Hypopharynx

The terminology recommended here encompasses major structural features of the body and all external characters recognized under light microscopy. Internal characters are not addressed herein, because the terminology in use is more consistent and uniform. We also exclude fine structural details, including those of peristomatic structures (epipharynx and hypopharynx), because they have been documented only recently, by histology and scanning electron microscopy, so that a consistent terminology is available (Edgecombe and Giribet 2006 ; Koch and Edgecombe 2006 , 2008 (link)). Our recommended terminology mainly focuses on adult morphology of extant chilopods, but is intended to be applicable to other post-embryonic stadia and to extinct taxa as well.
We considered all publications in English dealing with centipedes since Lewis’ (1981) treatise on chilopod biology (the most recent, comprehensive synthesis on the morphology of this group in English) and a selection of older works also in English (listed in the additional file: Pre-1981 publications) that seemed most relevant for the morphological terminology. We omitted XIX century publications, because their terminologies were often based on erroneous or unwarranted homologies with other arthropods and have long been superseded. We retrieved all applicable terms and assessed counterparts.
To maximize future applicability, alternative criteria of selection have been discussed with authors who are either currently the most active centipede systematists publishing descriptions in English and/or have already addressed issues of terminology standardization. In order to identify and recommend a single term for each character, we applied the following criteria: (i) we selected a term already used in the literature, except when all alternatives are either ambiguous or inconsistent with other selected terms; (ii) among alternatives, we selected either the term used most frequently (by most authors and/or in most publications) or the one explicitly introduced and defined by an influential author; (iii) we applied minor emendations to selected terms (in endings, prefixes, hyphenations between elements of compound words) when necessary for consistency and uniformity. We refrained from revising the terminology based on homology hypotheses with other arthropods (Edgecombe 2008 ), because many relationships remain under debate.PageBreak
Major anatomical differences exist between the six centipede orders, five extant - Scutigeromorpha, Lithobiomorpha, Craterostigmomorpha, Scolopendromorpha, and Geophilomorpha - and one extinct, Devonobiomorpha. Morphological and taxonomical investigations by different authors have sometimes been and still are limited to single orders, leading to different terminological traditions. While we propose a consistent terminology for the entire class, we specify the order(s) to which each term is applicable to facilitate usage by students interested in single orders; when no orders are specified, it is meant that the term is applicable to all orders; when an order is specified, it is meant that the term is applicable to at least some taxa in the order.

Eligibility criteria are described in Table 1. The ORGAVADS study focuses on patients with surgically resectable HNSCC who undergo surgery at François Baclesse Center and Caen University Hospital Center. After patient screening according to criteria, and the patient’s non-opposition, the patient will be enrolled in the study. An identification number will be thus assigned to each patient to be used throughout the study.Table 1

ORGAVADS study inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria	Non-inclusion criteria
Patient  ≥ 18 years	Pregnant women
Histologically confirmed squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx or larynx	Patient deprived of liberty or placed under the authority of a tutor
Patients for whom oncologic surgery is planned or who have recently undergone surgery of the tumor of oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx or larynx
Subject affiliated to a social security regimen
No opposition to participate to the study

Incident cancer cases were identified through data linkage to national cancer and mortality registries, provided by the National Health Service (NHS) Digital for participants in England and Wales, and NHS Central Register for participants in Scotland.¹⁶ Cancer registries were coded in the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) and the third edition of ICD for Oncology (ICD-O-3) morphology codes where appropriate, and were available up to 31 July 2019 for England and Wales, and 31 October 2015 for Scotland. Mortality registries were coded using ICD-10 and available up to 31 January 2021. Cancer deaths were defined as primary/underlying cause of death. We examined all cancers (C00–C97, except for non-melanoma skin cancer C44) and 34 site-specific cancers. Detailed list, coding and case numbers for each site-specific cancer are presented in Appendix Table S1 for cancer incidence and Appendix Table S2 for cancer mortality. Cancers with small case numbers (n < 40, e.g. hypopharynx, larynx) are presented but excluded from subsequent analyses.

Human HNSCC cell lines utilized in this study included: Cal-33 (tongue SCC, Cellosaurus, accession number; CVCL_1108), FaDu (hypopharynx SCC, ATCC, accession number; HTB_43), HSC2 (oral cavity SCC, Cellosaurus, accession number; CVCL_1287), HSC3 (oral cavity SCC, Cellosaurus, accession number; CVCL_1288), KYSE 70 (esophageal SCC, Cellosaurus, accession number; CVCL_1356), KYSE 180 (esophageal SCC, Cellosaurus, accession number; CVCL_1349), and LB771 (head and neck SCC, Cellosaurus, accession number; CVCL_1369). All cell lines were maintained in a humidified atmosphere of 5% CO₂ in air at 37 °C incubator in the appropriate cell culture media that was supplemented with 10% heat-inactivated fetal calf serum, 2 mML-glutamine, penicillin (100 U/mL), and streptomycin (100 μg/mL).