ArticleCancer medicine2024
Prognostic impact of bridge or neoadjuvant induction chemotherapy in patients with resected oral cavity cancer: A nationwide cohort study.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multilevel insights into obesity, race/ethnicity, and survival in early-onset colorectal cancer in Georgia.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Anti-EGFR enhanced neoadjuvant immunotherapy versus neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy for locally advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
33 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile surgery remains the primary treatment for oral squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC), induction chemotherapy (IC) can be used as a bridging or neoadjuvant therapy. This nationwide study in Taiwan examines the survival outcomes of OCSCC patients who received IC before surgery.
methodsWe analyzed data from 29,891 patients with OCSCC. Of these, 29,058 initially underwent surgery (OP group), whereas 833 received IC before surgery (IC + OP group). A propensity score (PS)-matched analysis (4, 1 ratio, 3260 vs. 815 patients) was performed considering tumor subsite, sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index, clinical T1-T4b tumors, clinical N0-3 disease, and clinical stage I-IV.
resultsIn the PS-matched cohort, the 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 65% and 57%, respectively. When comparing the OP and IC + OP groups, the 5-year DSS rates were 66% and 62%, respectively (p = 0.1162). Additionally, the 5-year OS rates were 57% and 56%, respectively (p = 0.9917). No significant intergroup differences in survival were observed for specific subgroups with cT4a tumors, cT4b tumors, cN3 disease, pT4b tumors, and pN3 disease. However, for patients with pT4a tumors, the OP group demonstrated superior 5-year outcomes compared to the IC + OP group, with a DSS of 62% versus 52% (p = 0.0006) and an OS of 53% versus 44% (p = 0.0060). Notably, patients with cT2-3, cN1, and c-Stage II disease in the IC + OP group were significantly more likely to achieve pT0-1 status (p < 0.05).
conclusionsFollowing PS matching, the IC + OP group generally exhibited similar prognosis to the OP group. However, for pT4a tumors, the OP group showed superior 5-year outcomes. While IC may not universally improve survival, it could be advantageous for patients who respond positively to the treatment.
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.