ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Anatomic-sex interaction effects and prognostic stratification in mucoepidermoid carcinoma of the oral cavity minor salivary glands.
Article in Discover oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the impact of anatomic-sex interaction effects on survival outcomes in mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) of the oral cavity minor salivary glands.
methodsA retrospective cohort study utilizing the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2000-2021) analyzed 923 MEC cases. Cases were stratified into four anatomic subsites: Palate, Lateral_oral, Palate_other, and Other_oral. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, standardized residual testing via chi-square tests, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were employed to assess anatomic-sex interactions. A risk-stratified follow-up protocol was proposed.
resultsThe 5- and 10-year overall survival (OS) rates were 94.7% and 92.6%, respectively. 1. Significant OS differences across subsites (Log-rank p = 0.001): Palate_other demonstrated the highest 10-year OS (96.8%), while Other_oral had the lowest (85.0%). 2. Sex-dependent anatomic distribution (χ²(3) = 20.873, p < 0.001; Cramer's V = 0.15): Males predominated in the Palate subsite (44.1% vs. 30.6%, Z = 4.20, p < 0.001), whereas females were overrepresented in Lateral_oral (29.5% vs. 21.4%, Z = 2.75) and Palate_other (18.2% vs. 12.8%, Z = 2.19, p < 0.05). 3. Anatomic-sex interaction: Adjusted multivariable Cox models revealed males had 7.01-fold higher mortality risk overall (HR = 7.01, 95% CI 1.50-32.78, p = 0.013). However, subsite-specific risks diverged: Palate_other males: 72% risk reduction vs. females (product-term HR = 0.28, p = 0.017);Other_oral males: 23% risk reduction vs. females (product-term HR = 0.77, p = 0.013). 4. Bootstrap validation confirmed anatomic risk stratification (median survival: Palate_other 109.0 months vs. Palate 76.0 months, p = 0.003).
conclusionPrognosis of oral cavity minor salivary gland MEC is significantly modulated by anatomic-sex interactions. Males exhibited paradoxically reduced mortality risks in Palate_other and Other_oral subsites compared to females. Sex-specific anatomic clustering was observed: males predominantly clustered in the hard palate, whereas females showed predilection for the buccal mucosa/retromolar area and soft palate. A follow-up protocol stratified by anatomic subsites was proposed to optimize clinical surveillance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.