Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32767069›Full record

ReviewHNO2020

[Surgical therapy of oropharyngeal cancer-state of the art].

F Bootz, A Franzen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in HNO, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 49% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

F BootzKlinik und Poliklinik für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, Gebäude 03, 53127, Bonn, Deutschland. friedrich.bootz@ukbonn.de.
A FranzenKlinik und Poliklinik für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, Gebäude 03, 53127, Bonn, Deutschland.
University Hospital Bonn · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surgical therapy, regardless of the procedure, remains of great importance for today's treatment of oropharyngeal carcinomas, despite advances in radiation and immunotherapy. The individual treatment plan should be defined in discussion with the patient and in an interdisciplinary tumor conference, taking into account the likelihood of achieving of tumor-free resection margins and an acceptable postoperative quality of life. With regard to conventional and possibly also open surgical procedures, a good overview of the surgical site-particularly in the case of more extensive carcinomas and challenging patient anatomy-and simplified reconstructability of the defect region are decisive aspects. Endoscopically, microsurgically, or even robot-assisted minimally invasive procedures have the advantage of precise and gentle removal of tumor tissue with improved maintenance of function. Overall, selection of the appropriate surgical procedure remains an individual decision based on tumor size, the facilities at the tumor center, and the surgeon's experience. The extent of surgical intervention, also with regard to simultaneous neck dissection, depends on tumor stage. In the case of oropharyngeal carcinomas, there will be an increasing distinction between human papillomavirus (HPV)-negative and HPV-positive tumors in the future; however, the therapeutic strategy is currently identical. Upcoming clinical trials will show whether treatment de-escalation is appropriate depending on HPV infection status.

Indexed as

Oropharyngeal NeoplasmsPapillomavirus InfectionsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansNeck DissectionQuality of LifeLaser therapyMinimally invasive surgical proceduresNeck dissectionReconstructive surgical proceduresRobotic surgical procedures

Identifiers

PMID32767069
OpenAlexW3047751004

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.