Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39643808›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 Surgery2025

Impact of neck dissection in cN0 patients undergoing primary or salvage total laryngectomy.

Antonino Maniaci, Thomas Radulesco, Laure Santini, Pauline Pâris, Mario Lentini, Justin Michel, Nicolas Fakhry

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, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Antonino ManiaciDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Enna Kore, Enna, 94100, Italy. antonino.maniaci@unikore.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1251-0185
Thomas RadulescoDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Public Assistance - Hospitals of Marseille, Marseille, France.
Laure SantiniDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Public Assistance - Hospitals of Marseille, Marseille, France.
Pauline PârisDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Public Assistance - Hospitals of Marseille, Marseille, France.
Mario LentiniDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Enna Kore, Enna, 94100, Italy.
Justin MichelDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Public Assistance - Hospitals of Marseille, Marseille, France.
Nicolas FakhryDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Public Assistance - Hospitals of Marseille, Marseille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIt is debatable whether neck dissection is necessary in patients with advanced laryngeal carcinoma who are clinically node-negative (cN0). We assessed the effect of neck dissection on overall survival in patients with cN0 undergoing primary or salvage laryngectomy. MATERIALS AND

methodsA retrospective evaluation of cN0 patients who underwent primary or salvage total/pharyngolaryngectomy at a French tertiary facility in 2008-2018, with or without neck dissection, was carried out. Patients were divided into two groups: primary (n = 65) and salvage (n = 84).

resultsComparing subglottic (HR = 3.978; p = 0.023) and hypopharyngeal (HR = 2.958; p = 0.018) malignancies to other tumor subsites, the mortality rates were greater. The primary group had a greater rate of occult metastases (23.07% vs. 14.28%; p = 0.089) than the salvage. The average lymph node ratio was significantly different between the treatment groups (0.05 ± 0.04 vs. 0.17 ± 0.33; p = 0.004). If LNR > 0.05, we found poor survival rates (p < 0.001). Although performing a neck dissection during the primary treatment increased the 5-year OS rate (Yes 89.5% vs. No 83.3%; p = 0.062), there was no discernible difference in the salvage group (Yes 80.3% vs. No 78.6%; p = 0.806; Log-rank p > 0.05). For the predicted survival variables, no significant relationships were detected in the Cox regression analysis (all p-values > 0.05).

conclusionAlthough the primary group had a greater frequency of occult metastases, neither the primary group's survival outcomes nor those of the salvage laryngectomy cases were significantly affected by neck dissection. LNR and the location of the tumor were important variables that could affect survival and the choice to do a neck dissection.

Indexed as

Laryngeal NeoplasmsLaryngectomyNeck DissectionSalvage TherapyAdultAgedFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateLaryngeal cancerLaryngectomyLymph node ratioNeck dissectionSalvage treatment

Identifiers

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.