Head and Neck Cancer
Read Time: 5 mins

Management of Isolated Nodal Recurrence After Head and Neck Cancer Treatment

Copy Link
Published Online: May 8th 2014 Oncology & Hematology Review, 2014;10(1):10–2 DOI:
Authors: Velda Ling-yu Chow, Jimmy Yu-wai Chan
Quick Links:
Article Information

The status of the regional cervical lymphatics is one of the most significant prognostic indicators in head and neck cancers. The traditional treatment for cancers with cervical nodal metastasis has been surgical. With the global trend towards organ-preserving therapy, chemoradiation has gained increasing popularity over primary surgical therapies for cancers in the head and neck region. The subsequent management of the neck for those with residual or recurrent nodal metastasis, however, has become one of the most debated topics in the field of head and neck oncology. This review addresses several important controversies, including the optimal assessment of the nodal response to chemoradiation, the potential role and the oncological results of planned and salvage neck dissection after chemoradiation and the type and extent of neck dissection required in order to achieve the optimal balance between tumour control and surgical morbidities. Further clinical trials and ongoing researches will help us to define the best therapeutic option in such circumstances.


Chemoradiation, recurrence, nodal metastasis, head and neck cancer


Head and neck cancer encompasses tumours of different origins and types. Over 90 % of them are squamous cell carcinomas arising the epithelium of the upper aerodigestive tract, extending from the and oral cavities, down to the larynx and hypopharynx. Among the various clinical and pathological prognosticators, the presence of cervical nodal metastasis is the most important factor that adversely affects survival after treatment. Cancers with N0 classification on presentation usually have excellent cure rates with either surgery or radiotherapy, while those with regional metastases on presentation have significantly worse survival. Over the past decades, treatment of the neck has received much attention and has become one of the most debated topics in the field of head and neck oncology. Traditionally, treatment of the neck in patients with clinically evident nodal metastasis has been surgical. Nowadays, chemoradiation (CRT) has been utilised more and more as the primary treatment, aiming at organ and function preservation. Neck dissection for residual or recurrent nodal metastasis is associated with increased incidence of potentially severe complications.1 It exacerbates the chronic effects of radiation, including subdermal fibrosis, neck stiffness, pain and diminished shoulder mobility and quality of life.2 In this article, we will address some of the current controversies in the surgical management of isolated nodal recurrence after head and neck cancer treatment.

Assessment of Nodal Response
to Chemoradiation Surgery after CRT should be reserved for patients with residual viable cancer. There is general agreement that patients with less- thancomplete response should undergo neck dissection to eliminate potential residual viable nodal tumour.3,4 It is also accepted that patients with complete response of N1 disease do not require neck dissection.5,6 The main controversy lies within the N2 to 3 disease group, whereby there is uncertainty as to how well clinical complete response predicts the eradication of tumours. The best imaging modality for the assessment of tumour response after CRT and the ideal timing to perform such investigation remains under investigation. Ideally, the imaging should allow a timely identification of patients who will benefit from post-irradiation neck dissection while avoiding surgery in those with complete response.

Traditionally the response evaluation after CRT was performed by clinical examination and computed tomography (CT) scan 6–8 weeks post treatment. Some reports in the literature advocate that CT scan after CRT is the imaging of choice. Clayman et al.7 showed no recurrence in 29 observed oropharyngeal cancer patients with negative CT scans after CRT. Similarly, Corry et al.8 reported no nodal relapse in 60 observed patients. Liauw et al.9 found one neck recurrence out of 32 patients with complete response on CT scan after radiotherapy. However, the accuracy of CT assessment of complete response was disappointing in some experiences, reporting high rates of viable tumour (30–40 %) in neck specimens from patients who had a radiological complete response.10

Despite the potential ability of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET) scan to distinguish viable tumour cells, current evidence show that it is not sensitive enough to allow early detection of residual tumour after CRT. Rogers et al.11 performed PET scans 1 month after CRT and found that six of seven patients with a negative scan had residual cancer at neck dissection. Similarly, Gourin et al.12 and Greven et al.13 reported an unacceptably high proportion of patients who had residual nodal tumours despite a negative PET scan, which was performed 8 to 10 weeks and 1 month after concurrent chemoradiotherapy, respectively. When performed 10–15 weeks after treatment, however, some found a better correlation between the PET scan results and the pathological nodal status.14

Recent advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have provided further biological information: diffusion-weighted MRI is a non-invasive imaging technique that measures the differences in water mobility of different tissue microstructures. Water mobility is likely influenced by cell size, density and cellular membrane integrity and is quantified by means of the apparent diffusion coefficient. This coefficient in malignant lymph nodes is reduced because of the increased density of tumour cells.10 Vandecaveye et al.15 evaluated response in 29 patients 3 weeks after the completion of radiotherapy. Results showed positive predictive value of 70 % and negative predictive value of 96 % for adenopathy per neck side. He also reported a sensitivity of 76 % for diffusion-weighted MRI as opposed to 7 % for conventional MRI. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI is another promising imaging sequence that provides information regarding tumour blood flow and permeability.16 Reports indicate that this technique may be useful to predict both intra-tumour hypoxia and tumour response.

Role of Planned and Salvage Neck Dissection
The concept of planned neck dissection was first used in 1970s to indicate an elective neck dissection performed to a clinically undetectable disease.10 Many centres worldwide practise planned neck dissection after radiotherapy because historically the complete response rates for large volume nodal disease to radiotherapy alone was low and the outcome of subsequent salvage was poor. Mabanta et al. studied 51 patients with neck recurrence after primary radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and he found that 35.3 % of the patients had unresectable disease.17 The 5-year regional control after neck dissection was 9 % and the overall absolute and cause-specific survival rates were 10 % at 5 years. With the global trend towards organ and function preservation, CRT is gradually gaining popularity over surgical treatment in the management of head and neck cancers. Advances in radiation delivery, such as intense-modulated radiotherapy and altered fractionation regimens, have led to development of concurrent CRT and, consequently, enhanced disease control. As a result, the role of planned neck dissection becomes less well-defined.10

It is widely accepted that early planned neck dissection is recommended for patients with clinically partial response after CRT. For patients with clinically complete response, pre-emptive neck dissection in patients with initially low volume (N1) nodal metastasis is not necessary. However, the role of planned neck dissection in patients who present initially with high volume (>/= N2) neck disease is controversial.

Neck dissection after CRT is technically demanding and is associated with a higher rate of complications. Such adversities can potentially be minimised by performing the surgery between 4 to 12 weeks after the completion of radiotherapy. During this period, surgery is technically easier, and conservation procedures are usually possible due to limited fibrosis. By contrast, salvage neck dissection performed after this window period is associated with significantly increased risk and severity of surgical complications18 Moreover, conservative surgery is usually impossible and more radical surgery is more frequently required because of the extensive fibrosis and widespread infiltration by cancer. The extent of such surgery would then translate into a negative impact on quality of life.

The oncological outcome of salvage neck dissection was shown to be poor.19–21 Recently, van der Putten et al.22 studied 540 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck region who received chemoradiotherapy as the primary treatment. Subsequent regional residual or recurrent disease was found in 129 patients. Among them, 68 patients were considered inoperable. The 5-year regional control and overall survival rates after salvage neck dissection was 79 % and 36 %, respectively. Significant prognostic factors for overall survival after surgery were the resection margins and the status of residual disease after CRT.

In the advanced nodal disease group, there is a possibility of metastatic aggressive disease. Nobuhiro et al.23 demonstrated that cervical lymph node metastasis at level V was an indicator of distant metastasis.

Proponents of planned neck dissection questioned the accuracy of post-CRT clinical and radiological surveillance. Viable tumour (22–29 %) could be demonstrated despite negative radiological findings.10 Moreover, morbidity of surgery is minimal if performed during the 4 to 12-week window. In a long-term, follow-up analysis from the Cleveland Clinic Foundation of N2–3 patients treated with CRT, regional control at 5 years was significantly inferior in patients not undergoing neck surgery compared with those who underwent neck dissection.24 Argiris et al.25 have also concluded that the 5-year locoregional control and neck progression-free survival rates were significantly higher in patients with neck dissection compared with those without: (88 % versus 74 %; p=0.02), (99 % versus 82 %; p=0.0007), respectively. Lavertu et al.26 have also showed that adding neck dissection minimised neck recurrence (p=0.05).

Opponents argue the negative impact of neck dissection on quality of life, absence of certain overall survival advantage and the possibility of metastatic aggressive disease.10,23 Thariat et al.27 studied a cohort of 880 patients with T1–4, N1–3 squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx, larynx or hypopharynx treated with CRT and reported that the 5-year actuarial regional control rate for patients with complete response was 92 %, so there is little justification for planned neck dissection in this group of patients. In patients with less than complete response, those with planned neck dissection performed had better regional control than those who were observed (5-year actuarial regional control, 90 % versus 76 %; p<0.001). The Extent of Neck Dissection
The traditional philosophy of neck dissection for cervical nodal metastasis was to remove lymph node groups in all five levels. More recent reports have demonstrated the efficacy of selective neck dissection.28–32 It involves the extirpation of lymph nodes in the neck with preservation of at least one nodal level. Only regional lymph nodes that have clinical evidence of tumour metastasis are removed, while sparing uninvolved lymphatic and non-lymphatic structures, including the sternocleidomastoid muscle, internal jugular vein and the spinal accessory nerve. The rationale of the more conservative approach is that the pattern of nodal metastasis in the cervical region is predictable and that the neck levels that were uninvolved prior to treatment are unlikely to harbour residual tumour cells after CRT. Furthermore, primary CRT would achieve a similar objective in sterilising occult disease in low-risk levels so that post-treatment selective neck dissection targeting only residual gross disease in high-risk nodal levels would be sufficient.28 Last but not least, the surgical side effects, including neck stiffness, shoulder dysfunction, cranial nerve palsy, etc. of selective neck dissection is considerably lower than that of the more radical type of surgery.29

The use of selective neck dissection after CRT was initially described in patients without residual disease.6–7 Subsequently, Robbins et al. and Stenson et al. reported their experience with the use of selective neck dissection in patients with initial N2–3 disease. They found that the neck failure rate after the conservative procedure was less than 5 %,30,34 which was similar to that after more extensive surgery.35 Similar results were reported in other publications in the literature.32,36 Recently, Dhiwakar et al.37 studied 62 patients with squamous cell carcinoma in the head and neck region who were treated by primary CRT. Sixty-nine selective neck dissections were performed for clinically persistent nodal disease after a mean of 10 weeks after CRT. There was evidence of residual tumour in 46 % of the neck dissection specimens. Over a median follow up of 33 months, four patients (6 %) had recurrence in the neck, but only one occurred in the ipsilateral target neck, demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the more conservative neck dissection in such setting.

Based on the satisfactory results of selective neck dissection, the efficacy of super-selective neck dissection after CRT, which is defined as the removal of two or less contiguous levels of cervical lymph nodes, is being investigated. It is advocated for patients who have small, residual single-level adenopathy. Robbins38 et al. studied 177 patients after intraarterial cisplatin and radiotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Among 89 patients with residual neck disease, 73 patients had clinical residual adenopathy involving only one neck level. Fifty-four patients eventually underwent neck dissection and the pathology result showed that only two patients had disease extending beyond the single neck level, and one of them had disease in a contiguous neck level and the other patient had disease in a non-contiguous level. They concluded that super-selective neck dissection was feasible for patients after CRT with persistent nodal disease that was confined to one level. Goguen et al.39 reported a 95 % negative predictive value for CT for cervical nodal status after CRT, and suggested that it could provide a road map for designing super-selective neck dissection in partial response patients with limited residual disease. Further studies are required to demonstrate the efficacy of such procedure before its routine use can be advocated.

Management of the neck after organ-preserving CRT for cancers in the head and neck region is important. Early CT and/or diffusion-weighted MRI scans after the completion of CRT appears to be useful in assessing the tumour response to treatment, especially for patients presenting with N2–N3 disease. With improving chemoradiotherapy and diagnostic studies, pre-emptive neck dissection is not necessary in patients with clinically complete nodal response. In patients with partial response, however, early planned neck dissection is recommended. In patients with limited tumour volume, early results showed that conservative surgical approaches including selective neck dissection or even superselective neck dissection may achieve a satisfactory tumour control without causing unnecessary surgical morbidities.

Article Information:

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


Jimmy Yu-wai Chan, Division of Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Hong Kong Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, Queen Mary Hospital, 102 Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong SAR, China. E:
An erratum to this article can be found below.




  1. . Morgan JE, Breau RL, Suen JY, et al., Surgical wound complications after intensive chemoradiotherapy for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2007;133:10–14.
  2. Grabenbauer GG, Rodel C, Ernst-Stecken A, et al., Neck dissection following radiochemotherapy of advanced head and neck cancer—For selected cases only? Radiother Oncol, 2003;66:57–63.
  3. Simon C, Geopfert H, Rosenthal DI, et al., Presence of malignancy tumour cells in persistent neck disease after radiotherapy for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx is associated with poor survival, Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2006;263:313–18.
  4. Robbins KT, Doweck I, Samant S, et al., Effectiveness of superselective and selective neck dissection for advanced nodal metastases after chemoradiation, Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2005;131:965–9.
  5. Brizel DM, Prosnitz RG, Hunter S, et al., Necessity for adjuvant neck dissection in setting of concurrent chemoradiation for advanced head-and-neck cancer, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2004;58:1418–23.
  6. L avertu P, Adelstein DJ, Saxton JP, et al., Management of the neck in a randomized trial comparing concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy with radiotherapy alone in resectable stage III and IV squamous cell head and neck cancer, Head Neck, 1997;19:559–66.
  7. C layman GL, Johnson CJ, Morrison W, et al., The role of neck dissection after chemoradiotherapy for oropharyngeal cancer with advanced nodal disease, Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2001;127:135–9.
  8. C orry J, Peters L, Fisher R, et al., N2 – N3 neck nodal control without planned neck dissection for clinical/radiologic complete responders – results of Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group Study 98.02, Head Neck, 2008;30:737–42.
  9. L iauw SL, Mancuso AA, Amdur RJ, et al., Post-radiotherapy neck dissection for lymph node-positive head and neck cancer: the use of computed tomography to manage the neck, J Clin Oncol, 2006;24:1421–7.
  10. D enaro N, Russi EG, Numico G, et al., The role of neck dissection after radical chemoradiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer: should we move back?, Oncology, 2013;84(3):174–85.
  11. Rogers JW, Greven KM, McGuirt WF, et al., Can post-RT neck dissection be omitted for patients with head-and-neck cancer who have a negative PET scan after definitive radiation therapy?, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2004;58;694–7.
  12. Gourin CG, Williams HT, Seabolt WN, et al., Utility of positron emission tomography-computed tomography in identification of residual nodal disease after chemoradiation for advanced head and neck cancer, Laryngoscope, 2006;116:705–10.
  13. Greven KM, Williams DW, Keyes JW Jr, et al., Positron emission tomography of patients with head and neck carcinoma before and after high dose irradiation, Cancer, 1994;74:1355–9.
  14. Yao M, Luo P, Hoffman HT, et al., Pathology and FDG PET correlation of residual lymph nodes in head and neck cancer after radiation treatment, Am J Clin Oncol, 2007;30:264–70.
  15. Vandecaveye V, Dirix P, De Keyzer F, et al., Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging early after chemoradiotherapy to monitor treatment response in head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2012;82(3):1098– 107.
  16. Kim S, Loevner LA, Quon H, et al., Prediction of response to chemoradiation therapy in squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2010;31(2):262–8.
  17. Mabanta SR, Mendenhall WM, Stringer SP, Cassisi NJ, Salvage treatment for neck recurrence after irradiation alone for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma with clinically positive neck nodes, Head Neck, 1999;21(7):591–4.
  18. L avertu P, Bonafede JP, Adelstein DJ, et al., Comparison of surgical complications after organ-preservation therapy in patients with stage III or IV squamous cell head and neck cancer, Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 1998;124(4):401–6.
  19. Bernier J, Bataini JP, Regional outcome in oropharyngeal and pharyngolaryngeal cancer treated with high dose per fraction radiotherapy. Analysis of neck disease response in 1646 cases, Radiother Oncol, 1986;6:87–103.
  20. Temam S, Pape E, Janot F, et al., Salvage surgery after failure of very accelerated radiotherapy in advanced head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma with clinically positive neck nodes, Head Neck, 1999;21:591–4.
  21. L iauw SL, Amdur RJ, Morris CG, et al., Isolated neck recurrence after definitive radiotherapy for node-positive head and neck cancer: salvage in the dissected or undissected neck, Head Neck, 2007;29:715–19.
  22. van der Putten L, van den broek GB, de Bree R, et al., Effectiveness of salvage selective and modified radical neck dissection for regional pathologic lymphadenopathy after chemoradiation, Head neck, 2009;31(5):593–603.
  23. H anai N, Kawakita D, Ozawa T, et al., Neck dissection after chemoradiotherapy for oropharyngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer: the correlation between cervical lymph node metastasis and prognosis, Int J Clin Oncol,. 2013 [Epub ahead of print].
  24. A delstein DJ, Saxton JP, Rybicki LA, et al., Multiagent concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locoregionally advanced squamous cell head and neck cancer: mature results from a single institution, J Clin Oncol, 2006;24(7):1064–71.
  25. A rgiris A, Stenson KM, Brockstein BE, et al., Neck dissection in the combined-modality therapy of patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer, Head Neck, 2004;26(5):447–55.
  26. L avertu P, Adelstein DJ, Saxton JP, et al., Management of the neck in a randomized trial comparing concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy with radiotherapy alone in resectable stage III and IV squamous cell head and neck cancer, Head Neck, 1997;19(7):559–66.
  27. Thariat J, Ang KK, Allen PK, et al., Prediction of neck dissection requirement after definitive radiotherapy for head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2012;82(3):e367–74.
  28. Robbins KT, Shaha AR, Medina JE, et al., Committee for Neck Dissection Classification, American Head and Neck Society. Consensus statement on the classification and terminology of neck dissection, Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2008;134(5):536–8.
  29. Stenson KM, Haraf DJ, Pelzer H, et al., The role of cervical lymphadenectomy after aggressive concomitant chemoradiotherapy: the feasibility of selective neck dissection, Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2000;126:950–56.
  30. Robbins KT, Wong FS, Kumar P, et al., Efficacy of targeted chemoradiation and planned selective neck dissection to control bulky nodal disease in advanced head and neck cancer, Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 1999;125(6):670–5.
  31. C annady SB, Lee WT, Scharpf J, et al., Extent of neck dissection required after concurrent chemoradiation for stage IV head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, Head Neck, 2010;32(3):348–56.
  32. Mukhija V, Gupta S, Jacobson AS, et al., Selective neck dissection following adjuvant therapy for advanced head and neck cancer, Head Neck, 2009;31:183–8.
  33. Nouraei SAR, Upile T, Al-Yaghchi C, et al., Role of planned postchemoradiotherapy selective neck dissection in the multimodality management of head and neck cancer, Laryngoscope, 2008;118:797–803.
  34. Stenson KM, Huo D, Blair E, et al., Planned post-chemoradiation neck dissection: significance of radiation dose, Laryngoscope, 2006;116:33–6.
  35. L ango MN, Andrews GA, Ahmad S, et al., Postradiotherapy neck dissection for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: pattern of pathologic residual carcinoma and prognosis, Head Neck, 2009;31:328–37.
  36. Schöder H, Yeung HW, Gonen M, et al., Head and neck cancer: clinical usefulness and accuracy of PET/CT image fusion, Radiology, 2004;231:65–72.
  37. D hiwakar M, Robbins KT, Vieira F, et al., Selective neck dissection as an early salvage intervention for clinically persistent nodal disease following chemoradiation, Head Neck, 2012;34(2):188–93.
  38. Robbins KT, Shannon K, Vieira F, Superselective neck dissection after chemoradiation: feasibility based on clinical and pathologic comparisons, Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2007;133(5):486–9.
  39. Goguen LA, Chapuy CI, Sher DJ, et al., Utilizing computed tomography as a road map for designing selective and superselective neck dissection after chemoradiotherapy, Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2010;143(3):367–74.

Further Resources

Share this Article
Related Content In Head and Neck Cancer
  • Copied to clipboard!
    accredited arrow-down-editablearrow-downarrow_leftarrow-right-bluearrow-right-dark-bluearrow-right-greenarrow-right-greyarrow-right-orangearrow-right-whitearrow-right-bluearrow-up-orangeavatarcalendarchevron-down consultant-pathologist-nurseconsultant-pathologistcrosscrossdownloademailexclaimationfeedbackfiltergraph-arrowinterviewslinkmdt_iconmenumore_dots nurse-consultantpadlock patient-advocate-pathologistpatient-consultantpatientperson pharmacist-nurseplay_buttonplay-colour-tmcplay-colourAsset 1podcastprinter scenerysearch share single-doctor social_facebooksocial_googleplussocial_instagramsocial_linkedin_altsocial_linkedin_altsocial_pinterestlogo-twitter-glyph-32social_youtubeshape-star (1)tick-bluetick-orangetick-red tick-whiteticktimetranscriptup-arrowwebinar Sponsored Department Location NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-07NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-08NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-09NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-10NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-11NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-12Salary £ TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-01TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-02TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-03TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-04TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-05TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-06TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-07TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-08TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-09TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-10TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-11TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-12TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-13TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-14TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-15TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-16TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-17TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-18TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-19TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-20TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-21TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-22TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-23TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-24TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-25TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-26TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-27TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-28TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-29TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-30TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-31TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-32TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-33TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-34TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-35TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-36TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-37TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-38TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-39TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-40TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-41TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-42TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-43TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-44TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-45TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-46TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-47TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-48TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-49TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-50TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-51TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-52TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-53TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-54TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-55TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-56TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-57TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-58TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-59TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-60TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-61TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-62TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-63TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-64TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-65TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-66TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-67TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-68TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-69TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-70TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-71TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-72