Back to all available

Prognosis effect of betel nut on oral squamous cell carcinoma: a population-based study

dentistry
oncology

Abstract

Background. The prognostic effect of betel nut on oral squamous cell carcinomas (OSCC) is controversial . This study aims to explore the prognosis effect of betel nut on OSCC . Methods. The study is a retrospective population-based cohort research, and we enrolled 1113 OSCC patients including the chewing betel nut group (n = 922) and the none chewing betel nut group (n = 191). All patients accepted the standardized surgical treatment and we investigated the prognosis effect of betel nut by returning visit all patients and comparing the disease-free survival time between the two groups. The Chi-square test was used to explore the clinical characteristics associated with betel nut chewing. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, single-factor cox regression, and multivariate cox regression analysis were used to investigate the prognosis effect of betel nut. Results. There was no difference in 5-year disease-free survival time between chewing betel nut patients and none chewing betel nut patients in either the overall or the subgroups survival curve. The single-factor cox regression analysis suggested that betel nut not be the prognostic factor of OSCC . Multifactor cox regression analysis suggested that N stage, clinical stage and pathological grade were the independent risk factors for prognosis in OSCC , and betel nut still did not affect the prognosis of OSCC patients even after correcting other research factors. Conclusions. Betel nut has no effect on the prognosis of OSCC patients, and N stage, clinical stage and pathological grade were the independent risk factors for OSCC prognosis.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].