Necessity of Intraoperative Level IIA Lymph Node Dissection in Patients with Carotid Body Tumors: A Retrospective Study of 126 Cases.

IF 1.3
Heng Ma, Minghui Wei, Xiaolei Wang, Huerman Bahetibieke, Wan Liu, Xiaoliang Wang, Jiaomei Zeng
{"title":"Necessity of Intraoperative Level IIA Lymph Node Dissection in Patients with Carotid Body Tumors: A Retrospective Study of 126 Cases.","authors":"Heng Ma,&nbsp;Minghui Wei,&nbsp;Xiaolei Wang,&nbsp;Huerman Bahetibieke,&nbsp;Wan Liu,&nbsp;Xiaoliang Wang,&nbsp;Jiaomei Zeng","doi":"10.1159/000519046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Carotid body tumors (CBTs) are relatively uncommon neoplasms that rarely have malignant potential. However, malignant CBTs (MCBTs) are still associated with a poor prognosis and the treatment is still challenging clinically. Therefore, we evaluated the necessity of intraoperative level IIA lymph node dissection in patients with CBT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The clinical characteristics, intraoperative details, and pathological diagnosis of 126 CBT patients who had undergone surgery were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to whether level IIA lymph node dissection was performed. The prognosis was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox model multivariate survival analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 126 patients, 7 patients (10.3%) in the selective lymph node dissection (SLND) group (68 patients) were diagnosed with MCBTs with evidence of lymph node metastasis. Two patients (3.4%) in the lymph node nondissection (LNND) group (58 patients) were diagnosed with MCBTs later after the second operation because they could not be diagnosed as malignant initially because of the lack of lymph node pathology results although the pathology of the primary lesion showed features of malignancy. The SLND group had a significantly higher relapse-free survival rate than the LNND group (94.1% vs. 79.3%, p = 0.021). Patients with a confirmed diagnosis had a better prognosis than those with insufficient evidence of a malignancy due to the lack of lymph node information. Twenty-nine patients in the SLND group and 26 patients in the LNND group had postoperative nerve injuries, with no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.879).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Intraoperative dissection of level IIA lymph nodes around the tumor in CBT patients can help improve the diagnosis and prognosis of MCBTs without causing additional cranial nerve injury.</p>","PeriodicalId":520736,"journal":{"name":"ORL; journal for oto-rhino-laryngology and its related specialties","volume":" ","pages":"271-277"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ORL; journal for oto-rhino-laryngology and its related specialties","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000519046","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Carotid body tumors (CBTs) are relatively uncommon neoplasms that rarely have malignant potential. However, malignant CBTs (MCBTs) are still associated with a poor prognosis and the treatment is still challenging clinically. Therefore, we evaluated the necessity of intraoperative level IIA lymph node dissection in patients with CBT.

Methods: The clinical characteristics, intraoperative details, and pathological diagnosis of 126 CBT patients who had undergone surgery were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to whether level IIA lymph node dissection was performed. The prognosis was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox model multivariate survival analysis.

Results: Among the 126 patients, 7 patients (10.3%) in the selective lymph node dissection (SLND) group (68 patients) were diagnosed with MCBTs with evidence of lymph node metastasis. Two patients (3.4%) in the lymph node nondissection (LNND) group (58 patients) were diagnosed with MCBTs later after the second operation because they could not be diagnosed as malignant initially because of the lack of lymph node pathology results although the pathology of the primary lesion showed features of malignancy. The SLND group had a significantly higher relapse-free survival rate than the LNND group (94.1% vs. 79.3%, p = 0.021). Patients with a confirmed diagnosis had a better prognosis than those with insufficient evidence of a malignancy due to the lack of lymph node information. Twenty-nine patients in the SLND group and 26 patients in the LNND group had postoperative nerve injuries, with no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.879).

Conclusion: Intraoperative dissection of level IIA lymph nodes around the tumor in CBT patients can help improve the diagnosis and prognosis of MCBTs without causing additional cranial nerve injury.

颈动脉体肿瘤患者术中IIA水平淋巴结清扫的必要性:126例回顾性研究
背景:颈动脉体肿瘤(CBTs)是相对罕见的肿瘤,很少有恶性潜能。然而,恶性cbt (mcbt)仍然与预后不良相关,临床治疗仍然具有挑战性。因此,我们评估CBT患者术中IIA水平淋巴结清扫的必要性。方法:回顾性分析126例CBT患者的临床特点、术中细节及病理诊断。根据是否行IIA级淋巴结清扫将患者分为2组。预后分析采用Kaplan-Meier曲线和Cox模型多变量生存分析。结果:126例患者中,选择性淋巴结清扫(SLND)组有7例(10.3%)患者(68例)被诊断为mcbt并有淋巴结转移证据。淋巴结非清扫(LNND)组(58例)2例(3.4%)患者在第二次手术后被诊断为mcbt,虽然原发病变病理表现为恶性,但由于缺乏淋巴结病理结果,最初无法诊断为恶性。SLND组无复发生存率明显高于LNND组(94.1%比79.3%,p = 0.021)。由于缺乏淋巴结信息,确诊的患者预后优于恶性肿瘤证据不足的患者。SLND组术后神经损伤29例,LNND组术后神经损伤26例,两组间差异无统计学意义(p = 0.879)。结论:术中切除CBT患者肿瘤周围的IIA水平淋巴结有助于改善mcbt的诊断和预后,且不会造成额外的颅神经损伤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信