[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Download PDF
Figure 1.
Algorithm for determination of the extended clinical severity staging system. ASA indicates American Society of Anesthesiologists; BMI, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters); NCI, National Cancer Institute; and FSI, Functional Severity Index.

Algorithm for determination of the extended clinical severity staging system. ASA indicates American Society of Anesthesiologists; BMI, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters); NCI, National Cancer Institute; and FSI, Functional Severity Index.

Figure 2.
Five-year overall survival curves according to the extended clinical severity staging system.

Five-year overall survival curves according to the extended clinical severity staging system.

Figure 3.
Five-year overall survival curves according to the type of complications.

Five-year overall survival curves according to the type of complications.

Table 1. 
The APACHE II Severity of Disease Classification System*
The APACHE II Severity of Disease Classification System*
Table 2. 
POSSUM Index Score*
POSSUM Index Score*
Table 3. 
Distribution of 530 Patients With Oral or Oropharyngeal Cancer According to Symptoms
Distribution of 530 Patients With Oral or Oropharyngeal Cancer According to Symptoms
Table 4. 
Distribution of 530 Patients With Oral or Oropharyngeal Cancer According to Type of Surgery, Neck Dissection, and Reconstruction
Distribution of 530 Patients With Oral or Oropharyngeal Cancer According to Type of Surgery, Neck Dissection, and Reconstruction
Table 5. 
Frequency of Perioperative Complications in 530 Patients With Oral or Oropharyngeal Cancer
Frequency of Perioperative Complications in 530 Patients With Oral or Oropharyngeal Cancer
Table 6. 
Prediction of Recurrence and Tumor-Specific Survival Rates Using the Extended Clinical Severity Staging System
Prediction of Recurrence and Tumor-Specific Survival Rates Using the Extended Clinical Severity Staging System
Table 7. 
Univariate Analysis of Predictive Variables for the Occurrence of Perioperative Complications
Univariate Analysis of Predictive Variables for the Occurrence of Perioperative Complications
Table 8. 
Multivariate Analysis of Predictive Variables for the Occurrence of Perioperative Complications
Multivariate Analysis of Predictive Variables for the Occurrence of Perioperative Complications
Table 9. 
Multivariate Analysis of Predictive Variables for 5-Year Overall Survival
Multivariate Analysis of Predictive Variables for 5-Year Overall Survival
1.
Byers  RM Factors affecting choice of initial therapy in oral cancer. Semin Surg Oncol.1995;11:183-189.
2.
Sobin  LHWittekind  CH Head and neck tumours.  In: Sobin  LH, Wittekind  CH, eds. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours.5th ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1997:17-32.
3.
de Melo  GMRibeiro  KCBKowalski  LPDeheinzelin  D Risk factors for postoperative complications in oral cancer and their prognostic implications. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.2001;127:828-833.
4.
Feinstein  ARSchimpff  CRHull  EW A reappraisal of staging and therapy for patients with cancer of the rectum. Arch Intern Med.1975;135:1441-1453.
5.
Feinstein  ARSchimpff  CRAndrews  JF  JrWells  CK Cancer of the larynx: a new staging-system and a reappraisal of prognosis and treatment. J Chronic Dis.1977;30:277-305.
6.
Wells  CKStoller  JKFeinstein  ARHorwitz  RI Comorbid and clinical determinants of prognosis in endometrial cancer. Arch Intern Med.1984;144:2004-2009.
7.
Clemens  JDFeinstein  ARHolabird  NCartwright  S A new clinical-anatomic staging system for evaluating prognosis and treatment of prostatic cancer. J Chronic Dis.1986;39:913-928.
8.
Feinstein  ARWells  CK A clinical-severity staging system for patients with lung cancer. Medicine (Baltimore).1990;69:1-33.
9.
Piccirillo  JFWells  CKSasaki  CTFeinstein  AR New clinical severity staging system for cancer of the larynx: five-year survival rates. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol.1994;103:83-92.
10.
Satariano  WARagland  DR The effect of comorbidity on 3-year survival of women with primary breast cancer. Ann Intern Med.1994;120:104-110.
11.
Pugliano  FAPiccirillo  JFZequeira  MR  et al Clinical-severity staging system for oropharyngeal cancer: five-year survival rates. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.1997;123:1118-1124.
12.
Pugliano  FAPiccirillo  JFZequeira  MRFredrickson  JMPerez  CASimpson  JR Clinical-severity staging system for oral cavity cancer: five-year survival rates. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.1999;120:38-45.
13.
Ribeiro  KCBKowalski  LPLatorre  MRDO Impact of comorbidity, symptoms, and patients' characteristics on the prognosis of patients with oral carcinomas. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.2000;126:1079-1085.
14.
Durazzo  AESMachado  FSCaramelli  B Avaliação cardiológica pré-operatória para a cirurgia não cardíaca. Rev Bras Cir Cabeça Pescoço.1999;23:7-13.
15.
Wagner  DPKnaus  WADraper  EA Statistical validation of a severity of illness measure. Am J Public Health.1983;73:878-884.
16.
Saklad  M Grading of patients for surgical procedures. Anesthesiology.1941;2:281-285.
17.
Yancik  RWesley  MNRies  LA  et al Comorbidity and age as predictors of risk for early mortality of male and female colon carcinoma patients: a population-based study. Cancer.1998;82:2123-2134.
18.
Charlson  MEPompei  PAles  KLMackenzie  R A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis.1987;40:373-383.
19.
Knaus  WADraper  EAWagner  DPZimmerman  JE APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med.1985;13:818-829.
20.
Copeland  GPJones  DWalters  M POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg.1991;78:355-360.
21.
Robbins  KTFavrot  SHanna  DCole  R Risk of wound infection in patients with head and neck cancer. Head Neck.1990;12:143-148.
22.
Piccirillo  JF Importance of comorbidity in head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope.2000;110:593-602.
23.
Piccirillo  JFFeinstein  AR Clinical symptoms and comorbidity: significance for the prognostic classification of cancer. Cancer.1996;77:834-842.
24.
Feinstein  AR On classifying tumors while treating patients. Arch Intern Med.1985;145:1789-1791.
25.
Satariano  WA Comorbidity and functional status in older women with breast cancer: implications for screening, treatment and prognosis. J Gerontol.1992;47(special issue):24-41.
26.
Feinstein  AR The pre-therapeutic classification of comorbidity in chronic disease. J Chronic Dis.1970;23:445-468.
27.
Neel  HBTaylor  WFPearson  GR Prognostic determinants and a new view of staging for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol.1985;94:529-537.
28.
Taylor  WFIvins  JCUnni  KKBeabout  JWGolenzer  HJBlack  LE Prognostic variables in osteosarcoma: a multi-institutional study. J Natl Cancer Inst.1989;81:21-30.
29.
Pugliano  FAPiccirillo  JFZequeira  MRFredrickson  JMPerez  CASimpson  JR Symptoms as an index of biologic behavior in head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.1999;120:380-386.
30.
Rapoport  AFranco  EL Prognostic factors and relative risk in hypopharyngeal cancer: related parameters concerning stage, therapeutics and evolution. Rev Paul Med.1993;111:337-343.
31.
Kowalski  LPFranco  ELTorloni  H  et al Lateness of diagnosis of oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma: factors related to the tumor, the patient and health professionals. Eur J Cancer B Oral Oncol.1994;30B:167-173.
32.
Deleyiannis  FWThomas  DBVaughn  TLDavis  S Alcoholism: independent predictor of survival in patients with head and neck cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst.1996;88:542-549.
33.
Bundgaard  TBentzen  SMWildt  J The prognostic effect of tobacco and alcohol consumption in intra-oral squamous cell carcinoma. Eur J Cancer B Oral Oncol.1994;30B:323-328.
34.
El-Husseiny  GKandil  AJamshed  A  et al Squamous cell carcinoma of the oral tongue: an analysis of prognostic factors. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2000;38:193-199.
35.
Lacy  PDPiccirillo  JFMerritt  MGZequeira  MR Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: better to be young. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.2000;122:253-258.
36.
Bundgaard  TBentzen  SMSogaard  H Histological differentiation of oral squamous cell cancer in relation to tobacco smoking. Eur J Cancer B Oral Oncol.1995;31B:118-121.
37.
Franco  ELDib  LLPinto  DSLombardo  VContesini  H Race and gender influences on the survival of patients with mouth cancer. J Clin Epidemiol.1993;46:37-46.
38.
Faye-Lund  HAbdelnoor  M Prognostic factors of survival in a cohort of head and neck cancer patients in Oslo. Eur J Cancer B Oral Oncol.1996;32B:83-90.
39.
Warren  S The immediate cause of death in cancer. Am J Med Sci.1932;184:610-615.
40.
van Bokhorst-de van der Schuer  Not AvailableVan Leeuwen  PAKuik  DJKlop  WMSauerwein  HPSnow  GBQuak  JJ The impact of nutritional status on the prognoses of patients with advanced head and neck cancer. Cancer.1999;86:519-527.
41.
Brookes  GB Nutritional status: a prognostic indicator in head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.1985;93:69-74.
42.
Balaram  PMeenattoor  G Immunology of oral cancer: a review. Singapore Dent J.1996;21:36-41.
43.
Linn  BSRobinson  DSKlimas  NG Effects of age and nutritional status on surgical outcomes in head and neck cancer. Ann Surg.1988;207:267-273.
44.
Wolters  UWolf  TStützer  HSchröder  T ASA classification and perioperative variables as predictors of postoperative outcome. Br J Anaesth.1996;77:217-222.
45.
Menke  HKlein  AJohn  KDJunginger  T Predictive value of ASA classification for the assessment of the perioperative risk. Int J Surg.1993;78:266-270.
46.
Reid  BCAlberg  AJKlassen  ACKoch  WMSamet  JM The American Society of Anesthesiologists' class as a comorbidity index in a cohort of head and neck cancer surgical patients. Head Neck.2001;23:985-994.
47.
Kaplan  MHFeinstein  AR The importance of classifying initial comorbidity in evaluating the outcome of diabetes mellitus. J Chronic Dis.1974;27:387-404.
48.
Piccirillo  JF Inclusion of comorbidity in a staging system for head and neck cancer. Oncology.1995;9:831-836.
49.
Shaheen  OH Problems in Head and Neck Surgery.  London, England: Balliere Tindall; 1984.
50.
Arvidsson  SOuchterlony  JNilsson  SSjöstedt  LSvärdsudd  K The Gothenburg study of perioperative risk, I: preoperative findings, postoperative complications. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand.1994;38:679-690.
51.
Evans  PHR Complications in head and neck surgery and how to avoid trouble. J Laryngol Otol.1989;103:926-929.
52.
Kowalski  LPAlcântara  PSMMagrin  JParise  O  Jr A case-control study on complications and survival in elderly patients undergoing major head and neck surgery. Am J Surg.1994;168:485-490.
53.
Yoder  MGKrause  CJKwyer  TA Infectious and noninfectious complications in major head and neck surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.1979;87:797-806.
54.
Pelczar  BTWeed  HGSchüller  DEYoung  DCReilley  TE Identifying high-risk patients before head and neck oncologic surgery. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.1993;119:861-864.
55.
Girod  DAMcCulloch  TMTsue  TTWeymuller  EA  Jr Risk factors for complications in clean-contamined head and neck surgical procedures. Head Neck.1995;17:7-13.
56.
Donald  PJ Complications of combined therapy in head and neck carcinomas. Arch Otolaryngol.1978;104:329-332.
57.
Grandis  JRSnyderman  CHJohnson  JTYu  VLD'Amico  F Postoperative wound infection: a poor prognostic sign for patients with head and neck cancer. Cancer.1992;70:2166-2170.
58.
Becker  GD Identification and management of the patients at high risk for wound infection. Head Neck.1986;8:205-210.
59.
Brown  BMJohnson  JTWagner  RL Etiologic factors in head and neck wound infections. Laryngoscope.1987;97:587-590.
60.
Cole  RRRobbins  KTCohen  JIWolf  PF A predictive model for wound sepsis in oncologic surgery of the head and neck. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.1987;96:165-171.
61.
Lotfi  CJ Fatores de risco para infecção de sítio cirúrgico em cirurgia oncológica de cabeça e pescoço [PhD thesis].  São Paulo, Brazil: Tese de Doutorado-Fundação Antônio Prudente; 2001.
62.
Rodrigo  JPSuárez  C Prognostic significance of postoperative wound infection on head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Cancer.1998;118:272-275.
63.
De Gier  HHBalm  AJBruning  PFGregor  RTHilgers  FJ Systematic approach to the treatment of chylous leakage after neck dissection. Head Neck.1996;18:347-351.
64.
Smits  GKrause  CJMcCabe  BF Complications associated with combined therapy of oral and pharyngeal neoplasms. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol.1972;81:496-500.
65.
Myers  ENDinerman  WS Management of chylous fistulas. Laryngoscope.1975;85:835-840.
66.
Crumley  RLSmith  JD Postoperative chylous fistula: prevention and management. Laryngoscope.1976;86:804-813.
67.
Gall  AMSessions  DGOgura  JH Complications following surgery for cancer of the larynx and hypopharynx. Cancer.1977;39:624-631.
68.
Johnson  JTCummings  CW Hematoma after head and neck surgery: a major complication? Otolaryngology.1978;86:171-175.
69.
Weber  RSHankins  PRosenbaum  BRaad  I Nonwound infections following head and neck oncologic surgery. Laryngoscope.1993;103:22-27.
70.
McCulloch  TMJensen  NFGirod  DATsue  TTWeymuller  EA  Jr Risk factors for pulmonary complications in the postoperative head and neck surgery patient. Head Neck.1997;19:372-377.
71.
Ballantyne  AJJackson  GJ Synchronous bilateral neck dissection. Am J Surg.1982;144:452-455.
72.
Singh  BCordeiro  PGSantamaria  EShaha  ARPfister  DGShah  JP Factors associated with complications in microvascular reconstruction of head and neck defects. Plast Reconstr Surg.1999;103:403-411.
73.
Goffi  LSaba  VGhiselli  RNecozione  SMattei  ACarle  F Preoperative APACHE II and ASA score in patients having major general surgical operations: prognostic value and potential clinical applications. Eur J Surg.1999;165:730-735.
74.
Feinstein  AR Symptoms as an index of biologic behaviour and prognosis in human cancer. Nature.1966;209:241-245.
75.
Feinstein  AR A new staging system for cancer and a reappraisal of "early" treatment and "cure" by radical surgery. N Engl J Med.1968;279:747-753.
Original Article
February 2003

Perioperative Complications, Comorbidities, and Survival in Oral or Oropharyngeal Cancer

Author Affiliations

From the Hospital Cancer Registry (Dr Ribeiro) and the Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Otorhinolaryngology (Dr Kowalski), Centro de Tratamento e Pesquisa Hospital do Câncer A. C. Camargo, and the Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo (Dr Latorre), São Paulo, Brazil.

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003;129(2):219-228. doi:10.1001/archotol.129.2.219
Abstract

Objectives  To establish the value of clinical factors in the prediction of perioperative complications and death in patients with oral and oropharyngeal carcinomas and to develop a new extended clinical severity staging system that combines patient and tumor factors.

Patients and Methods  A total of 530 patients with oral or oropharyngeal carcinomas submitted to surgical treatment were studied. Logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for perioperative complications, and the Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to establish independent prognostic factors.

Results  Daily alcohol consumption, smoking, sex, neck lump, earache, pain, dysphagia, weight loss, oral bleeding, odynophagia, body mass index, National Cancer Institute comorbidity index score, American Society of Anesthesiologists surgical risk, hematocrit level, and total lymphocyte count had an impact on prognosis in univariate analysis. Survival according to extended clinical severity stage was 76.7% for stage 1, 64.4% for stage 2, 44.8% for stage 3, and 25.5% for stage 4 (χ2 = 64.16; P<.001). In multivariate analysis, only APACHE II score, neck dissection, POSSUM index score, and type of reconstruction were independent risk factors for perioperative complications. The final prognostic model included development of local plus systemic complications, extended clinical severity stage, type of reconstruction, and APACHE II score.

Conclusions  Clinical variables have a predictive effect on morbidity and mortality of patients with oral and oropharyngeal cancer treated surgically. Local plus systemic perioperative complications can adversely affect the prognosis. The uniformity of results confirms that survival estimates can be enhanced by the addition of clinical characteristics to the TNM classification, creating a more accurate system for the estimation of prognosis.

ORAL AND oropharyngeal cancers are predominant in the older population. Surgery and radiotherapy are the primary therapeutic procedures, and the choice of therapy depends on factors related to the tumor, the patient, and institutional experience.1 Anatomic extension of the disease, described through the TNM staging system,2 has long been accepted as one of the most important prognostic factors. However, recent studies suggest that symptoms, comorbidities, and other clinical characteristics of the patients are important for therapeutic planning and for determining the risk of complications3 and the prognosis of several types of cancer.410 The addition of these factors to the TNM classification permitted the creation of new staging systems, superior in the prediction of survival compared with the TNM staging system alone.57,1113

Recent advances in anesthetic and surgical techniques, including microvascular reconstruction, have allowed the use of more radical oncologic procedures for advanced head and neck cancer. However, the curative intent can be limited by the hazard of life-threatening perioperative complications. The occurrence of perioperative complications increases the length of hospital stay and the need for other diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, with a subsequent increase in hospital costs.14 Local plus systemic complications and an advanced clinical severity stage of disease are responsible for a worse prognosis in patients with oral cancer.3 There are no preoperative scoring systems directed at particular types of surgery, and reported results are based on studies including all types of surgical procedures.14 Accurate staging and prediction of perioperative complications are of paramount importance for treatment planning in elderly or chronically ill patients with a variety of pathophysiologic alterations because they require continuous medical assistance and high technologic support. However, assessment of the results of providing such care is limited and imprecise. Furthermore, a severity of disease classification system is essential to estimate the pretreatment risk of death, the appropriate indication of surgical treatments, and the prediction of outcome.15

The objectives of this study are to evaluate the importance of clinical factors in the prediction of perioperative complications and survival in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer and to develop a more accurate estimate of the prognosis by combining patient and tumor factors in a new staging system.

METHODS

The medical records of 530 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity and oropharynx admitted to the Centro de Tratamento e Pesquisa Hospital do Câncer A. C. Camargo between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 1997, were reviewed. The following criteria were used for inclusion in the study: a histologically confirmed diagnosis, absence of previous oncologic treatment for this primary tumor, no distant metastasis, and surgical treatment with a curative purpose, exclusive or as part of a multidisciplinary approach.

Data collection from the medical records was performed using a specially designed form. These data included demographic information, hematocrit level, hemoglobin level, body mass index, smoking status, alcoholism status, TNM staging (Union Internationale Contre le Cancer or American Joint Committee on Cancer classification),2 tumor site, surgical risk according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA),16 type of surgery and neck dissection, type of reconstruction, blood transfusion, comorbidities according to National Cancer Institute classification,17 Charlson Comorbidity Index score,18 Functional Severity Index,13 extended clinical severity stage (ECSS),13 APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) score,19 POSSUM (Physiological and Operative Severity Score for Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity) index score,20 length of stay in an intensive care unit (ICU), length of hospital stay, and perioperative complications. Outcome measures included development of complications in the immediate postoperative period (30 days) and 5-year overall survival rates. Patients were followed from the date of diagnosis to the date of last objective evaluation or death. Only 9.1% of the patients were lost to follow-up.

The APACHE II classification is a revised version of a prototype system, the APACHE, and includes 12 physiologic measures (temperature; mean arterial pressure; heart rate; respiratory rate; oxygenation; arterial pH; serum sodium, potassium, and creatinine levels; hematocrit level; white blood cell count; and Glasgow Coma Scale score), age, and severe chronic health problems. The physiologic score is determined from the worst value, for example, the lowest hematocrit level or the highest respiratory rate, during the initial 24 hours after ICU admission (Table 1).19 We also applied the APACHE II for patients not referred to the ICU based on findings from the first 24 hours after surgery.

The POSSUM index was developed by multivariant discriminant analysis to obtain a method of risk assessment. A 12-factor, 4-grade physiologic score was developed that included age; cardiac status; pulse rate; systolic blood pressure; respiratory status; Glasgow Coma Scale score; serum concentrations of urea, potassium, and sodium; hemoglobin concentration; white blood cell count; and findings on electrocardiography. This score was combined with a 6-factor operative score that compensates for the type of surgical procedure and includes type and number of procedures, volume of blood loss, peritoneal contamination, presence and extent of malignancy, and timing of surgery (Table 2).20 In this study, operative severity was minor (pelvectomy, partial glossectomy, or intraoral resection without neck dissection), moderate (total glossectomy, hemiglossectomy, pelviglossectomy, sectional pelviglossomandibulectomy, marginal pelviglossomandibulectomy, wide excision, classic or modified retromolar operation, inframesostructure resection, buccopharyngectomy, or any surgical procedure with unilateral neck dissection), major (any surgical procedure with myocutaneous flap reconstruction), or major plus (any surgical procedure with microvascular reconstruction). For both indexes, if an item was not evaluated and the patient did not have any disease that could be responsible for an abnormal result, the lowest score was assigned.

Patients were electively referred to the ICU based on one of the following criteria: expected operative time longer than 6 hours or the presence of a comorbidity diagnosed before surgery, such as coronary insufficiency or advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease requiring strict cardiopulmonary monitoring.

Wound infection was recorded only for patients with suppurative drainage and those who developed a mucocutaneous fistula.21 Wounds noted to have erythema or erythema and edema may be considered to be infected in the presence of fever, based on an evaluation performed by the surgeon.

The information from the forms was entered into a database (Dbase for Windows; Borland International, Scotts Valley, Calif). Periodically, revisions were made to verify the internal consistency of the data. For the statistical analysis, commercially available software (SPSS for Windows, release 10.0; SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill) was used. Descriptive statistics were used as a preliminary analysis of the relation between baseline variables and outcome events. The t test was used to compare means. Continuous variables were categorized to facilitate data analysis and presentation. Logistic regression was used to find independent risk factors for perioperative complications (present or absent). Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method (the log-rank test was used to compare the curves) and the Cox proportional hazards model to estimate independent risk factors for death. For all statistical tests, α = .05 was established.

RESULTS

The cohort of 530 patients included 439 men (82.8%) and 91 women (17.2%); 446 patients were white (84.2%) and 84 (15.8%) belonged to other ethnic groups. The mean patient age was 57.3 years (range, 27-87 years). Tumors were located in the following sites: 34 on the base of the tongue (6.4%), 138 on the oral tongue (26.0%), 52 on the gums (9.8%), 129 on the floor of the mouth (24.3%), 14 on the palate (2.7%), 71 on other parts of the mouth (13.5%), 84 on the tonsils (15.8%), and 8 on the oropharynx (1.5%). Most patients had advanced tumors (TNM clinical stage IV, 47.3%) and reported a variety of symptoms (Table 3).

All patients underwent surgery as the primary treatment, and 330 patients were exposed to radiation as adjuvant therapy. Four hundred seventy-eight patients also underwent neck dissection as a part of the initial treatment. Operative time ranged from 25 to 960 minutes (median, 360 minutes). Most patients (54.3%) did not undergo intraoperative blood transfusion. Primary closure was used for 216 patients (40.8%), and several types of reconstruction were used on the remaining patients (Table 4). Two hundred forty-eight patients (46.8%) were electively referred to the ICU 1 to 20 days (median, 2 days) after surgery. The length of hospital stay ranged from 0 to 71 days (mean, 8 days). Patients with perioperative complications had a significantly longer hospital stay (mean, 11.9 days) than those without perioperative complications (mean, 7.1 days) (P<.001).

The incidence of perioperative complications was 58.9%. Wound infection (32.5%) and dehiscence (26.2%) were the most frequent events (Table 5). Postoperative mortality was 2.6%.

Ninety-six percent of patients had comorbidities when classified according to the National Cancer Institute index compared with 39.1% when using the Charlson Comorbidity Index. The ASA classification provided the following results: ASA I, 9.3%; ASA II, 62.6%; ASA III, 27.6%; and ASA IV, 0.6%. The median POSSUM index score was 27 (range, 19-48), and the APACHE II score varied from 0 to 23 (median, 7).

The Cox proportional hazards model identified, in an univariate analysis, 15 variables that affected prognosis (P≤.10): daily alcohol consumption (hazard ratio [HR], 1.5; P = .003), smoking (HR, 1.5; P = .03), male sex (HR, 1.4; P = .04), neck lump (HR, 1.5; P = .002), earache (HR, 1.5; P = .005), pain (HR, 1.5; P = .002), dysphagia (HR, 2.3; P<.001), weight loss (HR, 1.4, P = .002), oral bleeding (HR, 2.0; P<.001), odynophagia (HR, 1.4; P = .02), body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters) of 22.3 or less (HR, 1.3; P = .01), National Cancer Institute comorbidity index score greater than 2 (HR, 1.4; P = .008), ASA surgical risk III/IV (HR, 1.5; P = .003), hematocrit level less than 34.5% (HR, 1.5; P = .03), and total lymphocyte count of 1.2 × 103/µL or less (HR, 1.6; P = .008). The Functional Severity Index was built through multiplication of the HRs for each patient. When the condition was not present, we gave the value of 1 for that category. The score ranged from 1 to 199.37 (median, 8.6), and the patients were grouped into 3 categories based on terciles: high (score >12.90), intermediate (score >6.14 and ≤12.90), and low (score ≤6.14) grade of functional impairment. Survival analysis confirmed a statistically significant difference in 5-year overall survival among the 3 groups of the Functional Severity Index: low grade, 63.2%; intermediate grade, 45.8%; and high grade, 22.8% (χ2 = 52.53; P<.001). Therefore, according to a previously described method,11 the next step was the conjunction of the Functional Severity Index with the TNM staging system. The categories of the conjunction of the 2 classifications were then consolidated to create an ECSS system, also composed of 4 stages (Figure 1). Five-year overall survival for this ECSS system was as follows: stage 1, 76.7%; stage 2, 64.4%; stage 3, 44.8%; and stage 4, 25.5% (χ2 = 64.16; P<.001) (Figure 2).

The comparison among the systems demonstrated that the ECSS system overcame TNM, exhibiting a higher survival gradient (51.2 vs 37.4) and a higher χ2 test value (64.16 vs 44.33). When both variables (TNM and ECSS) were included in the multivariate models for recurrence or tumor-specific survival, statistical significance was lost. Therefore, it was decided to keep ECSS in the final models, adjusted for type of reconstruction, type of complications, and APACHE II score. In this way, the ECSS system also could be recognized as better than TNM alone in the prediction of tumor-specific survival and recurrences (Table 6).

The occurrence of perioperative complications was associated with the following variables: APACHE II score (P<.001), surgical time (P<.001), TNM clinical stage (P<.001), ECSS (P<.001), neck dissection (P<.001), type of reconstruction (P<.001), intraoperative blood transfusion (P<.001), staying in an ICU (P<.001), ASA surgical risk (P = .02), POSSUM index score (P<.001), and race (P = .02) (Table 7). In multivariate analysis, only APACHE II score (OR, 2.6; P<.001), neck dissection (unilateral: OR, 4.3; P<.001; and bilateral: OR, 4.8; P<.001), POSSUM index score (OR, 1.7; P = .02), and type of reconstruction (OR, 2.1; P = .001) were identified as independent risk factors for perioperative complications (Table 8).

The final predictive prognostic model included the development of local plus systemic complications (Figure 3) (HR, 2.2), ECSS (stage 3: HR, 2.1; stage 4: HR, 3.4), type of reconstruction (myocutaneous or microvascular flap: HR, 1.6), and APACHE II score greater than 10 (HR, 1.3) (Table 9).

COMMENT

Patients with head and neck cancer are especially likely to have comorbidities as a result of chronic alcohol and tobacco consumption. Comorbidities can impact the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of patients with cancer.22

The TNM classification has been universally accepted and widely used to describe tumor characteristics and predict survival rates. However, the system fails for not taking into account the clinical biological features of the cancer, which is expressed by structural changes and its physiologic detriments in the patient.13 The gross anatomic aspects (extent of the disease), the microscopic appearance (cell type and degree of differentiation), and the biomolecular characteristics (tumor markers and ploidy) are different modes to describe tumor morphologic structure.23 Cancer symptoms (type, duration, and severity)24 and the performance status of the host25 are clinical factors that represent the seriousness of illness in a patient. Although comorbidity is not related to the cancer itself, it is an important clinical aspect for being able to affect the choice of treatment and prognosis.6,7,10,26

The purpose of using symptoms as a prognostic factor in cancer is not new, since important prognostic information is already described for different types of cancer.6,7 Neel et al27 demonstrated that when patients with nasopharyngeal cancer were grouped into 2 categories based on the number and duration of symptoms (eg, epistaxis, loss of sense of smell, and tinnitus) at initial presentation, they had significantly different survival rates in each category. In patients with osteosarcoma, weight loss had a notable prognostic impact that remained important in multivariate analysis even after controlling for other possible prognostic factors, such as symptom duration, tumor site, regional spread, grade, microscopic morphologic findings of the tumor, swelling at the tumor site, and lytic appearance of the tumor.28 The presence of chills, fevers, or night sweats has been correlated with worse survival in patients with lymphoma for many years, being used as a modifier in the staging system.29

Previous studies9,1113 on laryngeal, oral, and oropharyngeal cancers proved that symptom severity contributes additional prognostic data not available from anatomic staging alone. Our findings that symptoms such as a neck lump, dysphagia, weight loss, and oral cavity bleeding are prognostic factors validate results from previous studies.1113,29

To our knowledge, odynophagia had not yet been proved to have an independent impact on overall survival in patients with oral or oropharyngeal cancer until this publication. Pugliano et al29 demonstrated the effect of this symptom on survival rates only in a univariate analysis. However, this symptom had already been reported30 as an independent prognostic factor in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the hypopharynx. A previous study31 reported that the presence of odynophagia was associated with advanced stages owing to lateness of diagnosis, but in our series the same frequency of the symptom has been found in the initial and advanced stages (data not shown).

Alcohol consumption remained related to survival rates, as in our previous study,13 which emphasizes that the high prevalence of alcohol abuse among these patients justifies the inclusion of alcohol use in a prognostic system.32

Smoking determined a worse prognosis, which is in agreement with other studies.33,34 Other authors also emphasized the negative effect of smoking on survival in young patients with head and neck cancer.35 Tobacco consumption seems to induce the tumor cells of oral squamous cell carcinomas to undergo a more pronounced dedifferentiation that makes them more aggressive.36 Therefore, our results suggest that smoking and alcohol cessation programs should be warranted not only with a prophylactic purpose but also with a therapeutic purpose.33

Sex was also identified as a prognostic factor in this study. A lower risk of death was found among women. The survival advantage experienced by females, independent of the effect of other clinical factors, had been already reported in other series.37,38

Malnutrition has been recognized for many years as a comorbid condition in patients with cancer,39 and it is reported to affect 30% to 50% of all patients with head and neck cancer.40 Although evaluation of nutritional status in this study was limited to body mass index and weight loss before treatment, the results are in concordance with literature40,41 that described the negative effect of a poor nutritional status on survival. Immune depression, represented in this study by the total lymphocyte count, is recognized as a consistent metabolic effect in oral cancer, and monitoring of the immunoregulatory status has been shown to be correlated with prognosis.42 It is reported that the preoperative level of malnutrition is associated significantly with postoperative complications and death.43 Therefore, it seems likely that an improvement in nutritional status before surgery, particularly in elderly patients, might decrease postoperative morbidity rates.43

The ASA classification represents a simple estimation of physiologic status without the need for clinical resources, and it can be applied to every patient before surgery.44 The correlation between ASA classification and postoperative morbidity and mortality rates has been shown in previous studies.44,45 The association between ASA classification and prognosis noted in our study is another indication of the effect of poor physical status on outcome. A recent study46 of patients with head and neck cancer concluded that ASA class is comparable to the Charlson index, displaying equal if not greater prognostic value for mortality. This ability was still observed beyond the perioperative period.46

We could not confirm the prognostic value of age found in our previous study,13 probably because of the low number of elderly patients with oropharyngeal carcinomas in this sample. Because surgery carries the risk of aspiration and postoperative complications, there is a tendency to refer these patients to exclusive radiotherapy.

In addition to symptoms, the presence of comorbidities has been shown to decrease survival rates in several chronic diseases,47 demonstrating higher prognostic impact than tumor size or stage in many cancers.48 Moreover, there are preventive implications because alcohol abuse and smoking are major risk factors in head and neck cancer and are also related to other chronic diseases. Primary prevention that begins in an early age and continues throughout life is critical to reduction of the burden of these illnesses.48

Perioperative complications are defined as unexpected but avoidable events that arise during surgery or in the postoperative period.49,50 Complications after major surgery for patients with oral cancer increase treatment costs, delay adjuvant treatment, augment late sequelae, affect quality of life, and can also cause the patient's death if not promptly diagnosed and treated.51 During the past few years, several advances in medical knowledge and techniques improved the safety of major head and neck oncologic surgery, decreasing the risk and severity of complications.52 However, the rates of complications are still high, and the identification of associated risk factors can reduce morbidity and mortality rates in patients with oral or oropharyngeal cancer.5355

In our study, the incidence of perioperative complications was similar to that in other studies in the literature.5256

Wound infection was the most frequently occurring of all local and systemic complications, as already described in the literature.3,21,55,57 Many recent studies5860 have addressed the issue of identifying patients at high risk for developing a wound infection after head and neck oncologic surgery. Advanced stage of tumor,21 type of reconstruction,21,61 preoperative radiotherapy,53 nutritional status,21 comorbidities,21,61 duration of surgery,21 classification of the procedure,21 antibiotic prophylaxis,21,61 tobacco use,61 and alcohol consumption21 have been significantly related to postoperative wound infection. However, the prognostic significance of postoperative wound infection on head and neck cancer remains controversial.62

Chylous fistula is an uncommon complication after neck dissection, occurring in 1.0% to 2.5% of radical neck dissections,63 and the incidence in this study is similar to that in other series.53,6466 Our incidence of hematoma is higher than the rates reported by other researchers,53,67 but it is lower than the 4.2% rate described by Johnson and Cummings.68

In the present series, a low rate of pneumonia was detected, whereas in other studies53,69,70 it ranged from 7% to 15%. Although head and neck surgery rarely approaches the pleural space, tracheostomy, pharyngolaryngeal tumor resection, and the use of regional reconstructive flaps from the chest and abdomen may indirectly impact and impair respiratory function.70 The etiology of pulmonary infections after head and neck surgery is most likely multifactorial. Factors may include prolonged anesthesia, resulting in alveolar hypoventilation and atelectasis, as well as aspiration of oropharyngeal secretions during and immediately after surgery.69 The intensive pulmonary care and the low number of patients submitted to hemiglossectomy or total glossectomy with risk for aspiration are probably responsible for this low rate of pneumonia in our patients.3

The mortality rate (2.6%) in our study is comparable to that in other studies.52,53 The causes of postoperative death in our study were arterial rupture and hypovolemic shock, respiratory distress, bronchopneumonia, acute pulmonary edema, pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrhythmia, and sudden death.

The choice of a neck dissection is based on the primary site and on the number, size, and location of positive lymph nodes. In addition, the results and morbidity associated with each type of neck dissection must be considered. Bilateral radical neck dissection has been used for many years for the treatment of proved or suspected bilateral metastatic disease, carrying significant morbidity and mortality rates.71

The use of microvascular-free tissue transfer has warranted the reconstruction of increasingly complex defects in high-risk patients after head and neck cancer surgical treatment.72 However the association of these factors also originates a higher risk for complications,3,72 as occurred in our study.

The prognostic value of the APACHE II has been shown in patients having major general surgery, with indications that included colorectal cancer, breast cancer, gastric cancer, ovarian cancer, lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer.73 In this study, we confirmed our previous finding3 that APACHE II score predicts perioperative complications. To our knowledge, this is first study to establish the prognostic value of the APACHE II score for patients with head and neck cancer.

Clinical staging systems that include patients' clinical characteristics have been developed and have shown prognostic gradients for several types of cancer. Although the customary staging systems describe the morphologic appearance of and the structural damage produced by the tumor, no attention is given to the tumor's duration and rate of growth, which can be revealed as the functional effects of the cancer in structures or systems that may or may not be anatomically involved.74,75

The ECSS system developed in this study provides a better estimate of 5-year overall survival, tumor-specific survival, and recurrence rates compared with the TNM. The superiority of this kind of staging system was previously reported in various other studies focusing on oral,12,13 oropharyngeal,11 or laryngeal cancer,9 confirming the hypothesis that clinical variables have important prognostic value.

Survival estimates in head and neck cancer can be improved by the addition of clinical elements to the TNM classification, creating a more powerful and precise staging system. Prediction of outcome is important in disease stratification and subsequent decision-making processes.73 Identification of risk factors for perioperative complications may help the surgeon classify patients into groups with distinct probabilities of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Thus, the reduction of risk factors for perioperative complications and chronic diseases can turn into a better prognosis in patients with oral or oropharyngeal cancer.

Back to top
Article Information

Corresponding author and reprints: Luiz Paulo Kowalski, MD, PhD, Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Otorhinolaryngology, Centro de Tratamento e Pesquisa Hospital do Câncer A. C. Camargo, R. Professor Antônio Pudente, 211, CEP 01509-010 São Paulo-SP, Brazil (e-mail: lp_kowalski@uol.com.br).

Accepted for publication July 18, 2002.

References
1.
Byers  RM Factors affecting choice of initial therapy in oral cancer. Semin Surg Oncol.1995;11:183-189.
2.
Sobin  LHWittekind  CH Head and neck tumours.  In: Sobin  LH, Wittekind  CH, eds. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours.5th ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1997:17-32.
3.
de Melo  GMRibeiro  KCBKowalski  LPDeheinzelin  D Risk factors for postoperative complications in oral cancer and their prognostic implications. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.2001;127:828-833.
4.
Feinstein  ARSchimpff  CRHull  EW A reappraisal of staging and therapy for patients with cancer of the rectum. Arch Intern Med.1975;135:1441-1453.
5.
Feinstein  ARSchimpff  CRAndrews  JF  JrWells  CK Cancer of the larynx: a new staging-system and a reappraisal of prognosis and treatment. J Chronic Dis.1977;30:277-305.
6.
Wells  CKStoller  JKFeinstein  ARHorwitz  RI Comorbid and clinical determinants of prognosis in endometrial cancer. Arch Intern Med.1984;144:2004-2009.
7.
Clemens  JDFeinstein  ARHolabird  NCartwright  S A new clinical-anatomic staging system for evaluating prognosis and treatment of prostatic cancer. J Chronic Dis.1986;39:913-928.
8.
Feinstein  ARWells  CK A clinical-severity staging system for patients with lung cancer. Medicine (Baltimore).1990;69:1-33.
9.
Piccirillo  JFWells  CKSasaki  CTFeinstein  AR New clinical severity staging system for cancer of the larynx: five-year survival rates. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol.1994;103:83-92.
10.
Satariano  WARagland  DR The effect of comorbidity on 3-year survival of women with primary breast cancer. Ann Intern Med.1994;120:104-110.
11.
Pugliano  FAPiccirillo  JFZequeira  MR  et al Clinical-severity staging system for oropharyngeal cancer: five-year survival rates. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.1997;123:1118-1124.
12.
Pugliano  FAPiccirillo  JFZequeira  MRFredrickson  JMPerez  CASimpson  JR Clinical-severity staging system for oral cavity cancer: five-year survival rates. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.1999;120:38-45.
13.
Ribeiro  KCBKowalski  LPLatorre  MRDO Impact of comorbidity, symptoms, and patients' characteristics on the prognosis of patients with oral carcinomas. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.2000;126:1079-1085.
14.
Durazzo  AESMachado  FSCaramelli  B Avaliação cardiológica pré-operatória para a cirurgia não cardíaca. Rev Bras Cir Cabeça Pescoço.1999;23:7-13.
15.
Wagner  DPKnaus  WADraper  EA Statistical validation of a severity of illness measure. Am J Public Health.1983;73:878-884.
16.
Saklad  M Grading of patients for surgical procedures. Anesthesiology.1941;2:281-285.
17.
Yancik  RWesley  MNRies  LA  et al Comorbidity and age as predictors of risk for early mortality of male and female colon carcinoma patients: a population-based study. Cancer.1998;82:2123-2134.
18.
Charlson  MEPompei  PAles  KLMackenzie  R A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis.1987;40:373-383.
19.
Knaus  WADraper  EAWagner  DPZimmerman  JE APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med.1985;13:818-829.
20.
Copeland  GPJones  DWalters  M POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg.1991;78:355-360.
21.
Robbins  KTFavrot  SHanna  DCole  R Risk of wound infection in patients with head and neck cancer. Head Neck.1990;12:143-148.
22.
Piccirillo  JF Importance of comorbidity in head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope.2000;110:593-602.
23.
Piccirillo  JFFeinstein  AR Clinical symptoms and comorbidity: significance for the prognostic classification of cancer. Cancer.1996;77:834-842.
24.
Feinstein  AR On classifying tumors while treating patients. Arch Intern Med.1985;145:1789-1791.
25.
Satariano  WA Comorbidity and functional status in older women with breast cancer: implications for screening, treatment and prognosis. J Gerontol.1992;47(special issue):24-41.
26.
Feinstein  AR The pre-therapeutic classification of comorbidity in chronic disease. J Chronic Dis.1970;23:445-468.
27.
Neel  HBTaylor  WFPearson  GR Prognostic determinants and a new view of staging for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol.1985;94:529-537.
28.
Taylor  WFIvins  JCUnni  KKBeabout  JWGolenzer  HJBlack  LE Prognostic variables in osteosarcoma: a multi-institutional study. J Natl Cancer Inst.1989;81:21-30.
29.
Pugliano  FAPiccirillo  JFZequeira  MRFredrickson  JMPerez  CASimpson  JR Symptoms as an index of biologic behavior in head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.1999;120:380-386.
30.
Rapoport  AFranco  EL Prognostic factors and relative risk in hypopharyngeal cancer: related parameters concerning stage, therapeutics and evolution. Rev Paul Med.1993;111:337-343.
31.
Kowalski  LPFranco  ELTorloni  H  et al Lateness of diagnosis of oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma: factors related to the tumor, the patient and health professionals. Eur J Cancer B Oral Oncol.1994;30B:167-173.
32.
Deleyiannis  FWThomas  DBVaughn  TLDavis  S Alcoholism: independent predictor of survival in patients with head and neck cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst.1996;88:542-549.
33.
Bundgaard  TBentzen  SMWildt  J The prognostic effect of tobacco and alcohol consumption in intra-oral squamous cell carcinoma. Eur J Cancer B Oral Oncol.1994;30B:323-328.
34.
El-Husseiny  GKandil  AJamshed  A  et al Squamous cell carcinoma of the oral tongue: an analysis of prognostic factors. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2000;38:193-199.
35.
Lacy  PDPiccirillo  JFMerritt  MGZequeira  MR Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: better to be young. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.2000;122:253-258.
36.
Bundgaard  TBentzen  SMSogaard  H Histological differentiation of oral squamous cell cancer in relation to tobacco smoking. Eur J Cancer B Oral Oncol.1995;31B:118-121.
37.
Franco  ELDib  LLPinto  DSLombardo  VContesini  H Race and gender influences on the survival of patients with mouth cancer. J Clin Epidemiol.1993;46:37-46.
38.
Faye-Lund  HAbdelnoor  M Prognostic factors of survival in a cohort of head and neck cancer patients in Oslo. Eur J Cancer B Oral Oncol.1996;32B:83-90.
39.
Warren  S The immediate cause of death in cancer. Am J Med Sci.1932;184:610-615.
40.
van Bokhorst-de van der Schuer  Not AvailableVan Leeuwen  PAKuik  DJKlop  WMSauerwein  HPSnow  GBQuak  JJ The impact of nutritional status on the prognoses of patients with advanced head and neck cancer. Cancer.1999;86:519-527.
41.
Brookes  GB Nutritional status: a prognostic indicator in head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.1985;93:69-74.
42.
Balaram  PMeenattoor  G Immunology of oral cancer: a review. Singapore Dent J.1996;21:36-41.
43.
Linn  BSRobinson  DSKlimas  NG Effects of age and nutritional status on surgical outcomes in head and neck cancer. Ann Surg.1988;207:267-273.
44.
Wolters  UWolf  TStützer  HSchröder  T ASA classification and perioperative variables as predictors of postoperative outcome. Br J Anaesth.1996;77:217-222.
45.
Menke  HKlein  AJohn  KDJunginger  T Predictive value of ASA classification for the assessment of the perioperative risk. Int J Surg.1993;78:266-270.
46.
Reid  BCAlberg  AJKlassen  ACKoch  WMSamet  JM The American Society of Anesthesiologists' class as a comorbidity index in a cohort of head and neck cancer surgical patients. Head Neck.2001;23:985-994.
47.
Kaplan  MHFeinstein  AR The importance of classifying initial comorbidity in evaluating the outcome of diabetes mellitus. J Chronic Dis.1974;27:387-404.
48.
Piccirillo  JF Inclusion of comorbidity in a staging system for head and neck cancer. Oncology.1995;9:831-836.
49.
Shaheen  OH Problems in Head and Neck Surgery.  London, England: Balliere Tindall; 1984.
50.
Arvidsson  SOuchterlony  JNilsson  SSjöstedt  LSvärdsudd  K The Gothenburg study of perioperative risk, I: preoperative findings, postoperative complications. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand.1994;38:679-690.
51.
Evans  PHR Complications in head and neck surgery and how to avoid trouble. J Laryngol Otol.1989;103:926-929.
52.
Kowalski  LPAlcântara  PSMMagrin  JParise  O  Jr A case-control study on complications and survival in elderly patients undergoing major head and neck surgery. Am J Surg.1994;168:485-490.
53.
Yoder  MGKrause  CJKwyer  TA Infectious and noninfectious complications in major head and neck surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.1979;87:797-806.
54.
Pelczar  BTWeed  HGSchüller  DEYoung  DCReilley  TE Identifying high-risk patients before head and neck oncologic surgery. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.1993;119:861-864.
55.
Girod  DAMcCulloch  TMTsue  TTWeymuller  EA  Jr Risk factors for complications in clean-contamined head and neck surgical procedures. Head Neck.1995;17:7-13.
56.
Donald  PJ Complications of combined therapy in head and neck carcinomas. Arch Otolaryngol.1978;104:329-332.
57.
Grandis  JRSnyderman  CHJohnson  JTYu  VLD'Amico  F Postoperative wound infection: a poor prognostic sign for patients with head and neck cancer. Cancer.1992;70:2166-2170.
58.
Becker  GD Identification and management of the patients at high risk for wound infection. Head Neck.1986;8:205-210.
59.
Brown  BMJohnson  JTWagner  RL Etiologic factors in head and neck wound infections. Laryngoscope.1987;97:587-590.
60.
Cole  RRRobbins  KTCohen  JIWolf  PF A predictive model for wound sepsis in oncologic surgery of the head and neck. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.1987;96:165-171.
61.
Lotfi  CJ Fatores de risco para infecção de sítio cirúrgico em cirurgia oncológica de cabeça e pescoço [PhD thesis].  São Paulo, Brazil: Tese de Doutorado-Fundação Antônio Prudente; 2001.
62.
Rodrigo  JPSuárez  C Prognostic significance of postoperative wound infection on head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Cancer.1998;118:272-275.
63.
De Gier  HHBalm  AJBruning  PFGregor  RTHilgers  FJ Systematic approach to the treatment of chylous leakage after neck dissection. Head Neck.1996;18:347-351.
64.
Smits  GKrause  CJMcCabe  BF Complications associated with combined therapy of oral and pharyngeal neoplasms. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol.1972;81:496-500.
65.
Myers  ENDinerman  WS Management of chylous fistulas. Laryngoscope.1975;85:835-840.
66.
Crumley  RLSmith  JD Postoperative chylous fistula: prevention and management. Laryngoscope.1976;86:804-813.
67.
Gall  AMSessions  DGOgura  JH Complications following surgery for cancer of the larynx and hypopharynx. Cancer.1977;39:624-631.
68.
Johnson  JTCummings  CW Hematoma after head and neck surgery: a major complication? Otolaryngology.1978;86:171-175.
69.
Weber  RSHankins  PRosenbaum  BRaad  I Nonwound infections following head and neck oncologic surgery. Laryngoscope.1993;103:22-27.
70.
McCulloch  TMJensen  NFGirod  DATsue  TTWeymuller  EA  Jr Risk factors for pulmonary complications in the postoperative head and neck surgery patient. Head Neck.1997;19:372-377.
71.
Ballantyne  AJJackson  GJ Synchronous bilateral neck dissection. Am J Surg.1982;144:452-455.
72.
Singh  BCordeiro  PGSantamaria  EShaha  ARPfister  DGShah  JP Factors associated with complications in microvascular reconstruction of head and neck defects. Plast Reconstr Surg.1999;103:403-411.
73.
Goffi  LSaba  VGhiselli  RNecozione  SMattei  ACarle  F Preoperative APACHE II and ASA score in patients having major general surgical operations: prognostic value and potential clinical applications. Eur J Surg.1999;165:730-735.
74.
Feinstein  AR Symptoms as an index of biologic behaviour and prognosis in human cancer. Nature.1966;209:241-245.
75.
Feinstein  AR A new staging system for cancer and a reappraisal of "early" treatment and "cure" by radical surgery. N Engl J Med.1968;279:747-753.
×