Prognostic Factors in Major Salivary Gland Cancer

Hocwald, Eitan; Korkmaz, Hakan; Yoo, George H.; Adsay, Volkan; Shibuya, Terry Y.; Abrams, Judith; Jacobs, John R.

doi:10.1097/00005537-200108000-00021

Cited by 152 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

113

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some studies have also demonstrated perineural invasion as an independent predictor of survival (Garden et al, 1997;Hocwald et al, 2001). Paralleling the results of previously reported studies; grade was an independent predictor of DFS while nodal involvement was an independent predictor of overall survival in the current study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ten Year Experience with Surgery and Radiation in the Management of Malignant Major Salivary Gland Tumors

Iqbal¹,

Bhatti²,

Hussain³

et al. 2014

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Despite being rare in incidence, malignant tumors of major salivary glands show diverse histological variation. There are limited data on major salivary gland tumor management and outcome from Pakistan. The objective of this study was to share our experience with management of malignant tumors of major salivary glands. Materials and Methods: Patients who received treatment at Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital and Research Center from July 2002 to June 2011 with an underlying diagnosis of a major salivary gland malignancy were included. Patient characteristics and treatment modalities were assessed. Local, regional and distant failures were determined. Disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using Kaplan Meier curves and the Log rank test was used to determine statistical significance. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazard regression. Results: The parotid gland was the primary site of origin in 104 (80%) patients. Mucoepidermoid carcinoma (43%) and adenoid cystic carcinoma (24%) were the most common histological types. Surgery followed by adjuvant radiation remained the mainstay treatment modality with 81 (62%) patients. Nineteen (15%) patients were treated with surgery alone and 30 (23%) patients with locally advanced surgically inoperable tumors received radiation only. Forty one (32%) patients failed the treatment (local 12, regional 11, locoregional 5, distant 13). The expected 5 year DFS and OS were 65% and 74% respectively. On multivariate analysis, grade was the only independent predictor of DFS and nodal involvement was the only independent predictor of overall survival. Conclusions: Employing existing standards of treatment, comparable survival can be achieved in Pakistani population with major salivary gland malignancies as elsehwere in the world.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…T stage, lymph node status, age and grade of the tumors remain the most important prognostic variables for salivary gland malignancy (Spiro, 1986;Hocwald et al, 2001;Lima et al, 2005;Koul et al, 2007). Some studies have also demonstrated perineural invasion as an independent predictor of survival (Garden et al, 1997;Hocwald et al, 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten Year Experience with Surgery and Radiation in the Management of Malignant Major Salivary Gland Tumors

Iqbal¹,

Bhatti²,

Hussain³

et al. 2014

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Large studies in literature have shown age, sex, T stage, N stage, grade and perineural invasion as the most common important prognostic variables for parotid gland malignancy (North et al, 1990;Hocwald et al, 2001;Iqbal et al, 2014). In line with the literature data, in our univariate analysis, the OS was prognostic factors with gender, age, T stage, N stage, tumor grade, lymphovasculer invasion, perineural invasion, extracapsuler extansion, surgical margin, radiotherapy dose and distant metastasis.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Prognostic Factors and Clinical Outcome in Parotid Gland Tumors: a Single Institution Experience from the Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey

Kandaz

Soydemir²,

Bahat³

et al. 2016

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…[16][17][18] Most reports deal exclusively with either tumors of the major salivary glands (submandibular and parotid glands combined), or tumors of the minor salivary glands, [19][20][21][22][23][24] or tumors of the parotid gland only. [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] We performed an update of the database of the NWHHT concerning all salivary gland cancers irrespective of site and histology.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The prognostic role of comorbidity in salivary gland carcinoma

Terhaard

Schroeff

Schie

et al. 2008

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND.Patients with head and neck cancer are prone to develop significant comorbidity mainly because of the high incidence of tobacco and alcohol abuse, both of which are etiologic and prognostic factors. However, to the authors' knowledge little is known regarding the prognostic relevance of comorbidity in patients with salivary gland cancer.METHODS.A retrospective cohort of 666 patients with salivary gland cancer was identified within the Dutch Head and Neck Oncology Cooperative Group database. For multivariate analysis, a Cox proportional hazards model was used to study the effect of comorbidity on overall survival and disease‐specific survival.RESULTS.According to the Adult Comorbidity Evaluation‐27 (ACE‐27) index, 394 patients (64%) had grade 0 comorbidity, 119 patients (19%) had grade 1 comorbidity, 71 patients (12%) had grade 2 comorbidity, and 29 patients (5%) had grade 3 comorbidity. In multivariate analysis for overall survival, the ACE‐27 comorbidity grade was a strong independent prognostic variable. The hazards ratio (HR) of death, including all causes, was 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1‐2.1) for patients with ACE‐27 grade 1 comorbidity versus grade 0 comorbidity (P < .007). The HR was 1.7 (95% CI, 1.2‐2.5) for grade 2 comorbidity (P = .003) and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.5‐4.7) for grade 3 comorbidity versus grade 0 comorbidity (P = .001). In the current analysis, ACE‐27 comorbidity grade was not an independent prognostic factor for disease‐free survival.CONCLUSIONS.To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study concerning the prevalence and relevance of the prognostic comorbidity variable ACE‐27 grade in patients with salivary gland cancer. Overall survival, but not disease‐free survival, was correlated strongly with ACE‐27 grade. Compared with other studies that investigated the effect of comorbidity on patients with head and neck cancer, patients with salivary gland cancer had less comorbidity. Their comorbid status appeared to be reasonably comparable to that of patients with other nonsmoking‐ and nonalcohol‐related cancers. Cancer 2008. © 2008 American Cancer Society.

show abstract

Prognostic Factors in Major Salivary Gland Cancer

Abstract: Our study indicated that the presence of positive lymph nodes and perineural invasion is important independent predictors of disease-free survival. Our limited data also suggest that adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy may improve disease-free survival.

Cited by 152 publications

References 26 publications

Ten Year Experience with Surgery and Radiation in the Management of Malignant Major Salivary Gland Tumors

Ten Year Experience with Surgery and Radiation in the Management of Malignant Major Salivary Gland Tumors

Prognostic Factors and Clinical Outcome in Parotid Gland Tumors: a Single Institution Experience from the Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey

The prognostic role of comorbidity in salivary gland carcinoma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About