Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26041604›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2015

Induction chemotherapy with concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck: a meta-analysis.

Lijuan Zhang, Nan Jiang, Yuexian Shi, Shipeng Li, Peiguo Wang, Yue Zhao

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Outcome of patients following neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for unresectable cervical nodes in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas.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 · 2019
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Induction chemotherapy in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: role, controversy, and future directions.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2018
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lijuan ZhangSchool of Nursing, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin 300070, China.
Nan JiangSchool of Nursing, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin 300070, China.
Yuexian ShiSchool of Nursing, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin 300070, China.
Shipeng LiFirst Central Clinical College of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin 300192, China.
Peiguo WangDepartment of Radiotherapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin 300060, China.
Yue ZhaoSchool of Nursing, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin 300070, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) has been considered to be the standard of care for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck (LA-SCCHN). Whether induction chemotherapy (IC) with CCRT will further improve the clinical outcomes or not is still unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the two regimens for LA-SCCHN. Literature searches were carried out in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Chinese Biology Medicine from inception to November 2014. Five prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 922 patients were included in meta-analysis. Results were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) or relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Compared with CCRT, IC with CCRT showed no statistically significant differences in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) or locoregional recurrence rate (LRR), but could increase risks of grade 3-4 febrile neutropenia (P = 0.0009) and leukopenia (P = 0.04). In contrast, distant metastasis rate (DMR) decreased (P = 0.006) and complete response rate (CR) improved (P = 0.010) for IC with CCRT. In conclusion, the current studies do not support the use of IC with CCRT over CCRT, and the further positioning of IC with CCRT as standard treatment for LA-SCCHN will come from more RCTs directly comparing IC followed by CCRT with CCRT.

Indexed as

ChemoradiotherapyAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsClinical Trials as TopicFemaleHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansInduction ChemotherapyMaleNeoplasm StagingOdds RatioProportional Hazards ModelsPublication BiasTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26041604
PMCPMC4455182

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.