BACKGROUND: Salivary and serum levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and interleukin-8 (IL-8) have previously been studied in oral cancer with conflicting results. METHODS: We designed a controlled study to assess the correlation between pretreatment salivary and serum levels of IL-6 and IL-8, and all-cause survival and cancer recurrence in oral cancer patients. RESULTS: Fifty-two oral cancer patients and 52 healthy control cases were selected. In univariate analysis, salivary IL-6 and IL-8 seemed to be more expressed in cases (p<0.001 and p = 0.010, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that higher pretreatment saliva IL-6 levels were significantly associated with better survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 8.62; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.21-62.50; p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: To date, this is the largest prospective controlled study that has analyzed the pretreatment salivary and serum levels of IL-6 and IL-8 in oral cancer patients, suggesting salivary IL-6 as a possible prognostic biomarker. But further validation in a larger sample is still necessary.
BACKGROUND: Salivary and serum levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and interleukin-8 (IL-8) have previously been studied in oral cancer with conflicting results. METHODS: We designed a controlled study to assess the correlation between pretreatment salivary and serum levels of IL-6 and IL-8, and all-cause survival and cancer recurrence in oral cancerpatients. RESULTS: Fifty-two oral cancerpatients and 52 healthy control cases were selected. In univariate analysis, salivary IL-6 and IL-8 seemed to be more expressed in cases (p<0.001 and p = 0.010, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that higher pretreatment saliva IL-6 levels were significantly associated with better survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 8.62; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.21-62.50; p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: To date, this is the largest prospective controlled study that has analyzed the pretreatment salivary and serum levels of IL-6 and IL-8 in oral cancerpatients, suggesting salivary IL-6 as a possible prognostic biomarker. But further validation in a larger sample is still necessary.
Authors: Chiara Gai; Francesco Camussi; Roberto Broccoletti; Alessio Gambino; Marco Cabras; Luca Molinaro; Stefano Carossa; Giovanni Camussi; Paolo G Arduino Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Ildikó Judit Márton; József Horváth; Péter Lábiscsák; Bernadett Márkus; Balázs Dezső; Adrienn Szabó; Ildikó Tar; József Piffkó; Petra Jakus; József Barabás; Péter Barabás; Lajos Olasz; Zsanett Kövér; József Tőzsér; János Sándor; Éva Csősz; Beáta Scholtz; Csongor Kiss Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Francisco Javier Manzano-Moreno; Victor J Costela-Ruiz; Enrique García-Recio; Maria Victoria Olmedo-Gaya; Concepción Ruiz; Candelaria Reyes-Botella Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Elena Ferrari; Margherita E Pezzi; Diana Cassi; Thelma A Pertinhez; Alberto Spisni; Marco Meleti Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Zuzana Pös; Ondrej Pös; Jakub Styk; Angelika Mocova; Lucia Strieskova; Jaroslav Budis; Ludevit Kadasi; Jan Radvanszky; Tomas Szemes Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 5.923