# Prognostic Value of Lymph Node Density in Lingual Squamous Cell Carcinoma
## 3 Results
### Descriptive Analysis of the Total Population and Population Subgroups According to the LND
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Variable** & **Categories** & **Total Population (n = 62)** & **LND \textless{} 0.04** & **LND \textgreater{} 0.04** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Clinical T} & 1 & 25 (40.3\%) & 21 (84\%) & 3 (16\%) \\  & 2 & 35 (56.5\%) & 26 (74.3\%) & 9 (25.7\%) \\  & 3 & 1 (1.6\%) & 1 (100\%) & 0 (0.0\%) \\  & 4 & 1 (1.6\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & 1 (100\%) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Tumor location} & Lateral border & 55 (88.7\%) & 43 (78.2\%) & 12 (21.8\%) \\  & Dorsal & 1 (1.6\%) & 1 (100\%) & 0 (0.0\%) \\  & Ventral & 6 (3.2\%) & 5 (83.3\%) & 1 (16.7\%) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Side} & Right & 24 (38.7\%) & 18 (75\%) & 6 (25\%) \\  & Left & 38 (61.3\%) & 31 (81.6\%) & 7 (18.4\%) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Diagnostic CT} & \multirow{2}{*}{No Yes} & 1 (1.6\%) & 1 (100\%) & 0 (0.0\%) \\  & & 61 (98.4\%) & 48 (78.7\%) & 13 (21.3\%) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Diagnostic MRI} & \multirow{2}{*}{No Yes} & 46 (74.2\%) & 35 (76.1\%) & 11 (23.9\%) \\  & & 16 (25.8\%) & 14 (87.5\%) & 2 (12.5\%) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Radiologic T} & No valuable & 17 (27.4\%) & 14 (82.4\%) & 3 (17.6\%) \\  & 1 & 17 (27.4\%) & 17 (100\%) & 0 (0.0\%) \\  & 2 & 20 (32.3\%) & 13 (65\%) & 7 (35\%) \\  & 3 & 5 (8.1\%) & 2 (40\%) & 3 (60\%) \\  & 4a & 2 (3.2\%) & 2 (100\%) & 0 (0.0\%) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{r-DOI} & No valuable & 32 (51.6\%) & 26 (81.2\%) & 6 (18.8\%) \\  & \textless{}5 cm & 3 (4.8\%) & 3 (100\%) & 0 (0.0\%) \\  & 5–10 cm & 16 (25.8\%) & 12 (75\%) & 4 (25\%) \\  & \textgreater{}10 cm & 9 (14.5\%) & 6 (66.7\%) & 3 (33.3\%) \\  & LOST & 2 (3.2\%) & 2 (100\%) & 0 (0.0\%) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Clinical Stage} & I & 21 (33.9\%) & 20 (95.2\%) & 1 (4.8\%) \\  & II & 27 (43.6\%) & 20 (74.1\%) & 7 (25.9\%) \\  & III & 10 (16.1\%) & 6 (60\%) & 4 (40\%) \\  & IVa & 4 (6.5\%) & 3 (75\%) & 1 (25\%) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Reconstruction} & Direct closure & 26 (41.9\%) & 23 (88.5\%) & 3 (11.5\%) \\  & Local flap & 16 (25.8\%) & 13 (81.3\%) & 3 (18.7\%) \\  & Microsurgery & 20 (32.3\%) & 13 (65\%) & 7 (35\%) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Neck dissection} & Unilateral & 32 (51.6\%) & 29 (90.6\%) & 3 (9.4\%) \\  & Bilateral & 30 (48.4\%) & 20 (66.7\%) & 10 (33.3\%) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Type of neck dissection} & Selective & 27 (43.5\%) & 23 (85.2\%) & 4 (14.8\%) \\  & Functional & 35 (56.5\%) & 26 (74.3\%) & 9 (25.7\%) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Postoperative radiotherapy} & No Yes & 31 (50\%) & 29 (93.5\%) & 2 (6.5\%) \\  & 31 (50\%) & 20 (64.5\%) & 11 (35.5\%) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Postoperative chemotherapy} & No Yes & 57 (91.9\%) & 45 (78.9\%) & 12 (21.1\%) \\  & 5 (8.1\%) & 4 (80\%) & 1 (20\%) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Distribution of clinical variables in the total population and according to the LND. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **Category** & **Total Population (n = 62)** & **LND < 0.04** & **LND \(\geq\) 0.04** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Loco- regional recurrence} & \multirow{2}{*}{No Yes} & 45 (69.35\%) & 38 (84.4\%) & 7 (15.6\%) \\  & & 17 (27.42\%) & 11 (64.7\%) & 6 (35.3\%) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Distant disease} & \multirow{2}{*}{No Yes} & 51 (82.26\%) & 41 (80.4\%) & 10 (19.6\%) \\  & & 11 (17.74\%) & 8 (72.7\%) & 3 (27.3\%) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Exitus} & \multirow{2}{*}{No Yes} & 47 (75.8\%) & 39 (83\%) & 8 (17\%) \\  & & 15 (24.2\%) & 10 (66.7\%) & 5 (33.3\%) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Distribution of clinical evolution in the total population and according to the LND.