ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023
Survival analyses of different treatment modalities and clinical stage for hypopharyngeal carcinoma.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Induction toripalimab plus chemotherapy sequential concurrent chemoradiotherapy with nimotuzumab followed by toripalimab maintenance in stage IVB hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a single-arm phase 2 study.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2026Trial
- Efficacy and Safety of Induction Chemotherapy Followed by Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Locoregionally Advanced Hypopharyngeal Carcinoma.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- From initial complete response to recurrence: ENPP1 mutation drives cisplatin resistance through STING/NF-κB/IL-6 axis in hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Comparison of induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy in locoregionally advanced hypopharyngeal carcinoma: a prospective cohort study.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- Novel laryngeal preservation technique in postcricoid hypopharyngeal carcinoma: a case-series study.BMC surgery · 2026Observational
- Surgery-based multimodal therapy outperforms chemoradiotherapy alone in HPV-negative advanced HSCC: superior outcomes for T3/N2-3 hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Prognostic Factors in Patients With Locally Advanced Hypopharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma After Radical Radiotherapy/Chemoradiotherapy.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- [Analysis of vocal characteristics in hypopharyngeal cancer patients with vocal cord dysfunction].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We investigated the effects of different treatment modalities and clinical stage for hypopharyngeal carcinoma (HPC) patients. Methods: Between February 2004 and December 2012, 167 HPC patients were reviewed. We calculated overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), local failure-free survival (LFFS), regional failure-free survival (RFFS), and distant metastasis failure-free survival (DMFFS) using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared various survival outcomes between definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and surgery-based therapy (SBT). Results: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between SBT (n = 102) and definitive CRT (n = 65) groups. The 5-year rates of OS (59.7% vs. 24.0%, p < 0.0001) and PFS (49.9% vs. 22.6%, p = 0.0002) were significantly better in patients who received SBT than in those who received definitive CRT. The SBT group also obtained better LFFS (p < 0.0001), RFFS (p = 0.0479), and DMFFS (p = 0.0110). We did similar analyses by different T-classification (T1-2, T3, and T4) and found that SBT had better OS (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0020), PFS (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0513), LFFS (p = 0.0002 and p = 0.0075), RFFS (p = 0.1949 and p = 0.0826), and DMFFS (p = 0.0248 and p = 0.0436) in the T4 and T1-2 subgroups but similar OS (p = 0.9598), PFS (p = 0.5052), RFFS (p = 0.9648), and DMFFS (p = 0.8239) in T3 patients. Analyses by different overall stages revealed no differences between definitive CRT and SBT for stage III patients but significantly better results for stage IV patients who received SBT. Conclusions: SBT can obtain significant survival benefits when compared with definitive CRT for the whole cohort of patients. Definitive CRT has similar survival outcomes compared with SBT only for T3 tumors or overall stage III disease.
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.