ReviewDer Radiologe2020
[Current diagnostic imaging and treatment planning for laryngeal cancer].
Review in Der Radiologe, 2020. 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.
- A Submucosal Moderately Poor Differentiated Laryngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Presenting as a Thyroid Mass: A Report of a New Case.Case reports in otolaryngology · 2025Article
- Preliminary study using a small plasma extracellular vesicle miRNA panel as a potential biomarker for early diagnosis and prognosis in laryngeal cancer.Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2023Article
- KIF26B-AS1 Regulates TLR4 and Activates the TLR4 Signaling Pathway to Promote Malignant Progression of Laryngeal Cancer.Journal of microbiology and biotechnology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
clinical/methodical issueLaryngeal cancer is the third most common malignancy in the head and neck region. Endoscopic laryngoscopy with assessment of vocal fold function, microlaryngoscopy with biopsy and computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) remain the cornerstones of diagnostic workup. Thus, in the context of therapy planning, consideration of individual functional and socioeconomic aspects is of major importance. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL
methodsDue to the short acquisition time and the possibility to perform functional maneuvers, CT is the tool of choice. MRI allows better soft tissue differentiation, but is more susceptible to movement artifacts and is complicated by disease-specific symptoms. The choice of examination method therefore depends on the patient's physical resilience. PERFORMANCE: Depending on the study, the information on the sensitivity of CT with regard to the question of cartilage infiltration varies between 62 and 87% with a specificity between 75 and 98%. For MRI, sensitivity between 64 and 95% and specificity between 56 and 88% are stated. ACHIEVEMENTS: The synthesis of the findings from endoscopy, biopsy and imaging is prerequisite for initiation of stage-appropriate treatment. For image interpretation, knowledge of the anatomical landmarks is essential. However, the assessment of posttherapeutic changes also poses a challenge for the radiologist. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: Regular interdisciplinary dialogue between radiologists, otorhinolaryngologists and radiotherapists in the context of primary diagnostics, therapy planning and aftercare is essential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33057744What 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.