ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2024
Optimal Extent of Neck Dissection for a Head and Neck Lymph Node Metastasis from a Remote Primary Site.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Head and Neck Metastases From Infraclavicular Primary Tumors: Analysis of 136 Cases.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Factors associated with occult ipsilateral and contralateral nodal metastasis in resectable lateralized laryngeal and hypopharyngeal malignancies.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 · 2026Article
- Level II (IIA/IIB) Lymph Node Evaluation in Head and Neck Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study from a Non-Endemic Region.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- When neck lymph nodes metastases do not origin from a head and neck unknown primary.Current opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite its rarity and limited documentation, therapeutic neck dissection (ND) for cervical lymph node (LN) metastases from distant primary sites is increasingly practiced, potentially enhancing survival rates. However, the optimal ND extent remains unclear. This study aimed to determine the safety of excluding upper neck levels from ND.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 25 patients who underwent ND for cervical LN metastases from remote primary tumors between 2015 and 2021 (12 with primary lung tumors, four with ovary, three with mammary gland, three with esophagus, two with thymus, and one with colon).
resultsAssessing clinical characteristics and occult metastasis rates, we observed LN metastases predominantly at levels III and IV. Occult metastases occurred in 14 out of 25 patients, primarily at neck levels III and IV (55.0% and 50.0%, respectively). The five-year disease-specific survival rate for all patients was 44.3%. While no statistically significant impact of occult metastasis on prognosis was confirmed, an association between the postoperative LN ratio and poor prognosis was revealed.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that prophylactic NDs at levels I, II, and Va may not be essential for managing cervical LN metastases from remote primary malignancies. This could lead to a more tailored and less invasive therapeutic strategy.
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.