ArticleHead and neck pathology2023
WPOI-5: Accurately Identified at Intraoperative Consultation and Predictive of Occult Cervical Metastases.
Article in Head and neck pathology, 2023. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic Role of Worst Pattern of Invasion in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Assessment of occult cervical metastases in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: Findings from a tertiary-level hospital study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Review
- Prognostic Effect of Patterns of Local Extension and Satellitosis in cT3 Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Oral Tongue: A Prospective Observational Study.Head & neck · 2025Observational
- Pathological Risk Factors for Occult Nodal Metastasis in Early-Stage Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Oral Cavity.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Predicting lymph node recurrence in cT1-2N0 tongue squamous cell carcinoma: collaboration between artificial intelligence and pathologists.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2024Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFrozen section analysis of oral cancer specimens is ideal for assessing margin distances and depth of invasion (DOI); the latter impacts intraoperative decisions regarding elective neck dissection (END). Here, we show that intraoperative determination of worst pattern of invasion (WPOI), specifically WPOI-5, has a high level of accuracy. This relates to our demonstration herein that WPOI-5 predicts occult cervical metastases (OCM) for pT1 oral squamous carcinoma (OSC).
methodsThe presence of OCM was correlated with WPOI in 228 patients with primary T1/T2/cN0 OSC undergoing resection and END. Concordance between intraoperative and final pathology WPOI determination was assessed on 51 cases of OSC.
resultsWPOI-5 predicts OCM in pT1 patients, compared with WPOI-4/WPOI-3 (p < 0.0001). Most pT1 WPOI-5 tumors had DOI of 4-5 mm (24/59 or 40.7%). Only two pT1 WPOI-5 tumors had DOI < 4 mm (3.0 and 3.5 mm). If END were performed in this pT1 cohort for all WPOI-5 OSC patients regardless of DOI, OR all OSC patients with DOI ≥ 4 mm regardless of WPOI, then no OCM would be missed (p = 0.017, 100% sensitivity, 29% specificity, 77% positive predictive value, 23% negative predictive value). With respect to intraoperative WPOI-5 determination, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity was 92.16, 73.33, and 100.0%, respectively.
conclusionsDOI ≥ 4 mm is the dominant predictor of OCM. For the rare WPOI-5 OSC with DOI < 4 mm, it is reasonable to suggest that surgeons perform END. WPOI-5 may be accurately determined intraoperatively. As microscopic instruction is needed to accurately assess WPOI-5, a teaching link is included in this manuscript.
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.