Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17943894›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Interventions for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment.

R J Oliver, J E Clarkson, D I Conway, A Glenny, M Macluskey, S Pavitt, P Sloan, CSROC Expert Panel, H V Worthington

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 150 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. MET ectodomain shedding is associated with poor disease-free survival of patients diagnosed with oral squamous cell carcinoma.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2020
    Article
  8. Primary surgery versus chemoradiotherapy for advanced oropharyngeal cancers: a longitudinal population study.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2013
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Photodynamic therapy of early stage oral cavity and oropharynx neoplasms: an outcome analysis of 170 patients.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2011
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Applications of Nanomaterials in Dentistry: A Review.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

R J OliverOral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, M15 6FH. richard.j.oliver@manchester.ac.uk
J E Clarkson
D I Conway
A Glenny
M Macluskey
S Pavitt
P Sloan
CSROC Expert Panel
H V Worthington
University of Manchester · GBUniversity of Dundee · GBRoyal Victoria Infirmary · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOral and oropharyngeal cancers can be managed by surgery alone or with any combination of radiotherapy, chemotherapy and immunotherapy/biotherapy. Opinions on the surgical treatment, the optimal combinational therapy and the sequence of treatments in combinational therapy varies enormously.

objectivesTo determine which surgical treatment modalities for oral and oropharyngeal cancers lead to the best outcomes compared with other surgical, radiotherapy, chemotherapy or immunotherapy/biotherapy combinations. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic search of the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, OLDMEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and the National Cancer Trials Database. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted. Date of the most recent searches: July 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of surgery alone or in combination with chemotherapy, radiotherapy or immunotherapy/biotherapy for the treatment of primary oral or oropharyngeal cancer or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A minimum of two review authors conducted data extraction. Risk ratios were calculated for dichotomous outcomes at different time intervals, and hazard ratios were extracted or calculated for disease-free survival, total mortality, and disease-related mortality. Additional information from trial authors was sought. Data on adverse events were collected from the trial reports. MAIN

resultsThirty-one trials satisfied the inclusion criteria, only 13 of which were assessed as low risk of bias. Trials were grouped into 12 main comparisons. There were no trials that compared different surgical modalities of the primary tumour itself. However, there were a number of trials comparing different approaches to managing the cervical lymph nodes. The majority of treatment regimens under evaluation were surgery in combination with other modalities. As individual treatment regimens within each comparison varied, meta-analysis was inappropriate in most instances. Only two trials could be pooled, comparing concomitant radio/chemotherapy (with surgery) versus radiotherapy (with surgery). A statistically significant difference was shown for disease-free survival (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64 to 0.92) and total mortality (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.95) in favour of the concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy (with surgery) arm. No other treatment regimens showed consistent statistically significant results across the outcomes measured. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is some evidence that concomitant radio/chemotherapy (with surgery) is more effective than radiotherapy (with surgery) and may benefit outcomes in patients with more advanced oral and oropharyngeal cancers. As these trials were based on head and neck studies, future studies should evaluate this treatment regimen specifically in oral and oropharyngeal cancers separately and also address tumour staging and its impact on outcomes. In general, future studies are encouraged to evaluate site-specific and stage-specific data for oral and oropharyngeal cancers. Future trials should include health-related quality of life assessment as an outcome measure. There is a need for a consolidated standardised approach to reporting adverse events.

Indexed as

Combined Modality TherapyHumansMouth NeoplasmsOropharyngeal NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID17943894
OpenAlexW2156716403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.