4.5 Article

No survival benefit in never-smoker never-drinker patients with oral cavity cancer

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hed.27266

关键词

alcohol; head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; never-smoker never-drinker; oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma; survival; tobacco

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [R01CA211939-01A1]
  2. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [TL1TR002344]
  3. National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities [K01MD013897]
  4. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [5 T35 HL007815]
  5. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [T32DC000022]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clinical outcomes in patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) who have never smoked or drunk alcohol are similar to those who have had tobacco and alcohol exposure, when adjusted for independent biological features.
BackgroundAlthough strongly associated with tobacco and alcohol use, many oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) cases occur in patients without exposure to either, known as never-smoker, never-drinkers (NSND). We aimed to compare clinical outcomes between NSND and tobacco/alcohol-exposed populations and to define demographic characteristics of NSND. MethodsWe performed a retrospective, single-institution cohort study of 672 OCSCC patients. Cox models were used to estimate differences in overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) between NSND and tobacco/alcohol-exposed patients while adjusting for confounders. ResultsNSND represented 25.6% of our cohort and were older, more female, and more economically advantaged. Among NSND, oral tongue tumors dominated in younger patients, while alveolar ridge tumors dominated in elderly patients. Multivariate survival analysis revealed no differences in OS or RFS between NSND and tobacco/alcohol-exposed patients. ConclusionWhen adjusted for independent biologic features, clinical outcomes in OCSCC are similar between NSND and tobacco/alcohol-exposed patients.

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

4.5
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