ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Carcinoma of Unknown Primary (CUP) versus CUP Turned to Primary Carcinoma of the Head and Neck-An Analysis of Diagnostic Methods and the Impact of Primary Tumor on Clinical Outcome.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of Multimodal Work-Up of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Lymph Node Metastasis of Unknown Primary.Head & neck · 2026Article
- ESR Bridges: new developments in imaging and treatment of the unknown primary squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck-a multidisciplinary view.European radiology · 2026Article
- Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Unknown Primary: A Diagnostic Work-Up.The oncologist · 2024Article
- Imaging of Tumor Stroma UsingJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- A Systematic Review of Diagnostic and Prognostic Biomarkers for Head and Neck Cancer of Unknown Primary: An Unmet Clinical Need.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to analyze the value of different diagnostic methods in detecting the primary site and the impact of primary tumors on the clinical outcome of carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP).
methodsIn this multicenter, retrospective study, 124 patients with true CUP (n = 94) and CUP turned to primary carcinoma (n = 30) were included. Patients with evidence of primary site during the clinical examination were excluded a priori. The diagnostic procedure was comprised of imaging and invasive methods (fine-needle-aspiration, tonsillectomy and panendoscopy). All patients were treated with curative intent.
resultsDespite extensive diagnostic workup, the primary site remained unknown in 75.8%. Invasive diagnostic methods showed higher primary detection rates than imaging modalities (15.1% vs. 7.8%). Tonsillectomy and panendoscopy revealed the primary tumor in 14.9% and 15.2% of patients, whereas the detection rates of CT, MRI and FDG-PET-CT were 10.1%, 4.8% and 6.5%, respectively. The occurrence of primary tumors led to a significantly deteriorating 5-year overall survival (
conclusionClinical examination in combination with tonsillectomy and panendoscopy was superior to imaging alone in detecting the primary tumor. When the CUP of patients turned to a primary tumor, clinical outcome was significantly worse than in CUP 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.