4.3 Review

A systematic review of secretory carcinoma of the salivary gland: where are we?

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2020.04.007

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Secretory carcinoma mainly affects the parotid glands and presents as a slow-growing, painless mass. The main differential diagnosis is acinic cell carcinoma, and the tumor is usually treated with surgery. Although the prognosis is generally favorable, there is still a possibility of recurrence, metastasis, and death.
Objective. The aim of this systematic review was to describe the epidemiology, diagnostic criteria, differential diagnosis, treatment, prognostic factors, and treatment outcomes of secretory carcinoma. Study Design. A comprehensive search of Lilacs, PubMed, Science Direct, and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify all case reports, letter to the editor, and histopathologic reclassifications regarding salivary gland secretory carcinoma published in English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese. Results. The final analysis included 119 studies, which totaled 642 secretory carcinoma diagnoses, with 239 case reports and 403 diagnostic reclassifications, mostly in the United States. The age range was 5 to 87 years, and cases were predominantly in males (58.7%) and mostly affecting the parotid glands (73.7%). The disease usually presents as a slow-growing, painless mass. The main differential diagnosis is acinic cell carcinoma, and the tumor is usually treated with surgery. The prognosis is considered favorable, although there have been reports of local recurrences, distant metastases, and deaths. Conclusions. It is important that clinicians become aware of this salivary gland neoplasm and report clinical data, clinical course, management and long-term follow-up. There is an urgent need to conduct more clinical trials, especially on tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitors and other potential target therapy modalities. (Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2021;132: e143-e152)

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

4.3
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