ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2016
Outcome and fewer indications for adjuvant therapy for patients with oral squamous cell carcinomas under standardized tumor board conditions.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association Between FADS1 Gene Polymorphism (rs174549) and Chronic Periodontitis: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- Preliminary experience with a new institutional tumor board dedicated to patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of our study was to review the outcome of patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) treated according to the current diagnostic and treatment protocols ["Tumor Board Group" (TBG)] compared to patients diagnosed before the introduction of standardized and certified guidelines ["Conventional Group" (CG)]. We also analyzed the influence of prognostic factors on overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates.
methodsA total of 321 patients (TBG 95 patients and CG 226 patients) with histologically confirmed OSCC were included in our study. RFS, DFS and OS rates were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier estimates. Cox regression was performed for multivariate analysis of prognostic factors. Results were statistically significant with a p value of <0.05.
resultsT, N, AJCC stage, age and therapy resulted to be independent risk factors for OS and DFS. We were not able to identify statistically significant prognostic factors for RFS apart from grading. 31.58% of patients from the TBG received postoperative adjuvant treatment compared to 74.78% within the CG. The OS rate was 79.63% at 30 months for patients from the TBG in comparison with 65.54% for patients from the CG.
conclusionThe implementation of standardized guidelines including the establishment of the "Tumor Board Conference" results in a higher percentage of patients receiving surgery as only treatment and in better OS rates. To further support this positive trend, patients shall be followed longer and analyzed in future. T, N and M as well as AJCC stage were identified as most important prognostic factors for OS and DFS in our study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.