4.1 Article

Clinical and histopathologic independent prognostic factors in oral squamous cell carcinoma: A retrospective study of 334 cases

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
卷 66, 期 8, 页码 1570-1579

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.12.024

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This retrospective hospital-based study reviewed and evaluated the outcome of patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) with the aim of identifying factors affecting the clinical course and survival rate. Patients and Methods: Patients with a follow-up of at least 12 months were included. The data collected were statistically analyzed for the presence of factors valuable for prognosis; survival curves were processed in accordance with the Kaplan-Meier method. Differences in the expression of variables in different grading levels were investigated. Cox's proportional hazard model for Z(i) covariates (grading, age, T, N) also was calculated. Results: Mean patient age was 67.7 years in women (n = 152) and 62.4 years in men (n = 182). A total of 98 patients were identified with Broder's/World Health Organization grade 1 histology, 176 with grade 2, and 55 with grade 3; 5 patients were identified as grade 4 (carcinoma in situ). Gender and risk factors seemed to be unrelated to prognosis, whereas a significant increase in mortality was seen in patients over age 70. Histological grading, tumor size, and neck involvement were related, as independent factors, in predicting survival in patients with OSCC (QM-H > 3.9). Gender, age, and risk factors had no statistical relationship with cancer histological differentiation. Conclusions: our analysis reveals a statistically significant relationship among histological Broder's grading of malignancy, tumor size, locoregional involvement, and survival rates, underscoring the utility of tumor differentiation in predicting the clinical course and outcome of OSCC. (c) 2008 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

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

4.1
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