Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 135–141 | Cite as

Evaluation of a post-treatment follow-up program in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma

  • Andre Peisker
  • Gregor Franziskus Raschke
  • Arndt Guentsch
  • Paul Luepke
  • Korosh Roshanghias
  • Stefan Schultze-Mosgau
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

The duration and the frequency of follow-up after treatment of oral squamous cell carcinoma are not standardized in the current literature. The purpose of this study was to evaluate our local standard post-treatment and follow-up protocol.

Materials and methods

Overall, 228 patients treated curatively from 01/2006 to 07/2013 were reviewed. To evaluate the follow-up program, data on the secondary event were used. To determine risk groups, all patients with tumor recurrence were specifically analyzed. Relapse-free rate were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier product limit method. The chi-square test was used to identify independent risk factors for tumor relapse.

Results

In total, 29.8 % patients had a secondary event. The majority of the relapse cases (88.2 %) were detected within 2 years postoperatively, 61.8 % of them within the first year. Most events were local recurrences (34.7 %). UICC-stage IV was significantly associated with tumor recurrence (p = 0.001). Gender (p = 0.188), age (p = 0.195), localization (p = 0.739), T-stage (p = 0.35), N-stage (p = 0.55), histologic grade (p = 0.162), and tobacco and alcohol use (p = 0.248) were not significantly associated with tumor recurrence. Patients with positive neck nodes relapsed earlier (p = 0.011). The majority of relapses (86.3 %) were found in asymptomatic patients at routine follow-up.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest an intensified follow-up within the first 2 years after surgery.

Clinical relevance

Given the higher relapse rate of patients exhibiting an UICC-stage IV and/or positive neck nodes, it seems to be from special interest to perform in this group a risk-adapted follow-up with monthly examinations also in the second year.

Keywords

Oral squamous cell carcinoma Follow-up Tumor recurrence Risk groups 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding source

No funding was secured for this study.

Ethical approval

Ethical standards were considered when performing the presented study. All patients gave written consent to the evaluation of their records. Prior to starting the presented study, we asked the local ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of the University Jena for approval. We were informed that ethical approval is not required as the presented study bases on routinely performed and retrospectively evaluated medical records.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 61(2):69–90. doi:10.3322/caac.20107 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shah JP, Gil Z (2009) Current concepts in management of oral cancer—surgery. Oral Oncol 45(4–5):394–401. doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2008.05.017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Camisasca DR, Silami MA, Honorato J, Dias FL, de Faria PA, Lourenço Sde Q (2011) Oral squamous cell carcinoma clinicopathological features in patients with and without recurrence. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 73(3):170–176. doi:10.1159/000328340 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ebrahimi A, Clark JR, Zhang WJ, Elliott MS, Gao K, Milross CG, Shannon KF (2011) Lymph node ratio as an independent prognostic factor in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck 33(9):1245–1251. doi:10.1002/hed.21600 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boysen M (1994) Value of follow-up in patients treated for squamous cell carcinomas of the oral cavity and oropharynx. Recent Results Canc Res 134:205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Merkx MA, van Gulick JJ, Marres HA, Kaanders JH, Bruaset I, Verbeek A, de Wilde PC (2006) Effectiveness of routine follow-up of patients treated for T1–2 N0 oral squamous cell carcinomas of the floor of mouth and tongue. Head Neck 28(1):1–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wensing BM, Merkx MA, Krabbe PF, Marres HA, Van den Hoogen FJ (2011) Oral squamous cell carcinoma and a clinically negative neck: the value of follow-up. Head Neck 33(10):1400–1405. doi:10.1002/hed.21642 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Visscher AV, Manni JJ (1994) Routine long-term follow-up in patients treated with curative intent for squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx, pharynx, and oral cavity: does it make sense? Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 120(9):934–939CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rivelli V, Luebbers HT, Weber FE, Cordella C, Graetz KW, Kruse AL (2011) Screening recurrence and lymph node metastases in head and neck cancer: the role of computer tomography in follow-up. Head Neck Oncol 3:18. doi:10.1186/1758-3284-3-18 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wittekind C, Meyer HJ (2010) TNM: Klassifikation maligner Tumoren, 7. Auflage. Wiley-VCH, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gilbert R, Devries-Aboud M, Winquist E, Waldron J, McQuestion M (2009) The management of head and neck cancer in Ontario. Evidence-Based Series 5–3. Toronto, ON: Cancer Care Ontario. https://www.cancercare.on.ca/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=58592. Accessed 19 May 2015
  12. 12.
    Yuasa K, Kawazu T, Kunitake N, Uehara S, Omagari J, Yoshiura K, Nakayama E, Kanda S (2000) Sonography for the detection of cervical lymph node metastases among patients with tongue cancer: criteria for early detection and assessment of follow-up examination intervals. Am J Neuroradiol 21(6):1127–1132PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wolff KD, Follmann M, Nast A (2012) The diagnosis and treatment of oral cavity cancer. Dtsch Arztebl Int 109(48):829–835. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2012.0829 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2014) Guidelines Head and Neck Cancers. Version 2.2014. http://entcancercare.com/pdf/for_dr/NCCN%202014%20head-and-neck.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2015
  15. 15.
    British Association of Head and Neck Oncologists (2001) Practice care guidance for clinicians participating in the management of head and neck cancer patients in the UK. Drawn up by a Consensus Group of Practising Clinicians. Eur J Surg Oncol 27:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Overgaard J, Hansen HS, Specht L et al (2003) Five compared with six fractions per week of conventional radiotherapy of squamous-cell carcinoma of head and neck: DAHANCA 6 and 7 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 362(9388):933–940CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Flynn CJ, Khaouam N, Gardner S et al (2010) The value of periodic follow-up in the detection of recurrences after radical treatment in locally advanced head and neck cancer. Clin Oncol 22(10):868–873. doi:10.1016/j.clon.2010.05.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ritoe SC, Krabbe PF, Kaanders JH, van den Hoogen FJ, Verbeek AL, Marres HA (2004) Value of routine follow-up for patients cured of laryngeal carcinoma. Cancer 101(6):1382–1389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saussez S, Dekeyser C, Thill MP, Chantrain G (2007) Importance of clinical and radiological follow-up in head and neck cancers. B-ENT 3(4):179–184PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grau JJ, Cuchi A, Traserra J, Fírvida JL, Arias C, Blanch JL, Estapé J (1997) Follow-up study in head and neck cancer: cure rate according to tumor location and stage. Oncology 54(1):38–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    De Felice F, Musio D, Tombolini V (2015) Follow-up in head and neck cancer: a management dilemma. Adv Otolaryngol 703450:4. doi:10.1155/2015/703450 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hermans R (2008) Posttreatment imaging in head and neck cancer. Eur J Radiol 66(3):501–511CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anzai Y, Carroll WR, Quint DJ, Bradford CR, Minoshima S, Wolf GT, Wahl RL (1996) Recurrence of head and neck cancer after surgery or irradiation: prospective comparison of 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose PET and MR imaging diagnoses. Radiology 200(1):135–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schlumpf MF, Haerle S (2014) The current role of imaging in head and neck cancer: a clinician’s perspective. Swiss Med Wkly 144:w14015. doi:10.4414/smw.2014.14015 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andre Peisker
    • 1
  • Gregor Franziskus Raschke
    • 1
  • Arndt Guentsch
    • 2
  • Paul Luepke
    • 2
  • Korosh Roshanghias
    • 1
  • Stefan Schultze-Mosgau
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial & Plastic SurgeryJena University HospitalJenaGermany
  2. 2.Department of Surgical SciencesMarquette University, School of DentistryMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations