3.5 cm Level II Lymph node with unknown primary

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

mpdoc2

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
479
Reaction score
217
What would you treat?
I've heard anywhere from ipsilateral Level II-IV all the way to nasopharynx, oropharynx, and bilateral Level II-IV...
 
I thought the standard approach was to assume an oropharynx primary, probably base of tongue, and therefore to treat bilaterally. There is nothing even remotely suspicious on the other side or in other nodes? I Imagine a PET has been done? Is this p16 positive SCC?
 
What would you treat?
I've heard anywhere from ipsilateral Level II-IV all the way to nasopharynx, oropharynx, and bilateral Level II-IV...

Here we would biopsy base of tongue, etc to try and determine the primary. If it remains unknown primary, then we would treat bilateral neck and all the way to the nasopharynx.
 
Do a complete pan endo with biopsies of BOT, NP, and bilateral tonsillectomy if it hasn't been performed. Pet/ct as well obviously. Stain the node for EBV to check for NPC. And check for hpv/p16 to evaluate for a probable tonsil or BOT primary.

The tonsils are important....You end up finding a lot of occult primaries in there.

If everything is completely negative, it's controversial about what your target volume should be.
 
Do a complete pan endo with biopsies of BOT, NP, and bilateral tonsillectomy if it hasn't been performed. Pet/ct as well obviously. Stain the node for EBV to check for NPC. And check for hpv/p16 to evaluate for a probable tonsil or BOT primary.

The tonsils are important....You end up finding a lot of occult primaries in there.

If everything is completely negative, it's controversial about what your target volume should be.

What would you do in this controversial scenario?
 
I just had two of these nearly exact same cases (single 1-4 cm level II node). Both patients had the full work up, pan endoscopy, bilateral tonsillectomies, targeted biopsies (NP, BOT), PET CT, and even MRI. No primary ever found. One patient had p16 positive node, the other was negative. I understand if people only treat ipsilateral sites, especially in the era of PET and MRI, but I was always trained to treat comprehensively (but sparing glottic larynx, per UF and per the Head/Neck chapter in Gunderson written by the UF folks).

Patient 1:
A single node positive ~1.5 cm after a selective neck dissection. HPV positive, no other positive nodes out of like 15 taken. No ECE. I pushed for close observation (he was a very reliable patient) but he was adamantly apposed. One of these "I want to be very aggressive types." We went over NCCN guidelines in this scenario showing option of observe vs. RT. Though his PET and BOT biopsies were positive, his node was HPV/p16 positive and his left base of tongue was suspiciously full on my exam. So I'm treated NPX and OPX down to vallecula, L level Ib through SCLV, and right level II through IV starting elective coverage on the R at the bottom of C1 to spare some parotid. Undissected neck/elective regions to 50 Gy, 10 Gy boost to level II-IV on the L (dissected). No concurrent chemo.

Patient 2:

A 3.5 cm left level IIb node, radiographically possible ECE, p16 and EBV negative. No neck dissection. PET negative other than the one lymph node; tonsillectomy and BOT/NP biopsies negative, scope exam negative. I treated NPX, OPX, contralateral II-IV, ispilateral IB through SCLV to 56 Gy @ 1.6 Gy and the node plus ~1 cm to 70 Gy @ 2.0 Gy/fraction (SIB). She also had concurrent Cis. Didn't go great, required a ~1.5 week treatment break due to confluent mucositis and some confusion on her morphine. Break and pain meds switched to something different and she completed without complication.
 
What would you do in this controversial scenario?
If the work up above is completely negative, Assuming the LN is taken out (???) I'd do a dose-painting deal wherein the ipsi neck (IB-V) gets 59.4/1.8 a day and treat the contralateral neck (II-IV) and bilateral OP/NP to 56.1,/1.7 day. Would skip hypopharynx/glottic larynx based on UF data cited above (I'd have to go back and check but I am pretty sure the HP ends up being a very low yield source for unknown primaries and per them, they generally avoid treating it). If the LN wasn't taken out, I would do the above, but treat the node in the same plan at 2.12/day to a dose of 69.96

Does anyone given concurrent chemo for >N1 disease?
 
Last edited:
I rec'd chemo for unresected N2 disease. If the node is taken out as part of a dissection and no ECE, then I don't recommend chemo.

It really ups the toxicity, but I normally do try to see if med onc wants to give it for intact N2 disease.
 
Does anyone given concurrent chemo for >N1 disease?

Usually. If they are N2a with no ECE and otherwise favorable then may omit concurrent chemo. That is, of course, assuming the med oncs didn't already push induction.
 
Usually. If they are N2a with no ECE and otherwise favorable then may omit concurrent chemo. That is, of course, assuming the med oncs didn't already push induction.

Exactly. By the time I see them med onc has either : 1. started induction for whatever reason (ugg), 2. explained to the patient how important concurrent is, or 3. explained why they don't need it.

I can sometimes change their mind, but many times the issue of chemo has already been dealt with.
 
Exactly. By the time I see them med onc has either : 1. started induction for whatever reason (ugg), 2. explained to the patient how important concurrent is, or 3. explained why they don't need it.

I can sometimes change their mind, but many times the issue of chemo has already been dealt with.

I usually get direct ent referrals, so in many cases I have to make that referral/have that discussion in situations where the pt hasn't been referred to med onc.
 
I usually get direct ent referrals, so in many cases I have to make that referral/have that discussion in situations where the pt hasn't been referred to med onc.

Must be nice. It is very different here. Frequently, the med oncs will convince a patient with a very curable tumor, let's say T2N0 BOT, to get induction after we have seen them, discussed at tumor board, and agreed on a plan.
 
Must be nice. It is very different here. Frequently, the med oncs will convince a patient with a very curable tumor, let's say T2N0 BOT, to get induction after we have seen them, discussed at tumor board, and agreed on a plan.
Silly. You kinda have to level with your ENTs. We know a lot more about H&N than med oncs do (try explaining anything anatomical to them lol, usually it's just a cis/erbitux debate in their head).

XRT is the curative treatment +/- chemosensitization when appropriate. Usually the med oncs will ask me which chemo to give LOL
 
I am buttering it up. It's worse than that. Our med oncs truly believe that you can't cure a head and neck cancer without chemo and that induction is superior. What's worse, our surgeons also believe you can't cure anything without chemo. Their practice is a T2N0 BOT with renal failure needs surgery because they can't get cisplatin. It can be frustrating.
 
I am buttering it up. It's worse than that. Our med oncs truly believe that you can't cure a head and neck cancer without chemo and that induction is superior. What's worse, our surgeons also believe you can't cure anything without chemo. Their practice is a T2N0 BOT with renal failure needs surgery because they can't get cisplatin. It can be frustrating.
Not a fan of nccn guidelines I guess. I have to continually remind my med oncs that induction is cat 3 and should be used very judiciously
 
Funny this topic should come up...just saw a guy today treated 2 years ago for uknown primary (3cm level II node, p16+) who has a recurrence vs. new primary in the hypopharynx. Previous RT fields treated nasopharynx and oropharynx only.
 
Funny this topic should come up...just saw a guy today treated 2 years ago for uknown primary (3cm level II node, p16+) who has a recurrence vs. new primary in the hypopharynx. Previous RT fields treated nasopharynx and oropharynx only.
It's never a 0% risk of recurrence just a "too low to warrant the extra morbidity based on an insitution's opinion" one.... sucks
 
Top