Article

Cystic lymph node metastases of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: pitfalls and controversies.

Department of Head and Neck Cancerology, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France.
Oral Oncology (Impact Factor: 2.7). 05/2005; 41(4):429-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2004.09.016
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Lymph node metastases of squamous cell carcinomas in the neck can appear cystic. Without a clinically apparent primary tumour they can classically be considered to originate in a branchial cleft. We report two cases of cystic squamous cell carcinoma with histopathologic criteria of branchial cleft carcinoma. After a review of the literature, diagnostic strategies, histopathologic features, and therapeutic options for this very controversial clinical situation are discussed. We conclude by suggesting that Martin's criteria, largely used to differentiate between a cystic metastasis of a squamous cell carcinoma and a very theoretical branchial cleft carcinoma should be abandoned for lack of applicability.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
63 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With the recent changes in the cause of head and neck cancer and the association of cystic metastatic neck squamous cell carcinoma with human papilloma virus (HPV), patients who are diagnosed with a cystic lesion in their upper neck need thorough investigation before commencing any treatment. RECENT FINDINGS: The differential diagnosis of a cystic mass in the upper neck of an adult over the age of 40 years is a branchial cleft cyst, cystic metastatic squamous cell carcinoma or a branchial cleft cyst carcinoma (BCCC). Investigation must include diagnostic imaging, biopsy or excision biopsy of likely primary sites, such as oropharyngeal sub-sites, and testing for HPV, Epstein-Barr virus immunological status. SUMMARY: The existence of BCCC is an exceptional diagnosis, with less than 40 cases considered proven. Consensus agreement has been proposed on making such a diagnosis. The diagnosis of a BCCC should be one of exclusion rather than presumption, after all other possible diagnoses have been considered and excluded.
    Current opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery 01/2013;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We report the case of a 66-year-old man with a cervical neck mass located behind the left sternocleidomastoid muscle. To exclude malignancy, a full workup, including clinical, radiological, and cytological examination, was performed but failed to provide a definitive diagnosis. Histological analysis following excisional biopsy revealed a benign epithelial cyst, consistent with an atypically located branchial cyst. We describe an approach to the management of these neck masses and discuss several theories of the etiology of branchial cysts and how they may come to be abnormally located.
    Case reports in otolaryngology. 01/2014; 2014:912347.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and ultrasonography (US) in the staging of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity. We compared preoperative evaluations regarding lymph nodes using PET/CT, US, and both methods. The cutoff for the maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)) in PET/CT was set at 2.7 by a receiver operating characteristic analysis that was based on the histopathological diagnosis. US was used to examine internal structural changes on B-mode and hilar vascularity on power Doppler. The performance of PET/CT and US in combination was better than that of each modality separately. However, there were histopathological changes that could not be detected on PET/CT or US. PET/CT could not detect nodes with necrotic or cystic changes. US could not detect lymph nodes that did not have abnormal structures. PET/CT and US are complementary tools to evaluate preoperative patients.
    Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology. 10/2012; 114(4):516-25.