ArticleHead & neck2011
Utility of CT surveillance for primary site recurrence of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.
Article in Head & neck, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- ADC for Differentiation between Posttreatment Changes and Recurrence in Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2022Pooled it
- DeintensiF: Standard versus individualized deintensified follow-up after curative treatment in head and neck cancer: protocol of a randomized pilot study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2025Article
- Post-treatment surveillance imaging in head and neck cancer: a systematic review.Insights into imaging · 2024Review
- Low-tube-voltage 80-kVp neck CT: evaluation of diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2014Article
- [CT surveillance for primary site recurrence of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck].Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe literature directly comparing the utility of clinical examination (CE) to that of CT in detecting recurrence of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) for primary site recurrences is lacking.
methodsPatients who received both CT scans and CEs after primary treatment for SCC of the upper aerodigestive tract (oropharynx, hypopharynx, and larynx) were identified. Individual CT scans and CEs were evaluated for their ability to detect recurrence status.
resultsOne hundred thirty-one patients underwent a total of 886 CEs and 346 CT scans during the follow-up period. The sensitivity for CE and CT was 84.0% and 66.7%, respectively; for specificity, 98.7% and 90.7%, respectively; for positive predictive value, 65.6% and 31.8%, respectively; and for negative predictive value the values were 99.5% and 97.7%, respectively.
conclusionDue to the low sensitivity and positive predictive value of CT scans compared to physical examination in evaluating primary site tumor recurrences, the utility of CT for surveillance may be limited.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21990217What 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.