Squamous cell carcinoma variants in the major salivary glands: a population-based study
Rattachement africain : jp. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background Primary squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the major salivary glands is a rare malignancy with poor prognosis. Histological variants may differ in clinical presentation and outcomes.Objectives To clarify the clinicopathological features and prognostic impact of SCC variants in the major salivary glands using a large population-based dataset.Patients and methods We analysed 3581 patients with primary salivary gland SCC. Variants included conventional SCC, lymphoepithelial carcinoma (LEC), basaloid SCC (BSCC), and spindle cell carcinoma (SpCC). Overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were evaluated by the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox regression analyses.Results Conventional SCC accounted for 92.7% of cases, followed by LEC (3.7%), BSCC (1.7%), and SpCC (1.3%). The 5-year OS rates were 39.0% for conventional SCC, 76.4% for LEC, 51.5% for BSCC, and 41.8% for SpCC (p < 0.001). The corresponding DSS rates were 60.0%, 85.6%, 62.7%, and 64.9% (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, LEC was independently associated with superior survival, with hazard ratios of 0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36–0.71) for OS and 0.46 (95% CI 0.28–0.74) for DSS, whereas BSCC and SpCC showed outcomes comparable to conventional SCC.Conclusions Histological variant is a significant prognostic factor in salivary gland SCC. LEC showed favourable survival.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Squamous cell carcinoma variants in the major salivary glands: a population-based study
- Date Crossref
- 28/10/2025
- Éditeur
- Informa UK Limited
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.