ReviewCancers2025
Comparison of Weekly and Triweekly Cisplatin Regimens in the Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy is the standard treatment for locally advanced head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC); however, the optimal dosing regimen remains debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare treatment compliance, therapeutic efficacy, and toxicity profiles between weekly (30-50 mg/m
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify prospective clinical trials published before 16 January 2025, comparing weekly and triweekly cisplatin regimens. Studies were included if they reported treatment compliance, efficacy, and chemotherapy-related toxicities. Single-arm studies were excluded. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the primary endpoints: overall survival (OS) and chemotherapy completion rates. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I
resultsFifteen prospective clinical trials with 1572 patients (775 weekly and 797 triweekly) were included. Treatment compliance was similar between the regimens, with 74.76% (weekly) vs. 72.29% (triweekly) completing chemotherapy (
interpretationThe results do not provide definitive evidence favoring one regimen over the other. Both regimens remain viable treatment options with comparable efficacy and adherence. Treatment selection should be individualized, considering toxicity risk, patient tolerability, and clinical factors.
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.