ArticleCancer2024
Development and validation of a novel TNM staging N-classification of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma.
Article in Cancer, 2024. 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.
- Stage migration and prognostic refinement of oral squamous cell carcinoma under the AJCC 8th edition staging system: a retrospective cohort study with additional evaluation using the SEER database.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Tumor cell- and infiltrating immune cell-based supervised learning artificial intelligence multimodal platform for tumor prognosis.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Trends in Head and Neck Cancer: Oral Cavity Carcinoma and What the Radiologist Needs to Know.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Review
- Article
- Review
- Article
- Nodal assessment and extranodal extension in head and neck squamous cell cancer: insights from computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFor oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), extent of extranodal extension (ENE) (minor, ≤2 mm; major, >2 mm) is differentially prognostic, whereas limitations exist with the 8th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer TNM N-classification (TNM-8-N).
methodsResected OSCC patients at four centers were included and extent of ENE was recorded. Thresholds for optimal overall survival (OS) discrimination of lymph node (LN) features were established. After dividing into training and validation sets, two new N-classifications were created using 1) recursive partitioning analysis (RPA), and 2) adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and were ranked against TNM-8-N and two published proposals.
resultsA total of 1460 patients were included (pN0: 696; pN+: 764). Of the pN+ cases, 135 (18%) had bilateral/contralateral LNs; 126 (17%) and 244 (32%) had minor and major ENE, and two (0.3%) had LN(s) >6 cm without ENE (N3a). LN number (1 and >1 vs. 0: aHRs, 1.92 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.44-2.55] and 3.21 [95% CI, 2.44-4.22]), size (>3 vs. ≤3 cm: aHR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.44-2.45]), and ENE extent (major vs. minor: aHR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.05-1.87]) were associated with OS, whereas presence of contralateral LNs was not (aHR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.81-1.36]). The aHR proposal provided optimal performance with these changes to TNM-8-N: 1) stratification of ENE extent, 2) elimination of N2c and 6-cm threshold, and 3) stratification of N2b by 3 cm threshold.
conclusionA new N-classification improved staging performance compared to TNM-8-N, by stratifying by ENE extent, eliminating the old N2c category and the 6 cm threshold, and by stratifying multiple nodes by size.
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.