ArticleCancers2021
Impact of Neck Dissection in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinomas of Unknown Primary.
Article in Cancers, 2021. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patterns of Failure in Head and Neck Carcinoma of Unknown Primary: Insights from a Tobacco-Associated Cancer Cohort.South Asian journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Surgical Puzzle: Concurrent Comprehensive Neck Dissection Strategies Unravelling the Mystery of Carcinoma Unknown Primary when Performed with TORS Radical Tonsillectomy and Mucosal Tongue Base Wedge Biopsy in Northern Indian Cohort.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors at 17 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeManagement of head and neck cancers of unknown primary (HNCUP) combines neck dissection (ND) and radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy. The prognostic value of ND has hardly been studied in HNCUP.
methodsA retrospective multicentric study assessed the impact of ND extent (adenectomy, selective ND, radical/radical-modified ND) on nodal relapse, progression-free survival (PFS) or survival, taking into account nodal stage.
results53 patients (16.5%) had no ND, 33 (10.2%) had lymphadenectomy, 116 (36.0%) underwent selective ND and 120 underwent radical/radical-modified ND (37.3%), 15 of which received radical ND (4.7%). With a 34-month median follow-up, the 3-year incidence of nodal relapse was 12.5% and progression-free survival (PFS) 69.1%. In multivariate analysis after adjusting for nodal stage, the risk of nodal relapse or progression was reduced with lymphadenectomy, selective or radical/modified ND, but survival rates were similar. Patients undergoing lymphadenectomy or ND had a better PFS and lowered nodal relapse incidence in the N1 + N2a group, but the improvement was not significant for the N2b or N2 + N3c patients. Severe toxicity rates exceeded 40% with radical ND.
conclusionIn HNCUP, ND improves PFS, regardless of nodal stage. The magnitude of the benefit of ND does not appear to depend on ND extent and decreases with a more advanced nodal stage.
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.