| Literature DB >> 22363846 |
Y Endo1, M Tanioka, Y Miyachi.
Abstract
The patient's delay in the visit to a hospital seems to play an important role in prognosis in invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). This report explored prognostic factors of cutaneous SCC focusing on patient delay in hospital visit. Data of 117 Japanese patients who were treated for invasive cutaneous SCC in our facility between 2000 and 2010 were used for analysis. A multivariate Cox proportional-hazard modelling revealed that a pair of TNM stage (hazard ratio, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.8 to 13.9) and poorer histological differentiation (hazard ratio, 3.2; 95% CI, 0.93 to 10.3), and a pair of tumour size (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.004 to 1.04) and rapid growth (hazard ratio, 8.25; 95% CI, 1.29 to 52.7) were a prognostic factor whereas patient delay in hospital visit was not. However, patient delay in hospital visit was correlated with larger tumour size.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22363846 PMCID: PMC3262535 DOI: 10.5402/2011/285289
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ISRN Dermatol ISSN: 2090-4592
Characteristics of the patients, given as mean ± standard deviation or no, (%) (N = 117).
| Prognostic factor | Number (%) |
|---|---|
| Sex, male (%) | 74 (63) |
| Age (year) | 74.4 ± 12.7 |
| Patient delay in hospital visit (year) | 2.97 ± 4.1 |
| Tumour size (mm) | 28.3 ± 28.7 |
| Lymph node metastasis | 12 (10.3) |
| TNM stage (1) | |
| Stage I | 56 (47.9) |
| Stage II | 38 (32.5) |
| Stage III | 17 (14.5) |
| Stage IV | 6 (5.1) |
| Radiation related | 3 (2.6) |
| Rapid growth | 7 (6.0) |
| Perineural invasion | 3 (2.6) |
| Lymphovascular invasion | 3 (2.6) |
| Degree of differentiation | |
| Well | 67 (57.3) |
| Moderate | 27 (23.1) |
| Poor | 7 (6.0) |
| Tumour site | |
| Temporal head | 8 (6.8) |
| Frontal head | 4 (3.4) |
| Eye lid | 1 (0.9) |
| Cheek | 24 (20.5) |
| Ear | 10 (8.5) |
| Nose | 4 (3.4) |
| Lip | 5 (4.3) |
| Upper extremities | 5 (4.3) |
| Finger | 8 (6.8) |
| Hand | 8 (6.8) |
| Trunk | 6 (5.1) |
| Lower extremities | 19 (16.2) |
| Planter of the foot | 3 (2.6) |
| Dorsum of the foot | 3 (2.6) |
| Heel | 2 (1.7) |
| Digit of the foot | 7 (6.0) |
| Preceding lesion | |
| Actinic keratosis | 29 (24.8) |
| Basal cell carcinoma | 1 (0.9) |
| Bowen disease | 17 (14.5) |
| Burn | 3 (2.6) |
| Epidermal cyst | 1 (0.9) |
| Keratoacanthoma | 6 (5.1) |
| Pustulosis palmaris and plantaris | 1 (0.9) |
| Radiation keratosis | 1 (0.9) |
| Scar | 4 (3.4) |
| Other squamous cell carcinoma | 1 (0.9) |
| Trichilemmal cyst | 1 (0.9) |
| Ulcer | 10 (8.5) |
| Unknown | 42 (35.9) |
Note: (1)Stage was described using UICC (7th edition, 2009) [1].
Prognostic factors of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas influencing overall survival: results of univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models.
| Prognostic factor | Univariate model | Multivariate model 1(1) | Multivariate model 2(1) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI |
| HR | 95% CI |
| HR | 95% CI |
| |
| Age | 1.02 | 0.96–1.08 | 0.57 | 1.02 | 0.94–1.1 | 0.58 | 1.04 | 0.97–1.12 | 0.27 |
| Patient delay in hospital visit | 0.97 | 0.79–1.19 | 0.78 | ||||||
| Sun exposure (positive = 1) | 1.83 | 0.37–9.10 | 0.46 | ||||||
| Tumour size | 1.02 | 1.01–1.04 | 0.01 | 1.02 | 1.004–1.04 | 0.01 | |||
| Lymph node metastasis (positive = 1) | 3.03 | 0.61–15.1 | 0.18 | ||||||
| TNM Stage(2) | 4.02 | 1.60–10.1 | 0.04 | 5.02 | 1.79–14.1 | 0.00 | |||
| Radiation related (true = 1) | 4.90 | 0.63–40.2 | 0.14 | ||||||
| Rapid growth (positive = 1) | 7.60 | 1.49–39.1 | 0.02 | 8.25 | 1.29–52.7 | 0.03 | |||
| Perineural invasion (positive = 1) | 4.50 | 0.55–36.4 | 0.16 | ||||||
| Lymphovascular invasion (positive = 1) | 8.15 | 0.942–70.6 | 0.06 | ||||||
| Degree of differentiation | 2.99 | 1.27–7.64 | 0.02 | 3.20 | 0.94–10.9 | 0.06 | |||
Note: The total number of cases was 117; of those, 88 were considered in the analysis, as 18 cases had missing values, and 11 cases were censored before the earliest event occurred. There were 8 deaths recorded as caused by squamous cell carcinoma.
(1)Variables that were significant in univariate analysis were entered into the model, followed by a backward elimination procedure with P > 0.1 for variable removal from the model. In model 3, tumour size was used instead of TNM stage. The results were adjusted for age. CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio.
(2)Stage was described using UICC (7th edition, 2009).