Reporting of ECS is essential in accurate prognostication, and we advocate that all patients with OSCC and ECS should be grouped as pN3 on the basis of their prognosis. (c) 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck, 2010.

No abstract

Since it was first introduced three decades ago, computed tomography has become an important investigative tool. Conall Garvey and Rebecca Hanlon explain different types of scanners and what they are used forComputed tomography was first introduced 30 years ago and has since become an integral part of clinical practice.1 Because of rapid advances in technology few clinicians are aware of the scope and limitations of the different types of scanners. This review describes the three main types of computed tomographic scanner that are used in routine clinical practice and discusses their use in the investigation of a wide range of different conditions. It also flags up differing views on the relative merits of computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging. MethodsThe information contained in this review was gathered from several sources. These include many years of personal experience using computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, discussions with manufacturers of equipment, and knowledge of radiation dosimetry issues, supported by a search of Medline and the Cochrane databases for systematic reviews comparing computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.

Background:Extracapsular spread (ECS) in cervical lymph nodes is the single-most prognostic clinical variable in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), but diagnosis is possible only after histopathological examination. A promising biomarker in the primary tumour, alpha smooth muscle actin (SMA) has been shown to be highly prognostic, however, validated biomarkers to predict ECS prior to primary treatment are not yet available.Methods:In 102 OSCC cases, conventional imaging was compared with pTNM staging. SERPINE1, identified from expression microarray of primary tumours as a potential biomarker for ECS, was validated through mRNA expression, and by immunohistochemistry (IHC) on a tissue microarray from the same cohort. Similarly, expression of SMA was also compared with its association with ECS and survival. Expression was analysed separately in the tumour centre and advancing front; and prognostic capability determined using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis.Results:Immunohistochemistry indicated that both SERPINE1 and SMA expression at the tumour-advancing front were significantly associated with ECS (P<0.001). ECS was associated with expression of either or both proteins in all cases. SMA+/SERPINE1+ expression in combination was highly significantly associated with poor survival (P<0.001). MRI showed poor sensitivity for detection of nodal metastasis (56%) and ECS (7%). Both separately, and in combination, SERPINE1 and SMA were superior to MRI for the detection of ECS (sensitivity: SERPINE1: 95% SMA: 82% combination: 81%).Conclusion:A combination of SMA and SERPINE1 IHC offer potential as prognostic biomarkers in OSCC. Our findings suggest that biomarkers at the invasive front are likely to be necessary in prediction of ECS or in therapeutic stratification.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest single-center TLM oropharyngeal SCC series to date. Our data suggest that TLM +/- postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) results in at least as good oncologic outcomes as chemoradiotherapy (CRT), while conferring swallowing function advantages. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck , 2016 © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38:1263-1270, 2016.