Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33781050›Full record

ArticleCancer research and treatment2022

Oncological and Functional Outcomes of Larynx-preserving Surgery for Hypopharyngeal Cancer: A Comparison with Definitive Radiation-based Treatment.

Donghyeok Kim, Nalee Kim, Sungmin Koh, Man Ki Chung, Young-Ik Son, Dongryul Oh, Han-Sin Jeong, Yong Chan Ahn

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Comparison of induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy in locoregionally advanced hypopharyngeal carcinoma: a prospective cohort study.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  5. 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.

Donghyeok KimDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Nalee KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Sungmin KohDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Man Ki ChungDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Young-Ik SonDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Dongryul OhDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Han-Sin JeongDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Yong Chan AhnDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Sungkyunkwan University · KRSamsung Medical Center · KR

Funding

Ministry of Education, Science and TechnologyNational Research Foundation of Korea 2018R1A2B6002920
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLarynx-preserving surgery (LPS) have recently gained popularity and achieved comparable oncologic outcomes to conventional radical surgery for localized hypopharyngeal cancer (HPC). In the current study, the role of LPS has been assessed thoroughly in comparison with upfront radiation therapy (RT). MATERIALS AND

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 185 candidates for LPS with cT1-2 disease; 59 patients underwent upfront LPS while 126 patients received upfront RT, respectively. Oncological and functional outcomes were investigated and compared.

resultsFollowing LPS, safe margin (≥ 5 mm) was achieved in 37.3% of patients. Overall, better clinical outcomes at 5 years were achieved following upfront LPS than those following upfront RT: overall survival (OS) (72.7% vs. 59.0%, p=0.045), disease-free survival (DFS) (59.8% vs. 45.0%, p=0.039), and functional laryngeal preservation (100% vs. 89.7%, p=0.010). Although similar outcomes were observed in patients with cT1 disease, better 5-year DFS was achieved following upfront LPS in patients with cT2 disease (57.0% vs. 36.4%, p=0.023) by virtue of better local control. Despite frequent cN2-3 disease in upfront LPS group, comparable outcomes were observed between upfront RT and LPS group. However, multivariable analyses revealed that performance status and double primary cancer diagnosed within 6 months of HPC diagnosis affected OS significantly, while treatment modality per se did not.

conclusionAlthough upfront LPS could provide better local control than upfront RT in patients with cT2 disease, overall outcomes were comparable following either modality. Treatment selection of larynx-preserving approach for HPC should be individualized based on tumor and patient factors.

Indexed as

Hypopharyngeal NeoplasmsSquamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and NeckAgedDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansLarynxMaleMiddle AgedOrgan Sparing TreatmentsProgression-Free SurvivalRetrospective StudiesHypopharyngeal carcinomaLaryngeal preservationOutcomesRadiationSurgerySurvival

Identifiers

PMID33781050
PMCPMC8756124
OpenAlexW3150467956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.