cN+pN0 disease does not portend a less favorable prognosis compared with cN0pN0 in patients with resected oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND We compared the clinical outcomes of patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) with cN+pN0 versus cN0pN0 disease. METHODS A total of 1309 OCSCC patients with pN0 disease were included. Of them, 1019 and 290 cases had cN0pN0 and cN+pN0 disease, respectively. For comparison purposes, we also examined 799 patients with pN+disease (cN0pN+/cN+pN+, n = 239/560). Subgroup analysis was performed in a propensity score-matched cohort with cN0pN0 and cN+pN0 disease (n = 284 each). RESULTS Compared with cN0pN0, patients with cN+pN0 had a higher prevalence of the following variables: betel chewing, pT3-4, depth ≥10 mm, perineural invasion, and treatment with surgery and adjuvant therapy. The prognosis of patients with cN+pN0 (mean: 52 nodes) and cN0pN0 (mean: 39 nodes) disease was similar both in the original cohort and after propensity score matching. However, the 5-year outcomes were more favorable for cN+pN0/cN0pN0 compared with cN0pN+/cN+pN+ (local control, 88%/88%/83%/81%; neck control, 94%/93%/82%/76%; distant metastases, 4%/3%/13%/31%; disease-free survival, 84%/83%/68%/52%; disease-specific survival, 92%/92%/77%/57%; overall survival, 81%/82%/59%/42%; all p values 0.05). cN+pN0 disease (vs. cN0pN0) was not significantly associated with local control, neck control, distant metastases, and survivals either in univariable or multivariable analyses. CONCLUSIONS Despite a higher risk factor burden, the prognosis of patients with cN+pN0 disease did not differ from that of cases with cN0pN0. The higher nodal yield and the more frequent use of adjuvant therapy in cN+pN0 disease may explain the lack of significant differences in terms of neck control compared with cN0pN0 disease.