Multicentricity in pharyngoesophageal tumors: argument for total pharyngolaryngoesophagectomy and gastric transposition.
BACKGROUND
Pharyngoesophageal tumors pose a challenge to surgical management, and there is controversy in the literature as to the best procedure to be used. Advantages and disadvantages are mentioned for total pharyngolaryngoesophagectomy and gastric transposition (PLE&GT), free jejunal transplants, and free forearm flaps. One of the arguments for PLE&GT is the persistence or subsequent occurrence of multiple primaries in a field cancerization region. Multiple tumors in the head and neck/esophagus/lung axis have been reported. However, despite extensive investigation, there is little information on specific multicentricity in patients treated with PLE&GT for pharyngolaryngoesophageal carcinomas.


METHODS
A clinicopathological study was undertaken in 35 consecutive patients who underwent PLE&GT for pharyngoesophageal cancer to evaluate synchronicity, multicentricity, and metachronicity. Only in situ and invasive carcinomas were considered. The findings were compared with the reports in the literature.


RESULTS
Thirty-eight tumors were diagnosed preoperatively, with the main indications for PLE&GT being tumors located in the esophagus or hypopharynx (32 patients) and larynx (three patients). After the surgical treatment, 21 patients had single primaries (60%) and 14 (40%) had 25 multiple primaries in addition to their main primaries (total of 60 tumors in the whole group). Synchronous, previous metachronous and subsequent metachronous carcinomas occurred in 26%, 17%, and 8.5% of the instances, respectively. Twenty of the 25 multicentric carcinomas were invasive (80%). Either the main primaries or the multicentric carcinomas were located in the esophagus or hypopharynx (91.5% and 60%, respectively). Other sites included the larynx, oropharynx, oral cavity, and lung.


CONCLUSIONS
The incidence of multicentric tumors in patients with pharyngoesophageal carcinomas may favor total PLE&GT as the procedure of choice, because it includes all the condemned upper pharyngolaryngoesophageal mucosa.
Martins
A S
AS
Head And Neck Service, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medical Sciences, State University of Campinas (Unicamp), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. asmartin@mpc.com.br
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D002648:Child; D004938:Esophageal Neoplasms / Q000401:mortality / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D016629:Esophagectomy / Q000379:methods; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D007825:Laryngectomy / Q000379:methods; D008875:Middle Aged; D009378:Neoplasms, Multiple Primary / Q000401:mortality / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D010610:Pharyngeal Neoplasms / Q000401:mortality / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D010611:Pharyngectomy / Q000379:methods; D013270:Stomach / Q000601:surgery*; D016019:Survival Analysis; D016896:Treatment Outcome