Seiji Hosokawa1, Goro Takahashi2,3, Jun Okamura2, Atsushi Imai2, Daiki Mochizuki2, Ryuji Ishikawa2, Yoshinori Takizawa2, Takashi Yamatodani2, Kiyoshi Misawa2, Hiroyuki Mineta2. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, 1-20-1 Handayama, Higashi-ku, Hamamatsu, 431-3192, Shizuoka, Japan. seijih@hama-med.ac.jp. 2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, 1-20-1 Handayama, Higashi-ku, Hamamatsu, 431-3192, Shizuoka, Japan. 3. Yamahoshi ENT Clinic, 1-4-6 Shitoro, Nishi-ku, Hamamatsu, 432-8069, Shizuoka, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are no universally accepted treatment recommendations for elderly patients with head and neck carcinomas. This study investigated whether radical treatment in elderly patients resulted in better survival compared with palliative treatment. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 724 patients aged > 60 years who underwent treatment for primary head and neck carcinomas at Hamamatsu University Hospital. We evaluated the impact of the following: age, sex, the clinical stage, smoking history, alcohol use history, primary tumor site, performance status, and Osaka Head and Neck Comorbidity Index score on overall survival using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The 5-year overall survival rate was significantly greater for the 646 patients initially treated with radical (curative) therapy than for the 78 patients treated with palliative therapy (p < 0.01). Patients who received palliative treatment in all age groups were more likely to die than were those in the radical treatment group, after controlling for age, sex, and clinical stage of the cancer. Information on the survival status of patients was obtained after a mean follow-up period of 46 months (range 6-205 months). CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of contraindications associated with comorbidities, radical treatment protocols should be recommended for elderly patients with head and neck carcinomas because they confer better survival.
BACKGROUND: There are no universally accepted treatment recommendations for elderly patients with head and neck carcinomas. This study investigated whether radical treatment in elderly patients resulted in better survival compared with palliative treatment. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 724 patients aged > 60 years who underwent treatment for primary head and neck carcinomas at Hamamatsu University Hospital. We evaluated the impact of the following: age, sex, the clinical stage, smoking history, alcohol use history, primary tumor site, performance status, and Osaka Head and Neck Comorbidity Index score on overall survival using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The 5-year overall survival rate was significantly greater for the 646 patients initially treated with radical (curative) therapy than for the 78 patients treated with palliative therapy (p < 0.01). Patients who received palliative treatment in all age groups were more likely to die than were those in the radical treatment group, after controlling for age, sex, and clinical stage of the cancer. Information on the survival status of patients was obtained after a mean follow-up period of 46 months (range 6-205 months). CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of contraindications associated with comorbidities, radical treatment protocols should be recommended for elderly patients with head and neck carcinomas because they confer better survival.
Entities:
Keywords:
Carcinomas; Elderly; Head and neck neoplasms; Prognosis; Survival analysis
Authors: Thomas T A Peters; Bernard F A M van der Laan; Boudewijn E C Plaat; Jan Wedman; Johannes A Langendijk; Gyorgy B Halmos Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Shao Hui Huang; Brian O'Sullivan; John Waldron; Gina Lockwood; Andrew Bayley; John Kim; Bernard Cummings; Laura A Dawson; Andrew Hope; John Cho; Ian Witterick; Eric X Chen; Jolie Ringash Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jesus E Juarez; Jehee Choi; Maie St John; Elliot Abemayor; Mindi TenNapel; Allen M Chen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-01-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jens Müller von der Grün; Daniel Martin; Timo Stöver; Shahram Ghanaati; Claus Rödel; Panagiotis Balermpas Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 3.411