4.5 Article

The occurrence and pattern of head and neck sarcomas: a comprehensive cancer center experience

Journal

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY
Volume 277, Issue 5, Pages 1473-1480

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-020-05834-x

Keywords

Head and neck sarcomas; Histologic types; Treatment; Prognosis

Funding

  1. Postgraduate Program in Oral Pathology of UFRN
  2. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) [001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose This study aimed to analyze the demographics, clinicopathological, treatment, and survival characteristics of head and neck sarcomas diagnosed in a reference center in the Brazilian Northeast. Materials and methods This retrospective cohort study reviewed the clinical records of patients with head and neck sarcomas. Epidemiologic data consisted in clinical location, age, gender, histopathological diagnosis, clinical TNM staging and treatment. Outcome variables were local recurrence and survival. The statistical analyses were performed by a binary logistic regression analysis. The survival analysis was assessed through the Kaplan-Meier curve. Results Sixty-nine patients with head and neck sarcomas (male 39; female 30) were analyzed. The most common histologic subtypes were rhabdomyosarcoma, dermatofibrosarcoma, and pleomorphic sarcoma. The mean age of the patients at the time of diagnosis was 38.1 years old. A total of 31 patient died (sarcoma-related death) up to the end of the follow-up, with a mean follow-up rate of 1.63 years. A multivariate analysis revealed that anatomical site, treatment modality, histopathological diagnosis, and clinical stage of the disease were associated with specific survival, reaching statistical significance. Conclusion This study demonstrates the impact of important clinical-pathological parameters on the overall prognosis of head and neck sarcomas.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available