ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2021
Three weekly versus weekly concurrent cisplatin: safety propensity score analysis on 166 head and neck cancer patients.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A multicenter randomized phase III trial of weekly cisplatin chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy in elderly patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma unfit for high-dose cisplatin: JCOG2405 (ELDER-WEEKLY).Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2026Trial
- Review
- Treatment outcomes of radiotherapy with concurrent weekly cisplatin in older patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.Discover oncology · 2023Article
- Ultrasound and Microbubbles Mediated Bleomycin Delivery in Feline Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma-An In Vivo Veterinary Study.Pharmaceutics · 2023Article
- Precision medicine for risk prediction of oral complications of cancer therapy-The example of oral mucositis in patients receiving radiation therapy for cancers of the head and neck.Frontiers in oral health · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadio-chemotherapy with CDDP is the standard for H&N squamous cell cancer. CDDP 100 mg/m
methodsPatients were treated from 1/2010 to 1/2017 in two Radiation Oncology Centres. Propensity score analysis (PS) was retrospectively used to compare these two schedules.
resultsPatients analyzed were 166. Most (114/166) had 1w-CDDP while 52 had 3w-CDDP. In the 3w-CDDP group, patients were younger, with better performance status, smaller disease extent and a more common nodal involvement than in the 1w-CDDP. Acute toxicity was similar in the groups. Treatment compliance was lower in the w-CCDP. Overall survival before PS was better for female, for oropharyngeal disease and for 3w-CDDP group. After PS, survival was not related to the CDDP schedule.
conclusions3w-CDDP remains the standard for fit patients, weekly schedule could be safely used in selected patients.
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.