Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38315325›Full record

ReviewInsights into imaging2024

Post-treatment surveillance imaging in head and neck cancer: a systematic review.

Stefaan Van Hoe, Robert Hermans

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insights into imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Surveillance after treatment for head and neck cancer.Current opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Head-to-head comparison ofBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
    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

2 authors.

Stefaan Van HoeFaculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Robert HermansDepartment of Radiology, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, Leuven, 3000, Belgium. robert.hermans@uzleuven.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9935-5543

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn patients treated for head and neck cancer, imaging studies are usually obtained within 3-6 months after treatment for assessment of treatment response. After 6 months, most guidelines advocate clinical follow-up, with imaging reserved for patients with clinically suspect or equivocal findings. However, some guidelines do recommend systematic imaging surveillance, and many clinicians tend to include some type of imaging in their follow-up schemes.

objectivesThis systematic review focuses on the usefulness of routine (systematic) post-treatment imaging surveillance of head and neck cancer beyond the first 3-6-month baseline imaging study.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar. Additional studies were identified by reviewing reference lists. Only original studies and review papers were considered. Results obtained with systematic post-treatment surveillance imaging were compared to symptom-directed imaging and/or clinical finding-directed imaging.

resultsFive hundred twenty-one records were identified through the database search, and 44 additional records were identified through other sources. Forty-eight articles were selected for the final review. Analysis of these records showed that almost half of cases of locoregional recurrences and/or metastases were only detected by imaging (40.9%), and the mean time of detection of recurrent or metastatic disease (11.5 months) was well beyond the period of the first post-treatment scan. Most authors reported superior results with PET-CT when compared to other imaging techniques.

conclusionStrong arguments were found in favor of systematic imaging surveillance in locoregional advanced head and neck cancer during at least one and preferably 2 years after treatment. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Analysis of the selected records showed that almost half of cases of locoregional recurrences and/or metastases were only detected by imaging. This systematic review suggests that imaging may currently be underused in the post-treatment surveillance of patients with head and neck cancer. KEY POINTS: • This systematic review focuses on the usefulness of long-term systematic imaging surveillance in patients treated for head and neck cancer. • Analysis of 521 articles revealed that systematic imaging allowed the initial detection of locoregional recurrences and/or metastases in more than 40% of patients. • Imaging may currently be underused in the post-treatment surveillance of patients with advanced head and neck cancer.

Indexed as

Head and neck cancerNeoplasm recurrencePost-treatment surveillanceSquamous cell carcinomaSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38315325
PMCPMC10844183

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.