SMOKING, GENDER, AND AGE AS RISK-FACTORS FOR SITE-SPECIFIC INTRAORAL SQUAMOUS-CELL CARCINOMA - A CASE-SERIES ANALYSIS

Citation
A. Barasch et al., SMOKING, GENDER, AND AGE AS RISK-FACTORS FOR SITE-SPECIFIC INTRAORAL SQUAMOUS-CELL CARCINOMA - A CASE-SERIES ANALYSIS, Cancer, 73(3), 1994, pp. 509-513
Citations number
16
Categorie Soggetti
Oncology
Journal title
CancerACNP
ISSN journal
0008543X
Volume
73
Issue
3
Year of publication
1994
Pages
509 - 513
Database
ISI
SICI code
0008-543X(1994)73:3<509:SGAAAR>2.0.ZU;2-G
Abstract
Background. Studies assessing risk factors for oral cancer do not gene rally report results for specific oral sites. The purpose of the curre nt study was to examine differences in the distribution of age, gender , and tobacco use by intraoral site in a series of oral cancer cases. Methods. Information on gender, age at diagnosis, and lesion location was obtained for all incident cases of oral squamous cell carcinoma di agnosed through the University of Connecticut Oral Pathology Biopsy Se rvice during the period 1987-1991 (N = 150). Information on tobacco us e was obtained through a telephone interview or from medical or dental records. Results. The tongue, floor of the mouth (FOM), and gingiva, respectively, were the most commonly affected sites. The male-to-femal e ratio was greatest for FOM cancer (3.4) and lowest for gingival canc er (0.5). The mean age at diagnosis did not differ significantly by si te. The percentage of smokers among cases of FOM, tongue, and gingival cancer was 97%, 64%, and 50%, respectively. When multiple logistic re gression was used to compare FOM and gingival cancer, gender and smoki ng remained significant predictors. The odds of smoking among patients with FOM cancer were 32 times the odds of smoking among patients with gingival cancer (odds ratio for age, gender adjusted = 32.6, 3.3-323. 5). Conclusions. The findings suggest that cancer of the FOM is more s trongly associated with smoking than is cancer of the gingiva and, per haps, the tongue. The reported results should be interpreted cautiousl y in light of study limitations, which include the absence of informat ion on alcohol consumption and lack of a noncancer control group.