ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2019
The current practice of open neck mass biopsy in the diagnosis of head and neck cancer: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Diagnostic performance of core needle biopsy for nodal recurrences in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo characterize current use of open neck mass biopsy for diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma in patients presenting with a neck mass.
methodsUsing the University of Michigan Specialized Program of Research Excellence in Head and Neck Cancer patient database (2008-2014), we reviewed patients' referral documentation to identify those who received open neck mass biopsies as part of their squamous cell carcinoma diagnosis. We compared subsequent treatment between patients who did and did not receive an open neck mass biopsy.
resultsOf 940 patients, 50 patients had received open neck mass biopsy leading to squamous cell carcinoma diagnosis. Only 19 of 50 patients (38%) had undergone fine-needle aspiration prior to open neck mass biopsy. There were no statistically significant differences in treatment or outcomes between patients who did and those who did not receive open neck mass biopsy.
conclusionOptimal care for patients who present with a neck mass is fine-needle aspiration. Unfortunately, these data show that many patients undergo open neck mass biopsy for diagnosis, often without prior fine-needle aspirate. Compared to fine-needle aspiration, open biopsy incurs additional risks of general anesthesia and greater surgical risks. While our data did not find statistically significant differences between treatment offered and outcomes, this small study was not expected to demonstrate a difference in outcomes. Further work is needed to promote the utility of fine-needle aspiration for diagnosis of neck mass and to discourage use of open neck mass biopsy as a primary diagnostic intervention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c (Outcomes Research).
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.