4.7 Article

Impact of Diabetes Mellitus on the Prognosis of Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 17, 期 8, 页码 2175-2183

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-010-0996-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Taipei Veterans General Hospital [V98A-031, V98A-035]
  2. National Science Council, Executive Yuan, Taiwan (ROC) [NSC96-2314-B- 075-063-MY3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a prevalent chronic metabolic disease reported to affect the treatment outcomes of malignancies. This study explores the impact of diabetes on the prognosis of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). Clinicopathological characteristics and survival in terms of overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) of patients with OSCC who underwent surgical intervention at the Taipei Veterans General Hospital between 2002 and 2005 were stratified by diabetic status and compared. Patients with DM tend to have a lower OS, RFS, and CSS compared with nondiabetics (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 2.22, 2.42, and 2.16, respectively) even in less aggressive tumor stages (stage I and II). In advanced tumors, diabetic patients who were not prescribed adjuvant therapy had a significantly higher recurrence rate than nondiabetic patients (HR = 2.66). However, there was no significant difference in treatment outcome in patients with locally advanced tumors amenable to receive adjuvant therapy, even with the delayed initiation of adjuvant therapy in the DM group (49.1 +/- A 22.3 days vs. 40.0 +/- A 16.6 days, P = .04). DM was also associated with a higher frequency of perineural invasion (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.53). DM status could be a prognostic factor for OSCC, particularly for its effect in the survival and perineural invasion. Although diabetes-associated comorbidities may impair decision making toward less aggressive therapeutic modality, adjuvant treatment may be essential for DM patients to improve their survival.

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

4.7
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