4.6 Article

Prevalence of pain in oral cancer: A retrospective study

Journal

ORAL DISEASES
Volume 27, Issue 7, Pages 1806-1812

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/odi.13701

Keywords

oral cancer; pain; prevalence; squamous cell carcinoma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study revealed a high prevalence of pain among treatment-naive patients with oral cancer. Pain occurrence was significantly associated with the duration of symptoms, presence of disease in the tongue, TNM stage, and other factors.
Objective: This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of pain among treatment-naive patients with oral cancer and to identify the clinical and histopathological characteristics of oral cancer associated with pain occurrence. Materials and Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients presenting with biopsy-proven oral cancer between January 2015 and December 2019. Variables, including demographic data, medical history, clinical presentation, and histopathological information, were extracted and analyzed. Appropriate descriptive and analytic statistics were computed. Results: Among 1,067 participants, 682(63.9%) were males. The prevalence of pain was 67.5%. It was found to be significantly associated with the duration of symptoms, history of betel or areca nut, squamous cell carcinoma, presence of disease in tongue, palate, and lips, lesion size, clinical nodal involvement, depth of invasion, TNM classification, limited mouth opening, bleeding, and restricted tongue mobility. Logistic regression analysis suggested that pain in oral cancer was positively associated with the occurrence of disease in the tongue and negatively with TNM stage I. Conclusions: There is a high prevalence of pain among patients with oral cancer even before the initiation of any therapeutic intervention. Occurrence is significantly higher in patients with the presence of disease in the tongue and among those with TNM stage II or more.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available