Skip to main content
Download PDF

Volume 1 Supplement 1

1st Scientific Meeting of the Head and Neck Optical Diagnostics Society

cTNM vs. pTNM: are we as good as we think?

Head & Neck Oncology volume 1, Article number: P19 (2009) Cite this article

Background

Accurate clinical staging of oral squamous cell cancer can be quite difficult to achieve especially if nodal involvement is identified. Radiologically-assisted clinical staging is more accurate and informs the clinician of locoregional and distant metastasis. Locoregional metastasis is radiologically assessed by MRI of the head and neck region and 2D-US of the neck followed by FNAC of any identified neck lump when indicated. Distant metastasis is usually assessed by either a PA-CXR or a CT chest.

Materials and methods

In this study an analysis was performed that involved 245 patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma. Clinical TNM (cTNM) staging involved clinical examination of the tumour and neck nodes, MRI of the head and neck, US neck (± FNAC) and PA-CXR or CT chest). Pathological TNM (pTNM) is provided by the pathologist following the surgical resection of the tumour with or without the lymphatic chain. Both cTNM and pTNM were then compared.

Results

There are occasional significant discrepancies between clinical and pathological staging TNM however in general there is a good correlation between staging (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, 0.9787).

Conclusion

It is debatable that inaccurate registration of nodal involvement during the clinical examination is unlikely to affect the patient's prognosis. Histopathological grading would rectify the error and the patient would undergo an adjuvant therapy (i.e. radiation) that would be delivered anyway in the postoperative phase.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. UCLH Head & Neck Centre, London, UK

    Zaid Hamdoon, Waseem Jerjes, Tahwinder Upile, Farai Nhembe, Priya Shah, Ann Sandison & Colin Hopper

Authors
  1. Zaid Hamdoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Waseem Jerjes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tahwinder Upile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Farai Nhembe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Priya Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ann Sandison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Colin Hopper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Waseem Jerjes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hamdoon, Z., Jerjes, W., Upile, T. et al. cTNM vs. pTNM: are we as good as we think?. Head Neck Oncol 1, P19 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1186/1758-3284-1-S1-P19

Download citation

Keywords

  • Squamous Cell Carcinoma
  • Distant Metastasis
  • Clinical Staging
  • Nodal Involvement
  • Spearman Rank Correlation

Head & Neck Oncology

ISSN: 1758-3284