Skip to main content
. 2021 Jun 23;11:647175. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.647175

Table 1.

Patient characteristics of 41 oral cancer patients according to the expression level of IRAK2.

IRAK2
Low expression (n = 24) High expression (n = 17) P value
Age (years) (mean ± SD) 51.3 ± 11.4 52.7 ± 10.1 0.70
RT dose (cGy) (mean ± SD) 6338.3 ± 1378.4 6559.4 ± 1284.8 0.61
Gender Male 23 (96%) 16 (94%) 0.80
Female 1 (4%) 1 (6%)
Clinical stage I 8 (33%) 4 (24%) 0.88
II 11 (46%) 9 (53%)
III 2 (8%) 1 (6%)
IVA/B 3 (13%) 3 (18%)
Pathologic stage I 15 (63%) 7 (41%) 0.18
II 9 (38%) 10 (59%)
Surgical margin <1 mm 6 (25%) 1 (5.9%) 0.21
≧1~ ≦5 mm 18 (75%) 16 (94.1%)
Lymphovascular space invasion No 23 (95.8%) 14 (82.4%) 0.29
Yes 1 (4.2%) 3 (17.6%)
Perineural invasion No 22 (91.7%) 13 (76.5%) 0.18
Yes 2 (8.3%) 4 (23.5%)
Chemotherapy No 17 (71%) 10 (59%) 0.42
Yes 7 (29%) 7 (41%)

SD, standard deviation; RT, radiotherapy.

According to the principle of surgical oncology and our treatment policy, re-resection was the first treatment of choice for patients who had close-margin (i.e., ≦5 mm) pathology stage I-II OSCC. However, for those patients who had anatomic difficulty on re-resection and who had refusal of re-operation, salvage therapy of radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy was the alternative treatment choice, as that indicated for the above 41 patients.