ReviewCancers2022
Does Tumor Volume Have a Prognostic Role in Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Editorial for the Special Issue on Multimodality and Sequential Therapy in Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer.Cancers · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic value of tumor volume in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). The study was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. A total of 1417 patients with a median age of 59.3 years (IQR 57.5−60) were included. The combined Hazard Ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) were 1.02 (95% CI, 0.99−1.05; p = 0.21) for primary tumor volume (pTV) and 1.01 (95% CI, 1.00−1.02; p = 0.15) for nodal tumor volume (nTV). Regarding locoregional control (LRC), the pooled HRs were 1.07 (95% CI, 0.99−1.17; p = 0.10) for pTV and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.01−1.03; p < 0.05) for nTV. Finally, the pooled HRs for disease-free survival (DFS) were 1.01 (95% CI, 1.00−1.03; p < 0.05) for pTV and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.01−1.03; p < 0.05) for nTV. In conclusion, pTV and nTV seem not to behave as reliable prognostic factors in OPSCC.
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.