Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36452507›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

Cervical squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary: Oncological outcomes and prognostic factors.

Jeroen Meulemans, Jens Voortmans, Sandra Nuyts, Jean-François Daisne, Paul Clement, Annouschka Laenen, Pierre Delaere, Charlotte Van Lierde, Vincent Vander Poorten

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Precision and Pitfalls: A Prospective Study Analysing the Immediate Postoperative Sequelae and Oncological Outcome of TORS When Used in Diagnostic Algorithm of Carcinoma Unknown Primary.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jeroen MeulemansOtorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Jens VoortmansOtorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Sandra NuytsRadiation Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Jean-François DaisneRadiation Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Paul ClementMedical Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Annouschka LaenenInteruniversity Institute for Biostatistics and Statistical Bioinformatics, Leuven, Belgium.
Pierre DelaereOtorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Charlotte Van LierdeOtorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Vincent Vander PoortenOtorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
KU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Cervical squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary (SCCUP) is a rare entity within head and neck cancer and both treatment regimens as well as identified potential predictors for oncological outcomes vary between published series. In this study, we evaluated oncological outcomes and identified potential prognostic factors for outcome. Patients and methods: This retrospective monocentric cohort study includes 82 SCCUP patients diagnosed and treated between January 2000 and June 2021. Overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), disease-free survival (DFS) and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were evaluated. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the prognostic effect of patient and tumor characteristics on oncological outcomes. Results: Five year OS, DSS, DFS and LRFS were respectively 53.9%, 72.2%, 68.9% and 67.3%. The p16 status was evaluated in 55 patients with 40% being p16 positive. On univariable analysis, p16 negative SCCUPs had significantly worse survival and recurrence rates in the presence of clinical extranodal extension (cENE) (OS: p=0.0013, DSS: p=0.0099, DFS: p=0.0164, LRFS: p=0.0099) and radiological extranodal extension (rENE) (OS: p=0.0034, DSS: p=0.0137, DFS: p=0.0167, LRFS: p=0.0100). In p16 positive SCCUP patients, rENE had a significantly negative prognostic effect on DFS (p=0.0345) and LRFS (p=0.0367). Total group multivariate analysis identified rENE as an independent negative predictor for all oncological outcomes. The "number of positive lymph nodes" was a second independent predictor for DSS (p=0.0257) and DFS (p=0.0435). Conclusions: We report favorable oncological outcomes, comparable to previously published results. Although the presence of rENE seems associated with poor oncological outcomes, the differential effect of clinical, radiological and pathological ENE in both p16 positive and negative subgroups remain to be elucidated by further prospective research.

Indexed as

Carcinoma of unknown primaryCUPoncological outcomesprognostic factorssquamous cell carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID36452507
PMCPMC9702087
OpenAlexW4309042788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.