evaluation of cancer patient in omfs

112
Evaluation of Cancer Patient Hanan Shanab SBOMFS

Upload: hanan-shanab

Post on 15-Apr-2017

635 views

Category:

Health & Medicine


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Evaluation of Cancer Patient

Hanan ShanabSBOMFS

Page 2: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

TUMOR BIOLOGY• The accepted molecular theory concerning genetic alterations of SCC is

that of a “multihit” tumorigenesis ultimately leading to unregulated cell growth and function.

• It is thought that multiple exogenous insults (tobacco, alcohol, viral) can lead to activation of oncogenes or inactivation of tumor suppressor genes.

Page 3: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• Oncogenes multistep expression of cancer is carried through transformed genes (altered sequence of nucleotides in DNA) called .

• DNA-damaging effects of chemical carcinogens may confer a mutation and transform a normal gene into an oncogene.

• Oncogene dysregulation leads to a gain of function alteration.

Page 4: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• Tumor-suppressor genes are the body's primary cancer surveillance system. These genes produce proteins, such as the well-known p53, p16, and telomerase, that may repair damaged DNA or initiate a self-destruct sequence in a cell with abnormal DNA, causing cell death (apoptosis).

Page 5: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

May 01, 2014 | Cancer ManagementBy John Andrew Ridge, MD, PhD, Ranee Mehra, MD, Miriam N. Lango, MD, and Steven Feigenberg, MD

•Oral Cavity 44%•Larymx 31%•Pharynx 25%

EPIDEMIOLOGY

Page 6: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

EPIDEMIOLOGYAGE• Oral cancer is predominantly a disease of older age. • More than 92% of oral and pharyngeal cancers occur in individuals older

than 45 years. • Its incidence declines after age of 70.• A recent disturbing trend is the increase in oral cancer in younger adults in

the United States and internationally.

Page 7: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS
Page 8: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• Young patients:– Lack significant comorbidity. – Tolerate optimal treatment better, which affects prognosis– Have more advanced at presentation.– higher rates of regional and distant metastases.– Recurrent disease is more aggressive, with a fatality rate of 100%.

Page 9: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• GENDER• Once a predominantly male disease, females have experienced a steady

rise in the incidence of oral cancer since the increase in female smokers began in the 1950s.

• percentage of non-smokers with oral cancer was significantly higher in females, especially in women older than 50 years which related to hormonal influence of estrogen deficiency in postmenopausal women, although the data were not conclusive.

Page 10: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• RACE• African American men have the greatest risk for the development of oral

cancer in the United States ,can be attributed to increased alcohol and tobacco consumption.

• For all stages, whites have a relative 5-year survival rate of 61%, whereas only 36% of African Americans are alive after 5 years.

Page 11: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Clinical CorrelationBased on Site

1- LIP. 30% 2- Buccal Mucosa. 2 to 10%.3- Alveolar Ridge /gingival 2 to

18%.4- Retromolar gingiva. 2 to 6%5- Floor of the Mouth. 8 to 25%6- Hard Palate 3 to 6%7- Tongue carcinoma 22 to 49%

Page 12: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

1-LIP

• In older white men as a result of chronic sun exposure.

• The rule of 90s applies in lip cancer: 90% of lip cancers are SCC.

• 90% occur on the lower lip, the• 90% 5-year survival rate is, and • 90% of lip cancers have no evidence of

nodal disease.

Page 13: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

LIP

• Cancers of the lower lip preferentially drain into level I cervical lymph nodes.

• Subsequent metastases can occur in level II and III lymph nodes.

• cancers of the upper lip and commissure drain to Preauricular, periparotid, and submandibular nodes (level II).

Page 14: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

2- Buccal Mucosa

• Central and Southeast Asia the use of “pan” (a combination of tobacco, betel nut, and lime) has been linked to buccal mucosa carcinoma.

• 10 to 27% of cervical metastases • First-echelon lymphatic drainage level I

followed by level II.

Page 15: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

3- Alveolar Ridge /gingival • mandibular alveolus (64 to 76%)

with high L.N metastasis.• 1/3 of these tumors exhibit some

bony involvement. • Mainly to levels I and II for both

jaws.• Can be misdiagnosed as

inflammatory lesions, periodontitis or gingivitis, tooth abscesses, or denture sores

Page 16: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

4- Retromolar Gingiva(Retromolar Trigone)

• Primary symptomatic complaints with these tumors are sore throat, otalgia, and trismus.

• Lymphatic drainage from this area

is predominantly to level IB& II. • more aggressive in nature with 27

to 56% of cervical metastasis.

Page 17: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

5- Floor of the Mouth• Two distinct lymphatic drainage

systems have been identified in the floor of the mouth:– The superficial system drains

bilaterally (level IB) – The deep system drains into the

ipsilateral (levels IB, II, and III). • ½ of pt. have metastatic disease at

presentation. • 60% of individuals with metastatic

disease will have multiple levels involved.

Page 18: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

6- Hard Palate • In India and Southeast Asia,

where reverse smoking is popular, the proportion of hard palate lesions is greater.

• 10 to 25% evidence of metastasis, generally to levels I and II.

Page 19: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Anterior Two-Thirds of theTongue (Oral Tongue)

• It has four areas: the tip, the lateral borders, the dorsum, and the ventral surface of the tongue.

Sites:• anterior two-thirds (75%)• posterior one-third (25%).

• Several epidemiologic reviews have shown the unfortunate trend of an increase in tongue cancer.

Page 20: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• Lymphatic drainage of the oral tongue is principally to level II, followed by levels III and I.

• Carcinoma of the lateral border generally metastasizes ipsilaterally, but in tip or body of the tongue may exhibit bilateral metastases.

• 40% of node metastasis at the time of diagnosis.

Page 21: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

ETIOPATHOGENESIS/CAUSATIVEFACTORS

• Multiple factors have been associated with increased risk for oral cancer. Although the most compelling evidence implicates tobacco and alcohol, other associated factors:– viruses. – nutritional deficiencies. – previous upper aerodigestive malignancy. – immunocompromised status.

Page 22: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Smoking • Developing oral cancer is five to nine times greater for smokers thanfor nonsmokers.

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Knowledge Update, Vol 4, 2006

equation for the development of oral squamous cell carcinomas: P = Kf X C2 X t4

Page 23: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Kerstin M Stenson. Epidemiology and risk factors for head and neck cancer. uptodate

• Secondhand smoke exposure may be a contributing factor. One report evaluated 59 patients with head and neck cancer who did not use tobacco and with rare exceptions did not abuse alcohol. These patients had a significantly higher risk of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in both the workplace and home than a control population without cancer. This relationship primarily occurred in women and those with tongue cancer

Page 24: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Smokeless Tobacco• In 1981, Winn and co-authors reported a four-fold increase in risk in

women users of smokeless tobacco.• Southeast Asia and India are known for heavy consumption of smokeless

tobacco consisting of various combinations of betel quid (pann)• Associated esophageal, pancreatic, laryngeal, and renal cancer.

Page 25: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• Many of these patients also have submucous fibrosis w/ incidence of cancer from malignant transformation surpassing 7.6%.

• Recent studies suggest that targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) may benefit patients with this habit because of overexpression of EGFR.

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors in Clinical Trials. Review Article | June 01, 2001 | By Janet E. Dancey, MD

Page 26: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

ALCOHOL• The role of alcohol as a promoter in the development of oral cancer when

coupled with the use of smoking tobacco. • This may be related to its ability to solubilize carcinogens and enhance

their penetration into oral mucosa.

Page 27: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

CO-MORBID CONDITIONS• The identification and analysis of the HNSCC susceptibility syndromes has

contributed to early recognition of patients at risk for young-onset HNSCC.

Page 28: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

CO-MORBID CONDITIONS

Page 29: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

CO-MORBID CONDITIONS

Page 30: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Viruses • Multiple viruses have been implicated in the etiology of oral

cancer, including:– Epstein-Barr virus, – Human papilloma viruses-16,14,18 (HPVs). – HIV (There is an approximately 2-3 X increase in the incidence of SCC)– Human herpesvirus-8 is recognized as the most important pathogen in

Kaposi sarcoma.

Page 31: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

HPVs

• frequently involving oropharynx. significantly higher rates of sexual promiscuity.

• HPV E6 and E7 proteins, have high phenotype oncogenic properties , through disruption of key tumorsuppresor genes (p53).

Page 32: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• The clinical behavior of HPV-positive oropharyngeal SCC’s in terms of response to treatment and prognosis, is clearly superior compared to HPV-negative OPSCCs.

• The higher survival rate among patients with HPV-positive SCC is due in part to greater locoregional control, reflecting higher intrinsic sensitivity to radiation or better radiosensitization by Cisplatin-based chemoradiation strategies.

Page 33: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

OTHER• The chronic iron deficiency seen in patients with Plummer-Vinson

syndrome has been associated with a higher incidence of oral and hypopharyngeal cancer.

• A deficiency in vitamins A, C, and E has been associated with oral cancer. Oral cancers have also been associated with low intake of fruits and vegetables, and a protective role may be afforded by diets high in fruits, vegetables, and fiber.

Page 34: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

ASSESSMENT OF PRIMARY LESION

Page 35: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

PATIENT EVALUATIONHISTORY

• Begins with a thorough history of the disease process, as well as a comprehensive past medical and surgical history.

• Specific focus should be placed on common problems in the oral cancer population, such as alcohol abuse, smoking, and malnutrition.

• level of home or family support available postoperatively. Lack of caregivers often requires the use of home nursing or postoperative placement in a skilled nursing facility.

Page 36: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• Search for symptoms of second primary tumors of the pharynx, esophagus, and lungs, a useful guide for further clinical or radiologic examination.

• include hoarseness,dysphagia, odynophagia, otalgia, stridor, and hemoptysis.

Page 37: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

functional capacity of the patient

Page 38: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

PHYSICAL EXAMINATION• tumor’s location, size, and relationship to adjacent anatomic structures.• Bimanual palpation is useful to determine the extent of tumor in the floor

of the mouth, buccal mucosa, and lips. • Fixation to the mandible requires consideration of marginal versus

segmental mandibulectomy.• Proximity to the midline often guides the decision for unilateral versus

bilateral neck dissection when indicated. • Trismus or decreased tongue mobility may be an indication of invasion

into deeper structures.

Page 39: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• Cranial nerve deficits suggest tumor involvement, which may increase suspicion for perineural spread.

• The status of the dentition should be assessed in patients in whom radiation therapy may be indicated because of the risk for xerostomia-related caries and osteoradionecrosis.

• Plans should be made for non-viable teeth to be removed at the time of surgery or before radiation therapy.

Page 40: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• The alveololingual sulcus, a “coffin corner” • This area should be thoroughly evaluated in patients with floor of the

mouth or lateral tongue lesions by anterior retraction and digital palpation of the tongue.

Page 41: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• If primary tumors located in areas that are difficult to assess or may be painful to assess, requiring an evaluation under anesthesia along with panendoscopy.

• Panendoscopy, or “triple endoscopy” = the use of a rigid bronchoscope, esophagoscope, and laryngoscope to examine +/- biopsy.

Page 42: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

ASSESSMENT OFREGIONAL METASTASIS

Page 43: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS
Page 44: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• The neck examination is performed by standing behind the patient and using both hands to evaluate for symmetry.

• Palpable nodes should be evaluated for size, location, and fixation to skin or deeper structures.

Page 45: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Regi

onal

Lym

ph N

odes

Page 46: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

MANAGEMENT OFNODE-POSITIVE NECKS

• Cancers from the oropharynx,hypopharynx, and larynx levels II to IV.

• Oral cavity cancers levels I to III.

• If involovement of level I, II, or III:

• risk for level IV -- 3% to 17%. • risk for level V -- 1% to 6%.

1-6%3-17%

Page 47: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Regional Lymph Nodes• Other groups:

– Suboccipital.– Retropharyngeal.– Parapharyngeal.– Buccinator (facial).– Preauricular.– Periparotid and intraparotid.

Page 48: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Pt. Evaluation for Rreconstructive purposes

• Ideal donor sites have healthy skin, adequate peripheral pulses, and should lack evidence of poor healing or chronic wounds. – Scars– radial forearm flap - Allen test – A pectoralis flap- mastectomy, – latissimus flap - axillary node dissection– rectus flap- Previous abdominal procedures

Page 49: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

NUTRITIONAL STATUS

• Oral cancer patients commonly suffer from malnourishment related to pain, trismus, or dysfunction from their tumor, RTx, alcohol.

• Malnutrition has negative implications on immune function and wound healing, which may be exacerbated if postoperative radiation therapy is planned.

• Consideration should be given to placement of a gastrostomy tube in these patients, depending on the anticipated extent of surgery.

Page 50: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

RADIOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT

(CT), (MRI), (US), (PET).

Page 51: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• - For N0 20% – 45% occult metastasis.• - The presence of neck metastases 50% reduction of 5 Years survival rate • -This has led to the option of performing elective neck dissection (END) in

patients with N0.

Natalie Kelner a, José Guilherme Vartanian a, Clóvis Antônio Lopes Pinto b, Cláudia Malheiros Coutinho-Camillo b, Luiz Paulo Kowalski. Does elective neck dissection in T1/T2 carcinoma of the oral tongue and floor of the mouth influence recurrence and survival rates? British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 52 (2014) 590–597

Page 52: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Plane films• Panoramic and plain film radiography is less useful in the assessment of

bone invasion. • lack of three-dimensional visualization when compared with other

modalities such as CT and MRI. • Early cortical erosion is easily missed on plain films. • Panorex is most useful in planning osteotomies when marginal or

segmental resection is indicated.

Page 53: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Computer Tumography• (+ ):

– Has excellent bone detail, adequate soft tissue enhancement,– Relatively low cost .

• ( -): – Artifact created by metallic dental restorations. This is particularly

problematic when evaluating tumors at the level of the occlusal plane, such as the retromolar trigone or buccal mucosa.

– Irregular tooth sockets or periapical disease seen on CT may be confused with tumor invasion.

Page 54: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• CT is the most common method for assessment of mandibular invasion. • using contrast-enhanced CT with 3-mm cuts ، 100% of sensitivity and a

specificity of 97%. • Necrotic nodes appear on CT with focal hypoattenuation

Page 55: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

HEAD AND NECK SYMPOSIUM Year : 2012 | Volume : 22 | Issue : 3 | Page : 195-208 Imaging in oral cancers

Supreeta Arya, Devendra Chaukar, Prathamesh Pai

(A) Axial CECT showing the Puffed Cheek technique in (B) that separates the buccal and gingival surfaces with air depicting that epicenter of lesion (arrows) is in the buccal mucosa .The lesion does not abut mandible as appears in A

Page 56: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• Radiologic findings suggestive of nodal metastasis:1- Enlarged size,

> 1.5 cm in Level II region or 1 cm in other regions of the neck.

2- Rounder shape, metastatic nodes are round or sphere-like.

3- Heterogeneity concerning for necrosis.

Intranodal tumor necrosis is the most reliable criterion, but it is also a late sign. Therefore, nodal size and shape are the predictors commonly used in the assessment of N0 necks.

Page 57: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS
Page 58: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS
Page 59: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Extracapsular spread• A retrospective study by Snow and colleagues showed a

surprisingly high rate of extracapsular tumor spread in even small lymph nodes.

– >3 cm had a 73.7%, – 2 to 3 cm a 53.3% chance, – 1 to 2 cm a 44.3%, – < 1 cm a 28.8% chance.

Page 60: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS
Page 61: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS
Page 62: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS
Page 63: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS
Page 64: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS
Page 65: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS
Page 66: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS
Page 67: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• Below the cricoids

Page 68: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS
Page 69: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS
Page 70: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS
Page 71: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS
Page 72: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS
Page 73: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

CBCT• These machines are becoming increasingly available in dental offices

and produce images of similar quality to conventional CT with lower cost and radiation exposure.

• CBCT was an accurate method for detecting mandibular invasion better than with MRI and Panorex.

• a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 79%.• A study from the Netherlands compared the accuracy of CT, MRI, and

orthopantography in 29 patients. • The authors noted that MRI demonstrated the highest sensitivity

(94%) but had more false-positive results and often overestimated the extent of tumor invasion. Brown and associates also noted the tendency for MRI to overestimate tumor invasion into the mandible.

Page 74: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Advantages:– superior soft tissue detail – lack of ionizing radiation.

Disadvantages:– sensitive to motion artifact.* – more expensive than CT. – difficult for patients who suffer from claustrophobia. – Certain implants such as cardiac pacemakers and ferromagnetic

aneurysm clips are absolute contraindications for MRI.

Page 75: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

• Appropriate investigation in patients with tongue base or retromolar lesions and suspicion of perineural, extrinsic tongue muscle, oropharyngeal, soft palate, or skull base extension.

• T1-weighted, fat-suppressed contrast enhanced image is the optimal sequence to evaluate cervical metastatic disease.

• T2 MRI with hyperintensity and irregular peripheral enhancement.

Axial T2 MRI with enhancement of SCC of the base of tongue .area of central necrotic enlarged lymph nodes.

Page 76: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Positron Emission Tomography• Functional imaging with F -fluorodeoxyglucose PET has been shown to be

an effective tool in the diagnosis of head and neck cancer, although its role is still being defined.

• Higher sensitivity and specificity for FDG-PET (90%, 94%) compared with CT (82%, 85%) and MRI (80%, 79%).

Page 77: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

FDG- PET Role

• Evaluation of the clinically N0 neck. • Evaluation of an unknown primary• Evaluation of metastatic disease,

tumor recurrence, and treatment response after chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

Page 78: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Drawbacks of FDG-PET • Inability to differentiate between cancerous and reactive inflammatory

lymph nodes and• the poor anatomic delineation of the primary tumor and neck nodes in

relation to surrounding structures, particularly those of a vascular nature.• Inability to detect micrometastases smaller than 5 mm in diameter due to

the inadequate spatial resolution of PET.

The unit of measurement is the subjective uptake value (SUV); values greater than 2.5 to 3.5 SUV are considered abnormal

Page 79: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Ultrasound

• Quick, non-invasive & inexpensive when compared with CT or MRI. • It may be used as an initial study to help guide the clinician in deciding

whether further imaging studies of the neck may be required.(cN0)• Sensitivity& specificity for lymph node metastasis is 85- 95%.• US-guided FNAC has greatly increases its efficacy and specificity.

Page 80: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• Metastatic nodes are characteristically– round to spherical in shape .– frequently hypoechogenic. – In the presence of extracapsular

spread, loss of border definition.– peripheral or mixed hilar and

peripheral vascular pattern

Normal lymph nodes are frequently difficult to detect because of their high echogenicity mimicking that of the surrounding fatty tissue

Page 81: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• Axial view of a normal lymph node. Note the uniform echogenic parenchyma, smooth borders, and oval shape. (Inset) Duplex view, lymph node identified by dashed line with hilar vascular pattern. CA, carotid artery; IJV, internal jugular vein.

(E) Metastatic disease in lymph node with intranodal cystic necrosis. (Inset) Duplex view, aberrant intranodal vessels. (F) Lymph node metastasis with intranodal cystic necrosis, lack of nodal borders, and diffuse extracapsular infiltration (arrowheads).

Jonathan W. Shum, Eric J. Dierks, Evaluation and Staging of the Neck in Patients with Malignant Disease. Oral Maxillofacial Surg Clin N Am 26 (2014) 209–221

Page 82: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

ASSESSMENT OF DISTANT METASTASIS

Page 83: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• Distant metastasis from the oral cavity most frequently involves the lung, followed by liver and bone.

• minimum metastatic work-up for H&N cancer pt.: – PA & Lateral CXR – liver function tests (LFTs) are

• CT of the chest or abdomen and pelvis.• FDG-PET study.

rates in the eventual development of distant metastasis:floor-of-mouth cancer13% carcinoma of the tongue 15%.

Page 84: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

DIAGNOSIS

Page 85: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

DIAGNOSIS• This delay may be because symptoms develop later in the disease• Low socioeconomic group unable to seek treatment until it has reached an

advanced stage. • 14% of adults in the United States have oral cancer Ex.• These detections occurred in the dental office, whether by a dentist, dental

hygienist, or oral and maxillofacial surgeon.

Page 86: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Toluidine Blue

• It was recognized in the 1960s .Toluidine blue is a metachromic dye that has been used as a nuclear stain.

Unknown mechanism of action:• 1- selectively stains cells with increased DNA synthesis.• 2-It binds to sulfated mucopolysaccharides, found in higher quantities in

actively growing cells.

Page 87: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Toluidine Blue

• Several studies have borne out toluidine blue’s sensitivity (89 to 100%) and specificity (62 to 90%) for oral SCC.

• It should be limited to the screening of high-risk individuals, from a large area of abnormal-appearing tissue.

• In the end, toluidine blue cannot be substituted for a thorough oral examination and biopsies when clinical suspicion is high.

Page 88: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Biopsy• This biopsy can usually be done in an office setting or rarely under general

anesthesia with panendoscopy if the lesion is difficult to access and patient tolerance is low.

• Measuring accurate dimension of the lesion should be acquired prior to biopsy in order to properly stage the lesion.

• For large lesion, several biopsies from different sites in attempt to decrease any sampling error that might be read as dysplasia, necrosis, or inflammation.

Page 89: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Brush cytology • in the dental community as a safe, minimally invasive technique for use in

the screening of clinically suspicious lesions.• Brush cytology differs from exfoliate cytology in that it removes an entire

transepithelial layer for cytologic evaluation as opposed to the sloughing surface layer of the mucosa.

• Commercially available kits exist that include a brush biopsy instrument,

glass slide, and fixative.

Page 90: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• The suspicious lesion is sampled by rubbing or rotating the sampling brush against its surface until pinpoint bleeding at the biopsy site is obtained, indicating sampling to the basement membrane and an adequate specimen.

• This specimen is then transferred to the slide, fixed in the office, and sent.

• Brush biopsy results are classified as– “negative” when no epithelial abnormality is noted, – “positive” when definite cellular evidence of dysplasia or carcinoma is

found, – “atypical” when abnormal epithelial changes of uncertain diagnostic

significance are observed, – “inadequate” when an incomplete transepithelial specimen was submitted.

Page 91: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• The largest study of brush cytology by Sciubba and colleagues found a sensitivity and specificity of 100%. reported sensitivities of approximately 90% but a specificity of only 3%.

• It is our opinion that brush cytology is only a screening tool, and any atypical or positive results must be confirmed by an incisional biopsy.

Page 92: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

sentinel node biopsy(SNB) • Indicated for N0 patients who fall under the risk of occult metastasis and

present with a T1 or T2 primary oral cavity.• In head and neck it was first described by Alex and Crag in a case of

Supraglottic Carcinoma in 1996 using lymphoscintigraphy.

Geiger probe

Page 93: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

sentinel node biopsy(SNB) • (SNB) has been mostly used in skin melanomas and breast carcinomas.• blue dye, lymphoscintigraphy and gamma probe (e.g1 % Isosulfan Blue

Dye).• Minamikawa et al. performed SLNB in 21 patients of oral cavity SCC

with clinically N0 neck (sensitivity 80.95 % & specificity 94 %).

Purnima Sangwan • Ajith Nilakantan • Uma Patnaik • Awadhesh Mishra • Ashwani Sethi. Sentinel Lymph Node Localization Using 1 % Isosulfan Blue Dye in Cases of Early Oral Cavity and Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2014;56-61

Page 94: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Positioning of the patient under the Gamma camera

Dynamic and static scans captured using gamma cameras

Corresponding sentinel lymph nodes marked on the patient’s skin

Page 95: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS
Page 96: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

STAGING

Page 97: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

STAGING• The AJCC/UICC TNM staging system :

– Used to help guide treatment and estimate patients 5-year survivability.– Adequate for classifying the anatomic extent of disease, but not all

prognostic factors.• To group patients into statistical classifications that provide

useful information on treatment and prognosis.• Additionally, this standardized format for research assessment

of outcomes, & communication among clinicians by establishing uniform reporting parameters.

Page 98: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Page 99: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

AJCC 7th edition 2010 (TNM classification)

American Joint Committee on Cancer • 2010

Page 100: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Jonathan W. Shum, Eric J. Dierks, Evaluation and Staging of the Neck in Patients with Malignant Disease. Oral Maxillofacial Surg Clin N Am 26 (2014) 209–221

1- Presence of ECE as part of tumor staging.2-Proposed changes designate U for upper neck lesions (below the lower level

of cricoid cartilage) and L for lower neck lesions because distant metastasis rates vary depending on level of cervical metastases.

• The 5-year survival rate decreases with lower levels of metastatic nodes, from 37% for level I to 25% for level IV nodal involvement.

Page 101: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• ECS evident on clinical/radiologic examination is designated – E+ – E−

• ECS on histopathologic examination is designated – En (no extranodal extension), – Gross ECS (Eg): Tumor apparent to the naked eye, beyond the

confines of the nodal capsule. – Microscopic ECS (Em): Presence of metastatic tumor beyond the

capsule of the lymph node .

American Joint Committee on Cancer • 2010

Page 102: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Primary Tumor (T)

Note: Superficial erosion alone of bone/tooth socket by gingival primary is not sufficient to classify a tumor as T4.

Snehal G. Patel and Jatin P. Shah. TNM Staging of Cancers of the Head and Neck: Striving for Uniformity Among Diversity. CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55;242-258

Page 103: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Characteristics of lip and oral cavity tumors

• Endophytic. The tumor thickness measurement using an ocular micrometer.

• Exophytic. • Ulcerated.

Tumor thickness was the only independent predictor of nodal metastases, with thin (≤5 mm) and thick (>5 mm) tumors having a 10% and 46% risk, respectively, for the development of nodal metastases

Page 104: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Regional Lymph Nodes (N)

Snehal G. Patel and Jatin P. Shah. TNM Staging of Cancers of the Head and Neck: Striving for Uniformity Among Diversity. CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55;242-258

Page 105: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS
Page 106: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Distant Metastasis (M)

• M0: No distant metastasis.• M1: Distant metastasis.

• The most common sites of distant spread are in the lungs and bones; hepatic and brain metastases occur less often. •Mediastinal lymph node metastases are considered distant metastases, except level VII lymph nodes (anterior superior mediastinal lymph nodes cephalad to the innominate artery).

Page 107: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

AMERICAN JOINT COMMITTEE ONCANCER STAGE GROUPINGS

Page 108: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Special classification/designator rules

• (cTNM) Initial staging• (pTNM) Final staging• (TmNM) multiple primary tumors.• (aTNM) autopsy.• (ycTNM or ypTNM) Post therapy or postneoadjuvant therapy.• (rTNM) Retreatment or recurrence.• (m) suffix Multiple primary tumors. – e.g., T2(m) or T2(5)

American Joint Committee on Cancer • 2010

Page 109: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

Histopathological Grading:

• Gx: grade of differentiation can’t be assessed.• G1: Well differentiated• G2: Moderately differentiated.• G3: Poorly differentiated.• G4: Undifferentiated.

Broumand V., Lozano T.E.,Gomez J.A.Evaluation and Staging of Oral Cancer. Oral Maxillofacial Surg Clin N Am 18 (2006) 435-444

Page 110: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

R ClassificationThe presence or absence of residual tumor:• Rx: presence of residual tumor cannot be assessed.• R0: No residual tumor.• R1: Microscopic residual tumor.• R2: Macroscopic residual tumor.

Broumand V., Lozano T.E.,Gomez J.A.Evaluation and Staging of Oral Cancer. Oral Maxillofacial Surg Clin N Am 18 (2006) 435-444

Page 111: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

• Cancer is a devastating diagnosis for any patient. Careful assessment of the patient and the lesion is required to formulate treatment recommendations aimed at increasing survival and improving or maintaining quality of life.

Page 112: Evaluation of Cancer Patient in OMFS

THANK YOU