ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021
Matched pair analysis for comparison of survival outcome of alternative regimens to standard three-weekly cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiation of head and neck cancer.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chemoradiotherapy with 3-weekly CDDP 80 mg/mFrontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Three weekly versus weekly concurrent cisplatin: safety propensity score analysis on 166 head and neck cancer patients.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare head and neck cancer (HNC) patients treated with three-weekly versus weekly cisplatin-based or other chemotherapy-based concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) and CRT with versus without induction chemotherapy (ICT) to investigate differences in overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS).
methodsHNC patients treated with definitive or adjuvant CRT at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center between 2003 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score matching was performed to obtain three sets of balanced matched pairs: three-weekly and weekly cisplatin CRT, three weekly and non-cisplatin CRT, CRT with and without ICT. Multivariate Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate and compare survival outcomes.
resultsA total of 623 patients received either definitive (81%) or post-operative (19%) RT. Of these, 283 patients concurrently received three-weekly cisplatin (45%); 189 patients (30%) received weekly cisplatin; 151 patients (24%) received non-cisplatin regimen. Median follow-up was 55.4 months (interquartile range, 38.0-88.7). Patients who received CRT alone and those who received ICT and CRT had no difference in 5-year OS (51.5% and 41.0% respectively, P=0.53) and CSS (64.9% and 49.7% respectively, P=0.21). Compared to patients who received three-weekly cisplatin, patients who received weekly cisplatin had no difference in 5-year OS (59.3%
conclusionsNo significant difference in OS and CSS was observed in any of the three pairs of CRT regimens. ICT prior to CRT did not improve survival of CRT alone. Non-cisplatin and weekly cisplatin regimens did not prove to be inferior to the standard three-weekly cisplatin.
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.