Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28808428›Full record

ArticleReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology

A comparison of concurrent cisplatin versus cetuximab with radiotherapy in locally-advanced head and neck cancer: A bi-institutional analysis.

William A Stokes, Whitney A Sumner, Kiersten L Breggren, John T Rathbun, David Raben, Jessica D McDermott, Gregory Gan, Sana D Karam

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

William A StokesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Whitney A SumnerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Kiersten L BreggrenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section of Radiation Oncology, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
John T RathbunDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section of Radiation Oncology, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
David RabenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Jessica D McDermottDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, USA.
Gregory GanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section of Radiation Oncology, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Sana D KaramDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
University of Colorado Denver · USUniversity of New Mexico · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo present our experience comparing cisplatin- and cetuximab-based radiotherapy for locally-advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

backgroundThe comparative effectiveness of cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) versus cetuximab-based bioradiotherapy (BRT) for locally-advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LAHNSCC) continues to be explored. MATERIALS AND

methodsOutcomes of LAHNSCC patients treated with CRT (125) or BRT (34) at two institutions were compared retrospectively, with attention to overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), locoregional control (LRC), and distant control (DC). Univariate analysis (UVA) using Cox regression was performed to explore the association of intervention with survival and disease control, and multivariate (MVA) Cox regression was then performed to assess the association of intervention with survival.

resultsThere were significant baseline differences between the CRT and BRT groups with respect to age, race, performance status, N-classification, tobacco history, and human papillomavirus status. UVA demonstrated inferiority of BRT versus CRT with respect to both OS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.19, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.03-4.63,

conclusionsIn our retrospective analysis, patients undergoing CRT experienced improved OS and CSS over those receiving BRT; however, disease control did not significantly differ. These findings may inform management of LAHNSCC patients.

Indexed as

CetuximabChemoradiotherapyCisplatinHead and neck cancerRadiosensitization

Identifiers

PMID28808428
PMCPMC5544495
OpenAlexW2741330989

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.