4.6 Article

The prognostic value of histopathological grading systems in oral squamous cell carcinomas

期刊

ORAL DISEASES
卷 21, 期 6, 页码 755-761

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/odi.12343

关键词

oral squamous cell carcinoma; histopathological grading system; survival analysis; prognosis; oral cancer

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo-FAPESP, Sao Paulo, Brasil [2013/01607-6]
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior-CAPES, Brasilia, Brasil [PVES 109/2012]
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [13/01607-6] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveThis study evaluated the association of four histopathological grading systems (WHO grading system, malignancy grading of the deep invasive margins (MG), histological risk (HR) model, and tumor budding and depth of invasion (BD) model) with clinicopathological parameters and outcome of 113 oral squamous cell carcinomas to identify their roles in prognosis. MethodsDemographic and clinical features were obtained from patients' records. Sections from all paraffin-embedded blocks were evaluated according to the four grading systems. Demographic and clinical associations were analyzed using chi-square test, and correlations between the grading systems were established with the Spearman's rank correlation test. Survival curves were performed with Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariate analysis based on Cox proportional hazard model was calculated. ResultsSignificant associations with survival were observed for WHO grading system and BD model in the univariate analysis, but only the BD model was significantly associated with disease outcome as an independent prognostic marker. Age, tumor size, and presence of regional metastasis were also independent markers of reduced survival. ConclusionA significant association between the BD model and outcome of OSCC patients was observed, indicating this new histopathological grading system as a possible prognostic tool.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据