Skip to main content
Cureus logoLink to Cureus
. 2022 Oct 27;14(10):e30780. doi: 10.7759/cureus.30780

Lymph Node Involvement and the Clinical Stage as Predictors of the Survival of Patients With Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Mazin Alsarraj 1,, Sami M Alshehri 2, Abdulrahman Qattan 2, Abdelelah Mofti 3, Lana Wazqer 2, Sumayiah Bukhari 2, Aisha Shamsaldin 2, Rahaf Rajab 2
Editors: Alexander Muacevic, John R Adler
PMCID: PMC9701163  PMID: 36447733

Abstract

In the treatment of various patients, the presence of lymphovascular invasion is a prognostic determinant, often taken into account by surgeons and oncologists. The exact frequency and prognostic impacts of this microscopic event in adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) patients are, however, not clear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the lymph node involvement and the clinical stage of cancer as predictors of ACC prognosis. A systematic search was conducted covering a number of databases, including PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and EBSCO. A total of three studies were included in this analysis, with 591 participants, 247 of whom were males. Lymph node involvement and clinical stage were demonstrated as significant bad prognosis factors among ACC patients (HR = 1.48, 95% CI, 1.00, 1.96; P<0.0001). We found that lymph node involvement and clinical stage of the cancer are both significant predictors of bad prognosis of ACC.

Keywords: stage, salivary gland tumor, head and neck tumors, lymph node status, adenoid cystic carcinoma (acc)

Introduction and background

Adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) is a rare malignant tumor that affects major and minor salivary glands, lacrimal glands, ceruminous glands, and occasionally cervix, breast, and lung [1]. It accounts for fewer than 1% of all head and neck malignancies and 10% of all salivary gland neoplasms [2,3]. ACC occurs more often in the minor salivary glands than in the major salivary glands that are dispersed throughout the submucosa of the nasal cavity, paranasal sinuses, and oral pharynx, larynx, trachea, lungs, and middle ear cavity [2-5]. The paranasal sinus is the most common site of minor salivary gland involvement [1,6,7]. ACC is responsible for 5% to 15% of all malignant tumors of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses [8].

ACC of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses is a slowly progressive and relentless tumor that tends to recur locally and metastasize distantly [9,10]. Recurrence and metastasis can occur even decades after treatment of the primary tumor [11]. The steadfastness of this tumor is partially attributable to its ability to extend through submucosal and fibrous tissue planes around the primary site and its tendency for perineural spread along major and minor nerves [3,12]. Therefore, treatment of ACC of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses is highly challenging, with current therapy limited to surgery and/or radiation, and no reliable chemotherapeutic options available for long-term disease control [13,14].

Because of the slow and persistent clinical course of ACC of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses, on initial evaluation, most patients have advanced disease, which makes the treatment more difficult [15]. Therefore, it is essential to identify the prevalence of disease to detect the patient during the early stage and start treatment early. According to many studies, ACC of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses is more prevalent in middle-aged adults; however, a demographic analysis presented that most patients were diagnosed in the sixth decade or later [16-18]. Most previous studies conducted on ACC of nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses identified determinants of outcomes for ACC, including stage, cervical lymph node metastases, margin status, perineural invasion, and minor salivary gland site of origin, although further investigations are needed to identify the prevalence of ACC in the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses [19,20-23]. Our study aims to estimate the risk of developing ACC based on lymph node involvement and the clinical stage of the tumor.

Review

Materials and methods

Study Design and Duration

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis that was carried out during October 1-20, 2021. Our study focused on examining lymph node involvement and clinical stage as risk factors for ACC in the published literature.

Search Strategy

A systematic search was conducted covering a number of databases, including PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and EBSCO. The search was confined to articles published in the English language and tailored for each database. The following terms have been used in our search: “ACC”, “Adenoid cystic carcinoma”, “Lymph node involvement”, “Lymph node metastasis”, “LN metastasis”, “clinical stage”, “Cancer staging”, “risk factor”, and “liability”, “survival rate”. Only full texts, accessible articles, human trials, and English articles were chosen. Table 1 shows the selection criteria.

Table 1. Selection criteria.

Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
Prospective studies Studies conducted in languages other than English
Studies reporting results covering the impact of lymph node involvement and/or clinical stage of adenoid cystic carcinoma Inaccessible studies
Retrospective studies
In vivo studies Case reports and case series

Data Extraction

Rayyan (Qatar Computing Research Institute, Doha) was used throughout the selection process to identify duplicates and remove them and, in addition, to choose our included articles following the inclusion and the exclusion criteria [24]. We started with assessing titles for compatibility, followed by examining abstracts, and finally, full-text review. A data extraction sheet was created to pool the data from the included articles. The sheet included titles, authors, study year, study design, population type, participants’ number, age range and mean, number and percentage of male participants, cancer stage, and lymph node involvement. We overcame any disagreement through debate and discussion.

Risk of Bias Assessment

The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies through quantitative data synthesis [25].

Strategy for Data Synthesis

Data collected through the Excel sheet (Microsoft, Redmond) was used to generate the qualitative overview of the included studies. A qualitative synthesis of the pooled data was carried out regardless of the viability of the present meta-analyses. Only studies that included numerical results about the involvement of lymph nodes and the clinical stage of ACC were excluded.

Qualitative data synthesis for the condition of interest was performed using Review Manager software (Cochrane Collaboration, UK). The lymph node metastasis and clinical stage as risk factors for ACC were evaluated using random-effect meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I-square test, and publication bias was estimated through funnel plot and funnel plot symmetry.

Results

Search Results

A total of 276 articles have been retrieved using our systematic search, of which 46 duplicates were removed using Rayyan, and 230 studies were enrolled for title screening; of those 134 were excluded. The remaining 96 studies underwent abstract and full-text screening leaving only three studies to be included. Reasons for exclusion were irrelevant analyses, wrong outcome, wrong population, or unavailable data on the risk of developing ACC in the case of nodal involvement and depending on the clinical stage of cancer. Figure 1 illustrates the selection process.

Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow chart presenting a summary of the selection process.

Figure 1

Characteristics of the Included Studies

This systematic review and meta-analysis included three studies with 591 participants, 247 of whom were males. Their age ranged between 18 and 86 years. The three studies were prospective studies: one from France, another from Switzerland, and the third from Korea. The observation time ranged from 30 to 160 months. Table 2 describes the characteristics of included studies.

Table 2. Summary of the characteristics of the included studies.

Study Study design Country Total participants Mean age Males (%) Condition Treatment/observation time (months)
A prospective multicentre REFCOR study of 470 cases of head and neck Adenoid cystic carcinoma: epidemiology and prognostic factors [26] Prospective study France 470 54 41% Adenoid cystic carcinoma 39
Clinical outcomes of head and neck adenoid cystic carcinoma patients treated with pencil beam-scanning proton therapy [27] Prospective study Switzerland 35 45.4 54.3% Adenoid cystic carcinoma 30
Long-term treatment outcomes and prognostic features in adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck [28] Prospective study Korea 86 50 (median) 43% Adenoid cystic carcinoma 160.44 months (median)

Lymph Node Involvement and Clinical Stage as Risk Factors for ACC

Three studies investigated the incidence of ACC in the presence of nodal involvement and the association with the clinical stage. Lymph node involvement and clinical stage have been demonstrated as significant factors increasing the risk of death among ACC patients (HR = 1.48, 95% CI, 1.00, 1.96; P<0.0001). Significant heterogeneity between the studies was not detected (I2=0%, P=0.74; Figure 2).

Figure 2. Forest plot of the effect of lymph node involvement and clinical stage of cancer on the development of adenoid cystic carcinoma.

Figure 2

The red box represents the quantitative value of each entry. The black diamond symbol represents the pooled effect estimate with confidence intervals.

Studies included [26,28,29].

Publication Bias

Visual observation of the funnel plot reveals an asymmetrical distribution of lymph node involvement and clinical stage as potential risk factors for ACC (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Funnel plot of publication bias detection.

Figure 3

Circles represent plotted data from each entry on the funnel plot.

Discussion

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigated lymph node involvement and the clinical stage of cancer as prognostic factors for ACC. The results have shown, however, that both are predictors of bad prognosis in the case of ACC. The strength of the study stems from its uniqueness and meticulously designed systematic search. Our results, however, should be interpreted carefully because of the lack of available data concerning the topic and the few numbers of studies involved.

ACC has been extensively studied in previous studies that supported the claim that lymph node involvement and the clinical stage of cancer have bad prognostic effects on ACC [29,30]. A number of studies have shown that a microscopic finding is associated with poorer clinical behaviors, such as prostate, bladder, lung, and kidney cancers, as well as other malignant salivary glands diseases, such as myoepithelial carcinoma and ex pleomorphic adenoma carcinoma [31-34].

Tang et al. found an independent prognostic determinant for the lymphovascular invasion in ACC [35]. Oplatek et al. showed a significant association with recurrence [21]. While these results point to a more aggressive condition associated with lymphovascular invasions, none of the available studies describe the lymphovascular invasion in ACC as its main objective, which is always the secondary finding.

Thus, few authors have studied the association between lymphovascular invasion and clinicopathological parameters while some did not check on the original slides, and none used ancillary techniques for the better identification of lymphovascular invasions, such as immune histochemistry. Moreover, because we do not know what types of vessels are invaded, either blood or lymphatic vessels, the profile of tumor emboli has not been well described. Nor have the vessel’s morphological characteristics been described. An original study is, therefore, necessary in order to assess the prognostic potential of lymphovascular invasion.

The small sample size used and the short follow-up time described for most of the studies are other constraints in the available studies. Moreover, multivariate statistical analysis has not always been conducted, and, consequently, it remains unclear whether lymphovascular invasion is a significant predictor once other significant variables such as tumor grade are controlled. The heterogeneity for the meta-analysis nevertheless showed that there were very low variables between studies, and the results were reliable.

Conclusions

In addition to the prognostic significance of lymphovascular invasion and the clinical stage of cancer, several methodological limitations of the studies available were also demonstrated by the current systematic evaluation and meta-analysis, for patients affected by ACC of the head and neck. Therefore, we understand that future studies should determine how frequently and prognostically, by using immunomarkers towards the blood and lymphatic vessels, the infiltration of both types of the vessels would be of equal importance as well as the frequency of the lymphovascular invasion when only regular hematoxylin and eosin stains are misidentified.

Acknowledgments

The authors’ responsibilities were as follows: Mazin Alsarraj (MA), Sami M. Alshehri (SMA), and Abdulrahman Qattan (AQ) participated in establishing the research questions and analytic framework. MA and SMA conducted the literature search and identified and selected the studies. Abdelelah Mofti and AQ assessed methodologic quality and extracted data. Sumayiah Bukhari and Lana Wazqer performed data synthesis, and drafted the manuscript. Aisha Shamsaldin and Rahaf Rajab revised the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the article.

The content published in Cureus is the result of clinical experience and/or research by independent individuals or organizations. Cureus is not responsible for the scientific accuracy or reliability of data or conclusions published herein. All content published within Cureus is intended only for educational, research and reference purposes. Additionally, articles published within Cureus should not be deemed a suitable substitute for the advice of a qualified health care professional. Do not disregard or avoid professional medical advice due to content published within Cureus.

Footnotes

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

  • 1.Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck - an update. Coca-Pelaz A, Rodrigo JP, Bradley PJ, et al. Oral Oncol. 2015;51:652–661. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2015.04.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck. Kim KH, Sung MW, Chung PS, Rhee CS, Park CI, Kim WH. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1994;120:721–726. doi: 10.1001/archotol.1994.01880310027006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck: a clinicopathologic study of 37 cases. Haddad A, Enepekides DJ, Manolidis S, Black M. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7674448/ J Otolaryngol. 1995;24:201–205. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Review of the major and minor salivary glands, part 1: anatomy, infectious, and inflammatory processes. Kessler AT, Bhatt AA. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2018;8:47. doi: 10.4103/jcis.JCIS_45_18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Grossman RI, Yousem DM. Neuroradiology, 3rd Edition, the Requisites. St. Louis, MO: Mosby-Year Book; 1994. Extramucosal diseases of the head and neck; pp. 413–446. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Adenoid cystic carcinoma of salivary origin: a clinicopathologic study of 242 cases. Spiro RH, Huvos AG, Strong EW. Am J Surg. 1974;128:512–520. doi: 10.1016/0002-9610(74)90265-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the nose, paranasal sinuses, and palate. Miller RH, Calcaterra TC. Arch Otolaryngol. 1980;106:424–426. doi: 10.1001/archotol.1980.00790310048012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the maxillary antrum. Kim GE, Park HC, Keum KC, et al. Am J Otolaryngol. 1999;20:77–84. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0709(99)90015-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Radiation therapy in adenoid-cystic carcinoma. Vikram B, Strong EW, Shah JP, Spiro RH. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1984;10:221–223. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(84)90007-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Malignant salivary gland tumors of the paranasal sinuses and nasal cavity. The UCLA experience. Tran L, Sidrys J, Horton D, Sadeghi A, Parker RG. Am J Clin Oncol. 1989;12:387–392. doi: 10.1097/00000421-198910000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck: predictors of morbidity and mortality. Fordice J, Kershaw C, El-Naggar A, Goepfert H. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;125:149–152. doi: 10.1001/archotol.125.2.149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Malignant salivary gland tumors of the paranasal sinuses and nasal cavity. Goepfert H, Luna MA, Lindberg RD, White AK. Arch Otolaryngol. 1983;109:662–668. doi: 10.1001/archotol.1983.00800240028005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck: a review. Bradley PJ. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;12:127–132. doi: 10.1097/00020840-200404000-00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Molecular biology of adenoid cystic carcinoma. Liu J, Shao C, Tan ML, Mu D, Ferris RL, Ha PK. Head Neck. 2012;34:1665–1677. doi: 10.1002/hed.21849. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the paranasal sinuses. Naficy S, Disher MJ, Esclamado RM. Am J Rhinol. 1999;13:311–314. doi: 10.2500/105065899782102872. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Adenoid cystic carcinoma: a rare clinical entity and literature review. Gondivkar SM, Gadbail AR, Chole R, Parikh RV. Oral Oncol. 2011;47:231–236. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2011.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Clinicopathological characteristics and perineural invasion in adenoid cystic carcinoma: a systematic review. Dantas AN, de Morais EF, Macedo RA, Tinôco JM, Morais M. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;81:329–335. doi: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2014.07.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Incidence and survival in patients with sinonasal cancer: a historical analysis of population-based data. Turner JH, Reh DD. Head Neck. 2012;34:877–885. doi: 10.1002/hed.21830. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Adenoid cystic carcinoma: a retrospective clinical review. Khan AJ, DiGiovanna MP, Ross DA, Sasaki CT, Carter D, Son YH, Haffty BG. Int J Cancer. 2001;96:149–158. doi: 10.1002/ijc.1013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Clinicopathologic predictors of recurrence and overall survival in adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck: a single institutional experience at a tertiary care center. Marcinow A, Ozer E, Teknos T, et al. Head Neck. 2014;36:1705–1711. doi: 10.1002/hed.23523. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Patterns of recurrence and survival of head and neck adenoid cystic carcinoma after definitive resection. Oplatek A, Ozer E, Agrawal A, Bapna S, Schuller DE. Laryngoscope. 2010;120:65–70. doi: 10.1002/lary.20684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Factors influencing survival rate in adenoid cystic carcinoma of the salivary glands. Huang M, Ma D, Sun K, Yu G, Guo C, Gao F. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997;26:435–439. doi: 10.1016/s0901-5027(97)80008-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Adenoid cystic carcinoma: use of cell proliferation, BCL‐2 expression, histologic grade, and clinical stage as predictors of clinical outcome. Norberg‐Spaak L, Dardick I, Ledin T. Head Neck. 2000;22:489–497. doi: 10.1002/1097-0347(200008)22:5<489::aid-hed8>3.0.co;2-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Syst Rev. 2016;5:210. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. [Online] Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson JE, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261773681_The_Newcastle-Ottawa_Scale_NOS_for_Assessing_the_Quality_of_Non-Randomized_Studies_in_Meta-Analysis 2014:79550924. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.A prospective multicentre REFCOR study of 470 cases of head and neck Adenoid cystic carcinoma: epidemiology and prognostic factors. Atallah S, Casiraghi O, Fakhry N, et al. Eur J Cancer. 2020;130:241–249. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.01.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Prognostic factors affecting the clinical outcome of adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck. Ko YH, Lee MA, Hong YS, et al. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2007;37:805–811. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hym119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Long-term treatment outcomes and prognostic features in adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck. Kim SS, Kim SM, Kim MJ, Lee JH. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Med Pathol. 2015;27:337–343. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Clinical outcomes of head and neck adenoid cystic carcinoma patients treated with pencil beam-scanning proton therapy. Pelak MJ, Walser M, Bachtiary B, et al. Oral Oncol. 2020;107:104752. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.104752. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Prognosis and risk factors for early-stage adenoid cystic carcinoma of the major salivary glands. Bhayani MK, Yener M, El-Naggar A, Garden A, Hanna EY, Weber RS, Kupferman ME. Cancer. 2012;118:2872–2878. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26549. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Routinely reported 'equivocal' lymphovascular invasion in prostatectomy specimens is associated with adverse outcomes. Galiabovitch E, Hovens CM, Peters JS, et al. BJU Int. 2017;119:567–572. doi: 10.1111/bju.13594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Vascular invasion is an adverse prognostic factor in resected non-small-cell lung cancer. Ramnefjell M, Aamelfot C, Helgeland L, Akslen LA. APMIS. 2017;125:197–206. doi: 10.1111/apm.12652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Microscopic vascular invasion is the most relevant prognosticator after radical nephrectomy for clinically nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma. Van Poppel H, Vandendriessche H, Boel K, et al. J Urol. 1997;158:45–49. doi: 10.1097/00005392-199707000-00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Prognostic factors of recurrence in salivary carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma, with emphasis on the carcinoma histologic subtype: a clinicopathologic study of 43 cases. Katabi N, Gomez D, Klimstra DS, Carlson DL, Lee N, Ghossein R. Hum Pathol. 2010;41:927–934. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2009.12.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Expression of Cyr61 in primary salivary adenoid cystic carcinoma and its relation to Ki-67 and prognosis. Tang QL, Fan S, Li HG, et al. Oral Oncol. 2011;47:365–370. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2011.02.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Cureus are provided here courtesy of Cureus Inc.

RESOURCES