| Literature DB >> 34516504 |
Paras Ahmad1, Rubbia Nawaz2, Maria Qurban3, Gul Muhammad Shaikh4, Roshan Noor Mohamed5, Anil Kumar Nagarajappa6, Jawaad Ahmed Asif7, Mohammad Khursheed Alam8.
Abstract
ABSTRACT: In Malaysia, oral cancer is very common and the reported 5-year survival of such patients is nearly 50% after treatment with surgery and radiotherapy, much lower than most of the developed countries. This study aimed to investigate the socio-demographic and clinicopathological parameters that influence the mortality rate of the patients suffering from oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) in the Kelantanse population.In this retrospective study, data regarding socio-demographic, clinicopathological factors, and treatment outcome associated with OSCC were gathered from the archives of the medical records office of Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia. For statistical analysis, simple and multiple logistic regression were performed. The significance level was set to P < .25.A total of 211 OSCC cases were registered in Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2018. Majority of them were male (57.82%), non-smoker (54.97%), non-alcohol consumer (91.94%), and non-betel quid chewer (93.83%) Malay (60.66%) patients. The tongue was the most commonly involved part of the oral cavity (41.52%). Histologically, the majority of the cases had moderately-differentiated OSCC (52.82%). Most of the patients were diagnosed at stage IV at the time of diagnosis (61.61%). When this study was performed, the survival status of the majority of the patients was alive (68.24%).Within the analyzed socio-demographic and clinicopathological parameters, gender, alcohol consumption, T-classification, histological grading, and treatment status have been demonstrated as an independent risk factors for mortality rate in multivariate analysis. Hence, these parameters need to be taken into account for the individualized therapy management of OSCC patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34516504 PMCID: PMC8428756 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000027127
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) ISSN: 0025-7974 Impact factor: 1.817
Sociodemographic and clinicopathological features of oral squamous cell carcinoma patients.
| Variables | n (%) | |
| Age (years) | No. of patients (%) | |
| 18–25 | 05 (2.36) | |
| 26–35 | 18 (8.53) | |
| 36–45 | 45 (21.32) | |
| 46–55 | 73 (34.59) | |
| 56–65 | 34 (16.11) | |
| 66–75 | 26 (12.32) | |
| 76–85 | 09 (4.26) | |
| 86–90 | 01 (0.47) | |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 122 (57.82) | |
| Female | 89 (42.18) | |
| Ethnicity | ||
| Malay | 128 (60.66) | |
| Indian | 61 (28.90) | |
| Chinese | 19 (9.00) | |
| Others | Nil | |
| Tobacco consumption | ||
| Smoker | 95 (45.02) | |
| Non-smoker | 116 (54.97) | |
| Alcohol intake | ||
| User | 17 (8.05) | |
| Non-user | 194 (91.94) | |
| Betel quid use | ||
| User | 13 (6.16) | |
| Non-user | 198 (93.83) | |
| Mixed habits (tobacco, alcohol, and betel quid): 07 (3.331) | ||
| Past family history of tumor | ||
| Yes | 48 (22.74) | |
| No | 163 (77.26) | |
| HPV pre-disposing factors | ||
| Yes | 55 (26.06) | |
| No | 156 (73.94) | |
| TNM staging | ||
| Stage I | 14 (6.63) | |
| Stage II | 18 (8.53) | |
| Stage III | 49 (23.22) | |
| Stage IV | 130 (61.61) | |
| Histological grade | ||
| Well differentiated | 130 (61.61) | |
| Moderately differentiated | 51 (24.17) | |
| Poorly differentiated | 31 (14.69) | |
| Survival status | ||
| Alive | 144 (68.24) | |
| Dead | 67 (31.75) | |
Figure 1(A) Distribution of OSCC cases over the years. (B) Site distribution of OSCC. (C) Frequency of OSCC cases presenting with TNM classification. (D) Type of treatment modalities used for OSCC patients. OSCC = oral squamous cell carcinoma.
Treatment outcome status of oral squamous cell carcinoma patients.
| Treatment outcome status | ||
| Treatment (n) | Alive (n) | Dead (n) |
| 144 (68.24%) | 67 (31.75%) | |
| Yes 179 (84.83%) | 139 (77.65%) | 40 (22.35%) |
| No 32 (15.17%) | 5 (15.62%) | 27 (84.37%) |
Simple logistic regression analysis of the factors associated with the mortality rate of oral squamous cell carcinoma.
| Variables | Crude OR (95% CI) | Wald | |
| Age | 0.88 (0.94, 1.05) | 0.33 | .842 |
| Gender | .078∗ | ||
| Male | 1 | ||
| Female | 0.37 (0.12, 1.12) | 2.82 | |
| Ethnicity | .660 | ||
| Malay | 1 | ||
| Non-Malay | 1.27 (0.17, 1.18) | 0.08 | |
| Alcohol | .135∗ | ||
| Non-user | 1 | ||
| User | 0.18 (0.02, 1.65) | 2.43 | |
| Smoking | .136∗ | ||
| Non-smoker | 1 | ||
| Smoker | 2.19 (0.77, 6.54) | 2.14 | |
| Betel quid | .282 | ||
| Non-user | 1 | ||
| User | 0.53 (0.13, 1.67) | 1.16 | |
| Family history of tumor | .810 | ||
| No | 1 | ||
| Yes | 1.08 (0.33, 3.73) | 0.07 | |
| HPV infection | |||
| No | 1 | 0.08 | .234 |
| Yes | 1.34 (0.56, 4.35) | ||
| T classification | .046∗ | ||
| T1, T2 | 1 | ||
| T3, T4 | 2.88 (1.12, 7.76) | 3.88 | |
| N classification | .234∗ | ||
| N0 | 1 | ||
| N1, N2, N3 | 2.38 (0.58, 8.68) | 1.45 | |
| M classification | .120∗ | ||
| M0 | 1 | ||
| M1 | 6.06 (0.64, 54.72) | 2.65 | |
| TNM staging | .678 | ||
| Stage I, II | 1 | ||
| Stage III, IV | 2.68 (1.24, 6.86) | 0.32 | |
| Tumor site | .434 | ||
| Locations except tongue | 1 | ||
| Tongue | 1.45 (0.56, 4.63) | 0.88 | |
| Poorly differentiated oral cancer | .048∗ | ||
| Yes | 1 | ||
| No | 0.23 (0.06, 0.88) | 4.34 | |
| Moderately differentiated oral cancer | .120∗ | ||
| Yes | 1 | ||
| No | 13.36 (0.66, 9.12) | 2.42 | |
| Metastasis | .058∗ | ||
| No | 1 | ||
| Yes | 5.18 (1.10, 26.42) | 3.94 | |
| Treatment | .038∗ | ||
| Yes | 1 | ||
| No | 4.67 (1.28, 14.72) | 4.22 |
Multiple logistic regression analysis of the factors associated with mortality rate of oral squamous cell carcinoma.
| Variables | Crude OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | |
| Gender | .005 | ||
| Male | 1 | ||
| Female | 0.37 (0.12, 1.12) | 10.10 (0.02, 0.49) | |
| T classification | .036 | ||
| T1, T2 | 1 | ||
| T3, T4 | 2.88 (1.12, 7.76) | 4.58 (1.14, 22.02) | |
| Alcohol intake | .020 | ||
| Non-drinker | 1 | ||
| Drinker | 0.18 (0.02, 1.65) | 16.81 (1.86, 197.15) | |
| Tumor histological grade | .028 | ||
| Well/moderately- differentiated tumor | 1 | ||
| Poorly differentiated tumor | 0.23 (0.06, 0.88) | 7.88 (1.55, 45.38) | |
| Treatment | .048 | ||
| Yes | 1 | ||
| No | 4.67 (1.28, 14.72) | 5.67 (1.22, 32.16) |