4.6 Article

A new T classification based on masticator space involvement in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a study of 742 cases with magnetic resonance imaging

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-653

关键词

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma; Masticator space involvement; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prognosis

类别

资金

  1. Sci-Tech Project Foundation of Guangdong Province [2012B031800364, 2011B031800314]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic significance and various classifications for anatomic masticator space involvement (MSI) in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed 742 patients with untreated nondisseminated NPC who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the nasopharynx and neck. The MSI was graded according to different anatomic features. The overall survival (OS), local relapse-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and disease-free survival (DFS) of the patients with different MSI grades were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests. Results: The frequency of MSI was 24.1% (179/742). The 5-year OS, LRFS, DMFS, DFS for NPC patients with versus without MSI were 70.9% versus 82.5% (P = 0.001), 94.1% versus 91.4% (P = 0.511), 81.4% versus 88.7% (P = 0.021), and 78.0% versus 83.5% (P = 0.215), respectively. Significant differences in OS were also found among different MSI groups. In the patients with MSI, the OS of the group with medial and/or lateral pterygoid involvement (MLPI) NPC was 73.9% compared to 51.3% (P < 0.0001) in the patients with infratemporal fossa involvement (IFI). Conclusions: MSI was an independent prognostic factor for OS and DMFS. NPCs invading the masticator space should be separately categorized into MLPI and IFI prognostic groups. We suggest that MLPI should be staged as T3 while IFI is staged as T4 disease in future TNM staging revision.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据