A population‐based analysis of verrucous carcinoma of the oral cavity

Alonso, José Eugenio Lozano; Kuan, Edward C.; Arshi, Armin; John, Maie A. St.

doi:10.1002/lary.26745

Cited by 19 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The average age at diagnosis was 52.3 years in our cohort, similar to that reported in previous articles 11,12 . Advanced age has long been recognized as a poor prognostic factor for most known malignancies, possibly because of a higher prevalence of concomitant medical comorbidities 16–18 . In our study, age >65 was also identified as an independent prognostic factor associated with worse OS and DSS.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

A Population‐Based Analysis of Mucoepidermoid Carcinoma of the Oral Cavity

Wang

Zhang

2020

The Laryngoscope

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To identify survival outcomes for patients with mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) of the oral cavity and the effects of different prognostic factors on survival. Study Design Retrospective cohort study using a national database. Methods Retrospective, population‐based cohort study of patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database who were diagnosed with MEC of the oral cavity from 1973 to 2016. Overall survival (OS) and disease‐specific survival (DSS) were calculated. Results A total of 1693 patients with MEC of the oral cavity were included. Of those, there are 696 males and 997 females, the average age at diagnosis being 52.4 years. The vast majority of cases (86.4%) presented with stage I and stage II disease. A total of 206 patients had received both surgical and radiation therapy (RT), while 1338 patients just had undergone only surgery and 149 with no treatment. On multivariate analysis, advanced age, stage, and histologic grade were associated with worse OS and DSS. Surgical therapy was an independent favorable predictor of OS and DSS. For radiotherapy, multivariate analysis showed that it was associated with worse DSS, whereas there was no significant difference in OS. Conclusion MEC of the oral cavity is associated with a generally favorable prognosis. Advanced age, stage, and histologic grade were independent negative prognostic factors for survival, and surgery was the main treatment to improve survival. Level of Evidence 4 Laryngoscope, 131:E857–E863, 2021

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

A Population‐Based Analysis of Mucoepidermoid Carcinoma of the Oral Cavity

Wang

Zhang

2020

The Laryngoscope

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[4][5][6][7][8] Surgical resection remains the primary treatment modality for oral cavity VC, and rates of PORT range from 10% to 18%. 9,10 However, the benefit of PORT is unclear, and may actually reduce survival. In a recent cross-sectional population analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, Mohan et al reported that patients treated with PORT trended toward worse overall survival (OS) compared to those treated with surgery alone (71.4 and 117 months, respectively; P = .12).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[14][15][16] The radiosensitivity of VC is also controversial as adjuvant RT may not be as effective for these indolent tumors compared to conventional SCC. 5,9,17 Given the need for additional data regarding the use of adjuvant RT in the management of oral cavity VC, we present the current utilization of PORT and variables associated with its delivery in the United States. Secondarily, we report survival outcomes in this patient population, including the impact of PORT on OS, which supplements prior database studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postoperative Radiation Therapy in Oral Cavity Verrucous Carcinoma

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives/Hypothesis We investigate the clinicopathologic and treatment factors associated with the use of postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) and its effect on overall survival (OS) for patients with oral cavity verrucous carcinoma (VC). Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Methods A retrospective cohort study of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2006 to 2015 was performed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictive factors associated with the use of PORT. Cox Regression survival and propensity score analyses were used to evaluate the effect of PORT on mortality. Results A total of 356 adult patients with primary oral cavity VC who underwent definitive surgical resection were identified. A total of 10.7% of patients underwent definitive surgical resection followed by PORT. Variables associated with PORT included distance to the hospital per 10 miles (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70–0.95]) and stage III–IV disease (aOR, 12.13 and 23.92, respectively). Multivariable Cox regression survival analysis indicated no evidence of survival benefit in patients undergoing PORT compared to surgery alone (adjusted hazard ratio 1.50 [0.74–3.05], P = .23). Propensity score analysis also showed no OS benefit with the use of PORT (P = .41). Conclusions Variables associated with the use of PORT on multivariable analysis included closer distance to hospital and stage III–IV disease. No clear survival benefit with PORT was identified on either multivariable survival analysis or propensity score analysis. These results suggest that surgery alone with negative margins may be the optimal treatment for patients with oral cavity VC. Level of Evidence 4 Laryngoscope, 132:1953–1961, 2022

show abstract

“…Regarding the pathological differentiation of oral cancer, the verrucous carcinoma, originally described as a variant of SCC, should be considered as a distinct entity, associated with a generally favorable prognosis. The referred neoplasia is more prevalent in the tongue, followed by the alveolar ridge and buccal mucosa …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The referred neoplasia is more prevalent in the tongue, followed by the alveolar ridge and buccal mucosa. 12 There are no nationwide data regarding incidence, morbidity, and mortality of tongue cancer in Brazil. To fill the gap, the purpose of the current research was to clarify the scientific community about the trends of tongue cancer epidemiology in the country.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%