These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Metastatic tumours to the oral cavity: a survival study with a special focus on gingival metastases.
    Author: Seoane J, Van der Waal I, Van der Waal RI, Cameselle-Teijeiro J, Antón I, Tardio A, Alcázar-Otero JJ, Varela-Centelles P, Diz P.
    Journal: J Clin Periodontol; 2009 Jun; 36(6):488-92. PubMed ID: 19508248.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: To describe survival from oral metastases, particularly gingival metastases, and to identify clinical prognostic variables. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A series of 39 patients were studied, analysing age, gender, primary tumour site, oral metastases site and histological type. RESULTS: Mean age: 62.3+/-9.2 years, with similar prevalence by gender. The most frequent sites for primary tumours were the kidney (20.5%), lung (20.5%) and breast (20.5%). Gingival metastases represented 63.6% of all oral soft tissue metastases (7/11). The average time between primary tumour diagnosis and appearance of the gingival metastases was 9.7+/-13.4 months. The median survival time since gingival metastases appearance was 5.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI)=0-13.6]; no statistically significant difference with other oral locations was found by the Kaplan-Meier curves (log rank: 0.29; p>0.05). Oral metastases involving the gingiva were more frequently found in the maxilla (85.7%versus 14.3%), whereas intra-osseous metastatic tumours were more frequent in the mandible (77.8%versus 22.2%; p<0.05; odds ratio=21; 95% CI=2.0-210.1). None of the variables considered had a prognostic value as indicated by the Kaplan-Meier test. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The data in this paper show that 25% (and in other studies up to 37%) of oral metastases came from unknown primary tumours; thus a biopsy with histopathologic analysis is mandatory for every patient with a gingival mass. CONCLUSIONS: This study reinforces the significance of gingival metastases as a poor prognosis indicator. Dental practitioners should suspect that gingival masses mimicking benign or inflammatory lesions may represent a sign of underlying malignant tumours.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]