Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Resected Oral Cavity Cancer and Simultaneous Second Primary Malignancies

Liao, Chun‐Ta; Fan, Kang‐Hsing; Kang, Chung‐Jan; Lin, Ching-Yi; Chang, Joseph Tung-Chieh; Tsang, Ngan‐Ming; Huang, Bing‐Shen; Chao, Yin‐Kai; Lee, Li‐Yu; Wang, Hung‐Ming; Liau, Chi‐Ting; Hsu, Cheng–Lung; Hsieh, Ching-Hua; Tsao, Chung‐Kan; Fang, Tuan‐Jen; Huang, Shiang‐Fu; Chang, Kai‐Ping; Yen, Tzu‐Chen

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136918

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…SPMs have a significantly negative impact on the prognosis of HNSCC [37-39]. Overall survival (OS) in oral cancer patients with simultaneous SPM was significant lower than in those without simultaneous SPM (53% vs. 69%, 5-year OS) [38,39]. OS with head and neck SPMs was better than that with non-head and neck SPMs in patients with tongue or laryngeal cancer (39% vs. 29%, 5-year OS) [40].…”

Section: Guidelines For Surgical Treatment Of Oral Cancermentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for the Surgical Management of Oral Cancer: Korean Society of Thyroid-Head and Neck Surgery

Joo

Cho

Koo

et al. 2019

Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Korean Society of Thyroid-Head and Neck Surgery appointed a Task Force to provide guidance on the implementation of a surgical treatment of oral cancer. MEDLINE databases were searched for articles on subjects related to “surgical management of oral cancer” published in English. Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies. The quality of evidence was rated with use RoBANS (Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies) and AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Evidence-based recommendations for practice were ranked according to the American College of Physicians grading system. Additional directives are provided as expert opinions and Delphi questionnaire when insufficient evidence existed. The Committee developed 68 evidence-based recommendations in 34 categories intended to assist clinicians and patients and counselors, and health policy-makers. Proper surgical treatment selection for oral cancer, which is directed by patient- and subsite-specific factors, remains the greatest predictor of successful treatment outcomes. These guidelines are intended for use in conjunction with the individual patient’s treatment goals.

show abstract

Section: Guidelines For Surgical Treatment Of Oral Cancermentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for the Surgical Management of Oral Cancer: Korean Society of Thyroid-Head and Neck Surgery

Joo

Cho

Koo

et al. 2019

Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies mainly focused on the risk of developing an SPM after a known malignancy. Liao et al [ 9 ] discussed the main prognostic factors for oral cavity cancer patients with simultaneous SPM, and then developed a risk-stratification. Vassilev et al [ 10 ] provided a historical risk estimation of developing an SPM in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival outcomes in esophageal cancer patients with a prior cancer

Pan

Gao

et al. 2021

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To achieve a deeper understanding of patients who developed esophageal cancer (EC) as a second primary malignancy, which may help guide in clinical practice for these patients in the future. In the primary cohort, EC patients with a prior malignancy were identified from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end result 18 database. The 5 most common types of prior cancers were picked out based on the frequency of occurrence. In addition, Kaplan–Meier and log-rank tests were performed to investigate the survival impacts of prior cancers on EC patients. Besides, a competing-risk model was constructed to explore the relationship between EC-treatment and EC-specific mortality. In the secondary cohort, patients with stage I–III (N0M0) EC from 2004 to 2014 were enrolled. After propensity score matching, univariate and multivariate Cox analyses were developed to determine the prognostic factors for EC patients. A total of 1199 EC patients with a prior cancer were identified in the primary cohort. The 5 most common sites of prior cancers were prostate, female breast, bladder, lung and bronchus, and larynx. Kaplan–Meier analyses revealed that EC patients with prior prostate cancer and bladder cancer had the best overall survival (OS), while those with prior cancers of larynx and lung and bronchus had the worst OS. Fine and Gray competing risks analysis indicated that the administration of surgery was closely associated with better EC-specific survival (P < .001). In the secondary cohort, multivariate Cox analyses found that age at diagnosis, race, tumor grade, tumor extent, nodal status and metastasis stage, histology, and the administration of surgery were prognostic factors for OS and cancer-specific survival in EC patients. Besides, the existence of a prior cancer was an independent prognostic factor for cancer-specific survival. EC remains to be the most important cause of death in EC patients with a prior cancer. EC related treatment should be actively adopted in patients with a prior cancer, as they were more likely to die from EC than the prior cancer. EC patients with a prior cancer had comparable OS than those without.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite advances in therapy, the 5‐year survival for patients with OC is still unfavorable (Liao et al., 2015). A Taiwanese study showed that the 5‐year survival for OSCC patients was 68% and for patients with simultaneous second primary tumors was 53% (Liao et al., 2015). To date, primary surgical resection with or without postoperative radiation or chemoradiation remains as the standard of care for OC (Montero & Patel, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do betel quid and areca nut chewing deteriorate prognosis of oral cancer? A systematic review, meta‐analysis, and research agenda

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To explore the correlations between the habit of betel quid and areca nut (BQ‐AN) chewing and the prognosis of oral cancer (OC). Methods We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to clarify this issue. Data searches were performed using PubMed, Web of Science, Epistemonikos, and Embase databases through November 2019. The primary outcome was the difference in the prognosis of OC between BQ‐AN chewers and non‐chewers, measured in terms of 5‐year overall survival (OS) and 5‐year disease‐specific survival (DSS) log (HR) reported in articles. The pooled HR with 95% CI of 5‐year OS and 5‐year DSS was calculated using a fixed‐effects model. Results Ten articles with eleven OS or DSS survival studies (one of the articles contained two studies), which were published between 2003 and 2017, were eligible for inclusion in the present study. All the 11 studies were observational studies, among which 10 were retrospective and 1 was prospective. One study measured both OS and DSS. Eight studies, with a total of 2,761 patients, used 5‐year OS as the primary endpoint and four studies, with a total of 2,551 patients, used 5‐year DSS. Overall, the pooled HR evaluating BQ‐AN chewers was 1.26 (95% CI: 1.09–1.46) for 5‐year OS and 1.40 (95% CI: 1.15–1.70) for 5‐year DSS, compared with non‐chewers. There was a significant association between BQ‐AN chewing and OC survival. Conclusions Betel quid and areca nut chewing is significantly associated with poor prognosis in patients with OC.

show abstract

Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Resected Oral Cavity Cancer and Simultaneous Second Primary Malignancies

Cited by 8 publications

References 13 publications

Guidelines for the Surgical Management of Oral Cancer: Korean Society of Thyroid-Head and Neck Surgery

Guidelines for the Surgical Management of Oral Cancer: Korean Society of Thyroid-Head and Neck Surgery

Survival outcomes in esophageal cancer patients with a prior cancer

Do betel quid and areca nut chewing deteriorate prognosis of oral cancer? A systematic review, meta‐analysis, and research agenda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About