Neck management in metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

Objective

Optimal neck management remains unclear in head and neck cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (HNcSCC) with parotid metastasis. Our goal was to compare the impact of different cervical treatments on HNcSCC with parotid metastasis.

Methods

Patients were retrospectively included. The primary outcome variables were regional control (RC) and disease-specific survival (DSS). The impacts of observation, elective neck irradiation (ENI), and elective neck dissection (END) were analyzed using the Cox model and presented as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

In total, 268 patients were enrolled. In the Cox model for RC, compared with ENI, observation was associated with a significantly higher risk of regional recurrence (p = 0.001, HR = 2.50, 95%CI = 1.45-4.30). However, END showed a comparable influence on regional recurrence (p = 0.246, HR = 0.70, 95%CI = 0.38-1.28). In the Cox model for DSS, END demonstrated a similar HR of 0.62 (95%CI = 0.30-1.26) compared to ENI (p = 0.184). However, patients who underwent observation were associated with an additional nearly twofold risk of cancer-related mortality (HR = 2.85, 95%CI = 1.55-5.23). Subgroup analysis showed that ENI predicted comparable RC (p = 0.389) and DSS (p = 0.346) in patients with one or two metastatic parotid lymph nodes, but worse RC (p = 0.007) and DSS (p = 0.024) in patients with more than three positive lymph nodes.

Conclusion

In HNcSCC with parotid metastasis, elective treatment of neck lymph nodes with END or ENI should always be performed.

Neck management in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma with parotid metastasis

OBJECTIVE

Our objective is to assess the oncologic outcomes of observation, elective neck dissection (END), and elective neck irradiation (ENI) in the neck management of head and neck cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (HNcSCC) with parotid metastasis (P+) and to evaluate the quality of life (QoL) of patients who received END or ENI.

METHODS

Patients with P+ HNcSCC were retrospectively enrolled. The impact of observation, END, and ENI on regional control (RC) and overall survival (OS) was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards model with presentation via hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). QoL was evaluated using the University of Washington Quality of Life questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 134 patients were included in our analysis. In the Cox model for RC, both END and ENI had decreased HRs of 0.27 (95% CI: 0.15-0.69) and 0.34 (95% CI: 0.18-0.86), respectively, in comparison with observation. In the Cox model for OS, both END (p = 0.001, HR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.10-0.72) and ENI (p = 0.006, HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.17-0.83) were superior to observation. In patients with three or more positive parotid lymph nodes, END resulted in significantly better RC (p < 0.001) and OS (p = 0.001) compared with ENI. The two groups were found to be comparable in all 12 domains of the University of Washington Quality of Life questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

In the neck management of P+ HNcSCC, observation is not recommended. END is the preferred option, but ENI is an alternative method without compromise to survival or QoL, except in cases with three or more metastatic parotid lymph nodes.

Clinical Perineural Invasion and Immunotherapy for Head and Neck Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To describe outcomes of advanced head and neck cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) with clinical perineural invasion (cPNI) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, and to describe post-treatment radiographic findings in the context of clinical response to treatment using a new grading system.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review was performed for 11 patients treated with ICI for head and neck cSCC with cPNI of large named nerves. The primary outcome was response to treatment as defined by radiographic and clinical evidence. Clinical responses were defined as improvement in symptoms of neuropathic pain, hypoesthesia, nerve weakness, or decrease in visible tumor. Imaging studies were graded based on a new classification system for perineural invasion and reviewed by two neuroradiologists since RECISTv1.1 is inadequate to adjudicate response in these patients.

RESULTS

Nine (82%) patients had radiographic perineural disease control on ICI. Eight patients had improved radiographic perineural disease and one had stable disease. Of these, complete resolution of radiographic evidence of perineural disease was seen in only one patient. Seven (64%) patients had clinical responses, with either improved or stable radiographic disease.

CONCLUSIONS

ICI therapy is a viable treatment option for head and neck cSCC with cPNI. Radiographic and clinical evidence of response correlate well, with improvement in neuropathic pain being the most sensitive clinical marker of response. Even with favorable findings on repeat imaging and stable clinical course, complete resolution of perineural thickening and enhancement is rare. A grading system for classifying changes in perineural disease over time is proposed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 2021.

Prognostic value of the 8th edition American Joint Commission Cancer nodal staging system for patients with head and neck cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: A multi-institutional study

BACKGROUND

The 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer staging manual (AJCC8) introduced a separate staging system for head and neck cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (HNcSCC) which parallels mucosal SCC and incorporates extranodal extension (ENE). This study aims to evaluate its prognostic utility.

METHODS

Univariate analysis of 1146 patients with metastatic HNcSCC from four Australian cancer centers was performed according to both AJCC 7th (AJCC7) and the 8th editions.

RESULTS

AJCC8 increased classification of 924 (80.6%) patients to either pN2a or pN3b and 341 patients (29.8%) from stage III to IV compared to AJCC7. The disease-specific survival (DSS) was not significantly different between pN1, pN2 or pN3a categories per AJCC8. Estimates of model performance for the AJCC8 pN staging revealed modest predictive capacity (Harrell's C of 0.62 for DSS).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk stratification according to pN classification of AJCC8 staging system performed poorly as a prognostic indicator.