Grade as a prognostic factor in oral squamous cell carcinoma: A population‐based analysis of the data

Abstract

There is a strong association between histologic grade and survival in patients with AJCC stage I or II oral cavity SCC. High histologic grade in early stage oral cavity cancer is associated with poorer survival and carries independent prognostic value in addition to tumor size, node status, and presence of distant metastasis (TNM) stage. Thus, histologic grade should be considered clinically when making treatment decisions, and multivariable models of survival should include grade as a covariate to improve prognostic accuracy.

Epidemiology and Treatment of Lacrimal Gland Tumors

“…To our knowledge, there is no report of grade as a prognostic factor in tumors of the lacrimal gland; however, our finding that welldifferentiated and moderately differentiated tumors have better survival outcomes is consistent with findings in other head and neck malignant neoplasms. 28,32,34,35 Univariate analysis performed on ACC and SCC again revealed that surgical management improved OS and DSS in SCC and OS alone in ACC. Surgical resection with wide local excision is the mainstay of treatment of tumors of the lacrimal gland.…”

Effects of Intratumoral Inflammatory Process on 18F-FDG Uptake: Pathologic and Comparative Study with 18F-Fluoro-α-Methyltyrosine PET/CT in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma

“…Tumor cell proliferation rate is reported as a prognostic factor in head and neck carcinomas (25). In oral cavity epidermoid carcinomas, Ki-67 expression serves as an independent prognostic factor for survival (26).…”

Preoperative predictors of occult nodal disease in cT1N0 oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: Review of 2623 cases

“…2,13,25 Tumor differentiation has also been directly associated with overall survival in head and neck cancers, [26][27][28][29] as evident in Figure 2. 2,13,25 Tumor differentiation has also been directly associated with overall survival in head and neck cancers, [26][27][28][29] as evident in Figure 2.…”