Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21901703›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011

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

Alyson Bessell, Anne-Marie Glenny, Susan Furness, Jan E Clarkson, Richard Oliver, David I Conway, Michaelina Macluskey, Sue Pavitt, Philip Sloan, Helen V Worthington

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Role ofIndian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Nomogram Identifies Age as the Most Important Predictor of Overall Survival in Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Cancer After Primary Surgery.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2020
    Article
  16. Management of the Neck in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Oral Cavity and Oropharynx: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Medical Care Cost of Oropharyngeal Cancer among Texas Patients.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Alyson BessellDepartment of Oral and Dental Sciences, University of Bristol, Lower Maudlin Street, Bristol, UK, BS1 2LY.
Anne-Marie Glenny
Susan Furness
Jan E Clarkson
Richard Oliver
David I Conway
Michaelina Macluskey
Sue Pavitt
Philip Sloan
Helen V Worthington
University of Manchester · GBCochrane · GBDundee Dental Hospital · GBRoyal Victoria Infirmary · GBShrewsbury College · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0707-10034
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgery is an important part of the management of oral cavity cancer with regard to both the removal of the primary tumour and removal of lymph nodes in the neck. Surgery is less frequently used in oropharyngeal cancer. Surgery alone may be treatment for early stage disease or surgery may be used in combination with radiotherapy, chemotherapy and immunotherapy/biotherapy. There is variation in the recommended timing and extent of surgery in the overall treatment regimens of people with these cancers.

objectivesTo determine which surgical treatment modalities for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers result in increased overall survival, disease free survival, progression free survival and reduced recurrence. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17 February 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 17 February 2011) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 February 2011). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared two or more surgical treatment modalities or surgery versus other treatment modalities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias was undertaken independently by two or more review authors. Study authors were contacted for additional information as required. Adverse events data were collected from published trials. MAIN

resultsSeven trials (n = 669; 667 with cancers of the oral cavity) satisfied the inclusion criteria, but none were assessed as low risk of bias. Trials were grouped into three main comparisons. Four trials compared elective neck dissection (ND) with therapeutic neck dissection in patients with oral cavity cancer and clinically negative neck nodes, but differences in type of surgery and duration of follow-up made meta-analysis inappropriate. Three of these trials reported overall and disease free survival. One trial showed a benefit for elective supraomohyoid neck dissection compared to therapeutic ND in overall and disease free survival. Two trials found no difference between elective radical ND and therapeutic ND for the outcomes of overall survival and disease free survival. All four trials found reduced locoregional recurrence following elective ND.A further two trials compared elective radical ND with elective selective ND and found no difference in overall survival, disease free survival or recurrence. The final trial compared surgery plus radiotherapy to radiotherapy alone but data were unreliable because the trial stopped early and there were multiple protocol violations.None of the trials reported quality of life as an outcome. Two trials, evaluating different comparisons reported adverse effects of treatment. AUTHORS'

conclusionsSeven included trials evaluated neck dissection surgery in patients with oral cavity cancers. The review found weak evidence that elective neck dissection of clinically negative neck nodes at the time of removal of the primary tumour results in reduced locoregional recurrence, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that elective neck dissection increases overall survival or disease free survival compared to therapeutic neck dissection. There is very weak evidence from one trial that elective supraomohyoid neck dissection may be associated with increased overall and disease free survival. There is no evidence that radical neck dissection increases overall survival compared to conservative neck dissection surgery. Reporting of adverse events in all trials was poor and it was not possible to compare the quality of life of patients undergoing different surgeries.

Indexed as

Lymph Node ExcisionDisease-Free SurvivalElective Surgical ProceduresHumansMouth NeoplasmsOropharyngeal NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID21901703
OpenAlexW4293372847

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.