Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37650478›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2023

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment.

Helen V Worthington, Vishal M Bulsara, Anne-Marie Glenny, Janet E Clarkson, David I Conway, Michaelina Macluskey

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. The prognostic role of salivary miRNAs in oral squamous cell carcinoma: technical challenges and clinical perspectives.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2024
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Helen V WorthingtonCochrane Oral Health, Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Vishal M BulsaraSchool of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Anne-Marie GlennyDivision of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Janet E ClarksonCochrane Oral Health, Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
David I ConwayGlasgow Dental School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Michaelina MacluskeyUnit of Oral Surgery and Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
University of Manchester · GBCochrane · GBUniversity of Adelaide · AUUniversity of Dundee · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgery is a common treatment option in oral cavity cancer (and less frequently in oropharyngeal cancer) to remove the primary tumour and sometimes neck lymph nodes. People with early-stage disease may undergo surgery alone or surgery plus radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy/biotherapy, or a combination of these. Timing and extent of surgery varies. This is the third update of a review originally published in 2007.

objectivesTo evaluate the relative benefits and harms of different surgical treatment modalities for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. SEARCH

methodsWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 9 February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared two or more surgical treatment modalities, or surgery versus other treatment modalities, for primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Our primary outcomes were overall survival, disease-free survival, locoregional recurrence, and recurrence; and our secondary outcomes were adverse effects of treatment, quality of life, direct and indirect costs to patients and health services, and participant satisfaction. We used standard Cochrane methods. We reported survival data as hazard ratios (HRs). For overall survival, we reported the HR of mortality, and for disease-free survival, we reported the combined HR of new disease, progression, and mortality; therefore, HRs below 1 indicated improvement in these outcomes. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN

resultsWe identified four new trials, bringing the total number of included trials to 15 (2820 participants randomised, 2583 participants analysed). For objective outcomes, we assessed four trials at high risk of bias, three at low risk, and eight at unclear risk. The trials evaluated nine comparisons; none compared different surgical approaches for excision of the primary tumour. Five trials evaluated elective neck dissection (ND) versus therapeutic (delayed) ND in people with oral cavity cancer and clinically negative neck nodes. Elective ND compared with therapeutic ND probably improves overall survival (HR 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.83; I AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe found moderate-certainty evidence based on five trials that elective neck dissection of clinically negative neck nodes at the time of removal of the primary oral cavity tumour is superior to therapeutic neck dissection, with increased survival and disease-free survival, and reduced locoregional recurrence. There was moderate-certainty evidence from one trial of no difference between positron emission tomography (PET-CT) following chemoradiotherapy versus planned neck dissection in terms of overall survival or locoregional recurrence. The evidence for each of the other seven comparisons came from only one or two studies and was assessed as low or very low-certainty.

Indexed as

Neoplasm Recurrence, LocalOropharyngeal NeoplasmsHumansImmunotherapyMouthNeckRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID37650478
PMCPMC10476948
OpenAlexW4386305051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.