avoiding tonsillectomy bed?

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

seper

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2010
Messages
2,175
Reaction score
1,262
Is anyone omitting TORS site from postop volumes, like it was done in this UPenn study?
Pubmed
Authors' rationale is sound. My personal feel, however, is that primary site relapse risk is not negligible.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I personally wouldnt do it outside of a prospective protocol yet. I do feel comfortable de-escalating most post op patients who met ecog 3311 intermediate criteria to 50 Gy though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
We had a similar case last week.

P16-negative (different from the U Penn protocol) SCC diagnosed by enlarged nodes in the neck (Level II), no sign of primary. Panendoscopy and PET were negative.

Neck dissection performed with pN2b disease with 4 nodes, ECE present
Tonsillectomy performed during Neck dissection, revealed a 1mm primary in the ipsilateral tonsil. Wide margins (>1 cm), L0.

Now what?

This is a pT1 pN2b tonsil cancer. Adjuvant radiotherapy is indicated because of the pN2b and chemotherapy on top because of the ECE. Good.
We will be including the tonsilar bed, as it would be s.o.c. Because the nodes were actually quite big, we will be treating the contralateral neck too. I am aware that there are quite good data on ipsilateral data only for node-positive tonsil cancer (especially in T1), but the data apply mostly for pN1 or pN2a. This is pN2b disease. It was a debate during the chart round, I would have been comfortable with ipsilateral RT only but was not in the majority.

But let's just assume that the pathologist had missed that 1mm primary in the tonsil. So it would have been a CUP. What would that patient get?
A few may have opted for observation, although I would be against it, data for observation is not good in pN2b.
Most (I assume) would have treated the ipsilateral neck only.
Some would have treated the neck and possible sites of primary ( you would have had a false-negative resected tonsil, so you may have been betting on a primary in the floor of the mouth or the hypopharynx or somewhere else, p16-negativity and the big nodes in level II make it more difficult to guess).
Few may have treated the bilaterall neck + the pharynx.
Perhaps some would have given chemo on-top (no clear data for role of chemo in ECE if it's a CUP)?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I am not routinely doing this, but for a truly low-risk tonsil primary, I would not consider it an issue if somebody presented a case in chart rounds with such a paradigm.

If they maintain 98% local control at 5-year follow-up, then I will be more likely to advocate for it.
 
Top