Clinical outcome of squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue in young patients: A stage-matched comparative analysis

48Citations
Citations of this article
27Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives. The reported incidence of tongue cancer in young patients has recently increased. The aim of this study was to analyze the clinical characteristics of tongue cancer in a young group of patients, and to compare them with those of an older group of tongue cancer patients. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 85 patients who were diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue. They were divided into two age groups: over 45 years of age and under 45 years. To compare the prognosis of similarly staged patients in the group, each age group was divided into the early (stage I, II) and advanced stage groups (stage III, IV), and then they were compared. The young group consisted of 23 patients and the older group had 62 patients. Results. At the early stage, the clinical prognosis of the patients in both age groups was good, and no significant difference was observed. However, at the advanced stage, the overall and regional recurrence rates were significantly higher in the younger age group as compared to that in the old age group (P=0.007, P=0.001, respectively). The diseasespecific survival rate of the patients in the young group was significantly lower than that in the old age group (P= 0.025). Conclusion. Tongue cancer in young subjects has significantly different clinical outcomes according to the stage. The clinical outcome of the advanced-stage tongue cancer in young subjects was poorer than that in the older subjects. Regional recurrence seemed to be the main cause of the poor prognosis. © 2010 by Korean Society of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Park, J. O., Sun, D. I., Cho, K. J., Joo, Y. H., Yoo, H. J., & Kim, M. S. (2010). Clinical outcome of squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue in young patients: A stage-matched comparative analysis. Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology, 3(3), 161–165. https://doi.org/10.3342/ceo.2010.3.3.161

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free