Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38546850›Full record

ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2024

Salvage transoral robotic surgery in recurrent oropharyngeal carcinoma: a single-center retrospective study.

Mohssen Ansarin, Giacomo Pietrobon, Marta Tagliabue, Chiara Mossinelli, Francesca Ruju, Fausto Maffini, Maria Cossu Rocca, Daniela Alterio, Christian Simon, Stefano Filippo Zorzi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Mohssen AnsarinDivision of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Giuseppe Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy.
Giacomo PietrobonDivision of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Giuseppe Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy. giacomo.pietrobon@ieo.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4981-1851
Marta TagliabueDivision of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Giuseppe Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy.
Chiara MossinelliDivision of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Giuseppe Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy.
Francesca RujuDivision of Radiology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Fausto MaffiniDivision of Pathology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Maria Cossu RoccaDivision of Medical Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Daniela AlterioDivision of Radiotherapy, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Christian Simon *Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV) and University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Stefano Filippo Zorzi *Division of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Giuseppe Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy.
Ripamonti · ITEuropean Institute of Oncology · ITIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITUniversity of Lausanne · CH

Funding

Ministero della Salute ricerca corrente
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSalvage surgery is still the best therapeutic option for resectable recurrent oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (rOPSCC). Transoral robotic surgery may potentially reduce the morbidity of standard open approaches. The aim of the study is to present oncological and functional outcomes of a monocentric experience in salvage transoral robotic surgery.

methodsWe performed a single-center retrospective analysis of patients submitted to transoral robotic salvage surgery with or without neck dissection for cT1-3 rOPSCC. We investigated complication rate, survival outcomes (Overall Survival, Disease Specific Survival, Loco-Regional Recurrence Free Survival) and functional outcomes (tracheal tube and/or gastrostomy dependence).

resultsSixty-one patients were included in the analysis. No major complications or perioperative deaths were recorded. The estimated 2-year OS was 76.7%, DSS 81.8% and LRRFS 50.5%. In multivariable analysis rpT, PNI (perineural infiltration) and HPV-positivity were significantly associated with LRRFS (Hazard Ratios: T3 vs T1 6.43, PNI yes vs no 4.19, HPV+ yes vs no 2.63). At last follow up, 97% of patients were tracheal tube-free, while 93% were gastrostomy-free.

conclusionTransoral robotic salvage surgery is a successful treatment in selected patients affected by rOPSCC because it grants good oncologic and functional outcomes.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Squamous CellNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalOropharyngeal NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresSalvage TherapyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNatural Orifice Endoscopic SurgeryNeck DissectionRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeMinimally invasive surgeryOropharyngeal cancerRecurrent cancerSalvage surgeryTransoral robotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID38546850
OpenAlexW4393260254

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.