ArticleCureus2024
Study of Complete Surgical Response of Stage III Oral Carcinoma Patients in Comparison to Primary Surgery Versus Neoadjuvant Methotrexate With Surgery.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A 40-year bibliometric analysis of global research on neoadjuvant chemotherapy for oral cancer (1985-2024).Discover oncology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective This study aims to compare the efficacy of neoadjuvant methotrexate therapy followed by surgery versus primary surgical management in patients with stage III oral carcinoma. Methods Thirty patients diagnosed with stage III oral carcinoma were enrolled in this prospective study at a tertiary cancer research center. The patients were divided into two groups: 15 patients received neoadjuvant methotrexate therapy followed by surgery, while 15 underwent primary surgical management. Outcomes were evaluated based on tumor downstaging, surgical margins, postoperative complications, and the requirement for adjuvant radiotherapy. Results Patients in the neoadjuvant methotrexate group demonstrated significant tumor downstaging, allowing for less extensive surgical procedures, with 33.3% (n=5) undergoing wide local excision (WLE) compared to 13.3% (n=2) in the primary surgery group. Negative surgical margins were achieved in 93.33% (n=14) of patients in the neoadjuvant group versus 53.33% (n=8) in the surgical group. Additionally, only 13.3% (n=1) of patients in the neoadjuvant group required postoperative radiotherapy, compared to 53.33% (n=8) in the surgical group. The recurrence rate over a six-month follow-up period was comparable between the two groups. Discussion Neoadjuvant methotrexate therapy resulted in better surgical and oncological outcomes by downstaging the tumor, reducing the extent of surgery, and minimizing the need for postoperative radiotherapy. The findings suggest that methotrexate, as a neoadjuvant agent, is effective in improving patient outcomes with fewer side effects compared to standard cisplatin-based regimens. Conclusion Neoadjuvant methotrexate therapy offers a viable treatment option for stage III oral carcinoma, demonstrating improved oncological and surgical outcomes, including less invasive surgery, higher rates of negative surgical margins, and reduced postoperative radiotherapy requirements. Further research with long-term follow-up is necessary to validate these findings and explore the long-term impact on survival and recurrence rates.
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.