4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Salivary gland cancer in Finland 1991-96:: An evaluation of 237 cases

Journal

ACTA OTO-LARYNGOLOGICA
Volume 125, Issue 2, Pages 207-214

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00016480510003174

Keywords

histology; incidence; outcome; salivary gland cancer; treatment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Conclusion. In this material consisting of various salivary gland carcinomas, stage 1, male gender and age were the most powerful predictors of patient outcome. Objectives. To retrieve the records of all salivary gland cancer (SGC) patients diagnosed in Finland between 1991 and 1996 and to evaluate the incidence, histological type and location of SGC, the treatment given and the outcome. Material and methods. The records for all SGCs (n = 286) diagnosed in Finland between 1991 and 1996 and reported to the Finnish Cancer Registry were retrieved. The histological re-evaluation and retrospective study involved 237 SGC patients. Results. The study population consisted of 125 males and 112 females. The mean age was 59 years (males 61 years, females 58 years). Follow-up was at least 5 years. The commonest tumor location was the parotid gland (n = 152; 64%), followed by the minor salivary glands (n =46; 19%), the submandibular gland (n =38; 16%) and the sublingual gland (n = 1; 0.4%). The most frequent histological types of SGC were adenoid cystic carcinoma (n =65; 27%), mucoepidermoid carcinoma (n =45, 19%) and acinic cell carcinoma (n =41; 17%). Surgery, either alone or in combination with other treatment modalities, was used in 209 cases (88%). Radiotherapy was given to 136 patients (57%), 13 of whom (5%) did not undergo surgery. The 5-year overall survival rate was 56.5%, and for stages I-IV it was 78%, 25%, 21% and 23%, respectively (p <0.001; log-rank test). Of the commonest tumor types, the best 5-year relative survival rate was for patients with acinic cell carcinoma (96%), followed by those with mucoepidermoid (79%) and adenoid cystic carcinoma (74%).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available