OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to summarize findings from the available literature to provide up-to-date information on sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma and to analyse clinical, radiological, and histopathological features to obtain information for and against as an odontogenic malignancy.
METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive review of literature by searching Pubmed, EBSCO and Web of Science databases, according to PRISMA guidelines. All the cases reported as sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma in English were included. Data retrieved from the articles were gender, age, clinical features, site, relevant medical history, radiographical findings, histopathological findings, immunohistochemical findings, treatments provided and prognosis.
RESULTS: Mean age at diagnosis of sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma was 54.4 years with a very slight female predilection. Sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma was commonly reported in the mandible as an expansile swelling which can be asymptomatic or associated with pain or paraesthesia. They appeared radiolucent with cortical resorption in radiograph evaluation. Histologically, sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma was composed of epithelioid cells in dense, fibrous, or sclerotic stroma with equivocal perineural invasion. Mild cellular atypia and inconspicuous mitotic activity were observed. There is no specific immunohistochemical marker for sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma. AE1/AE3, CK 5/6, CK 14, CK19, p63 and E-cadherin were the widely expressed markers for sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma. Surgical resection was the main treatment provided with no recurrence in most cases. No cases of metastasis were reported.
CONCLUSION: From the literature available, sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma is justifiable as a malignant tumor with no or unknown metastatic potential which can be adequately treated with surgical resection. However, there is insufficient evidence for histological grading or degree of malignancy of this tumor.
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study where family caregivers and patients who were diagnosed of cancers within 12 months were recruited. QOL of caregivers were measured using The Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer (CQOLC). Psychological distress was measured using Hospital anxiety and depressive scale. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the related factors of QOL of caregivers.
RESULTS: A total of 458 patients/caregiver pairs were included. Symptoms of anxiety and depression reported by caregivers were 24.9% and 24.2% respectively. Caregivers of patients with solid tumors have better CQOLC score compared to those who cared for patients with hematological cancers (91.25 vs 86.75). Caregivers of non-Malay ethnicity, those caring for patients with advanced stage cancer and with hematological cancers had significantly poorer QOL. QOL of caregivers are also significantly affected when patients demonstrated anxiety symptoms.
CONCLUSION: This study provides detailed evaluation of the QOL of caregivers of cancer patients in Malaysia. The significant psychological distress and low caregiver QOL indicate the urgent need for comprehensive supports for caregivers with cancer patients, especially those caring for patients with haematological cancers.