Threshold.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The presence of extranodal extension (ENE) conveys a poor prognosis in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC); however, there is no consensus regarding whether the histopathologic extent of ENE (e-ENE) may be a more discriminating prognostic indicator. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of minor ENE (<2.0 mm) versus major ENE (≥ 2.0 mm) on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in OSCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study was designed using an electronic medical record review. Inclusion criteria included patients with OSCC and cervical node metastasis. All subjects were treated between the years 2009 and 2017 in the Michigan Medicine Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (Ann Arbor, Michigan). The primary predictor variable was e-ENE, measured as the maximum distance of tumor invasion into extranodal tissue from the outer aspect of the nodal capsule. Primary outcome variables were OS and DFS. Other covariates included demographic data, tumor staging, and histopathologic data. Descriptive statistics were performed. Kaplan-Meier survival plots for OS and DFS were performed. The data were mined for an alternative threshold at which e-ENE may impact survival using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: One hundred sixty eight subjects were included (91 ENE-negative, 48 minor ENE, and 29 major ENE). Most subjects were male (62%) and the mean age was 62.9 years. Mean follow-up time was 2.97 +/- 2.76 years. There was no statistically significant difference in OS or DFS between minor and major ENE. Five-year OS for minor ENE was 30.4% versus 20.7% for major ENE (P = .28). Five-year DFS for minor ENE was 26.7% versus 18.1% for major ENE (P = .30). Five-year OS and DFS was worse for subjects with ENE-positive disease versus ENE-negative disease (OS 26.9% vs 63.1%, hazard ratio [HR] 2.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.77, 4.10], P < .001; DFS 23.7% vs 59.7%, HR = 2.55, 95% CI [1.71, 3.79], P < .001). At an alternative threshold of 0.9 mm e-ENE, there was greater DFS in subjects with e-ENE 0.1-0.9 mm versus e-ENE > 0.9 (40.6% vs 18.9%, respectively) (HR = 0.49, 95% CI [0.24, 0.99], P = .047). CONCLUSION: There was no independent association between survival and e-ENE at a 2.0-mm threshold.