Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40515846›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

Surgery of T1/2 N0 M0 glottic cancer results in a better laryngeal preservation time compared to radiotherapy in a large German patient cohort.

Manuel Christoph Ketterer, Thomas K Hoffmann, Simon Laban, Alexander Berghaus, Martin Canis, Christian Jacobi, Jens Peter Klussmann, Wendelin Foeringer, Roland Laszig, Jens Pfeiffer and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC 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. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  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

12 authors.

Manuel Christoph KettererDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Centre Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Killianstraße 5, 79106, Freiburg, Germany. manuel.christoph.ketterer@uniklinik-freiburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0391-6607
Thomas K HoffmannDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ulm University Medical Center, Frauensteige 12, 89075, Ulm, Germany.
Simon LabanDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ulm University Medical Center, Frauensteige 12, 89075, Ulm, Germany.
Alexander BerghausDepartment of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Grosshadern Campus Ludwig-Maximilian-University Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Martin CanisDepartment of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Grosshadern Campus Ludwig-Maximilian-University Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Christian JacobiDepartment of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Grosshadern Campus Ludwig-Maximilian-University Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Jens Peter KlussmannDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Giessen, Klinikstrasse 33, 35392, Giessen, Germany.
Wendelin FoeringerDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Giessen, Klinikstrasse 33, 35392, Giessen, Germany.
Roland LaszigDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Centre Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Killianstraße 5, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.
Jens PfeifferDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Centre Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Killianstraße 5, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.
Henning BierOtorhinolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Germany.
Andreas KnopfDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Centre Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Killianstraße 5, 79106, Freiburg, Germany. andreas.knopf@uniklinik-freiburg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis retrospective study examined overall survival (OS), recurrence free survival (RFS), and laryngeal preservation time in a large cohort of 663 patients with T1/2 N0 M0 glottic cancer after transoral laser or open surgery vs radiotherapy.

methodsA total of 595 surgically treated patients and 68 individuals after definitive radio(chemo)therapy (R (C)-T) were studied. Patient characteristics including sociological, surgical, and pathological data, OS and RFS as well as laryngeal preservation time were recorded and compared between various groups/cohorts.

resultsThere were no significant differences in OS and RFS between surgically treated and conservatively treated patients. However, laryngeal preservation time was significantly higher in surgically treated patients (p < 0.001) (mean: 138.3 ± 2.2 months, versus 102.8 ± 7.6 months) than those under conservative treatment. The surgical treatment method (transoral vs. open partial resection) did not influence OS or RFS. Additionally, the rate of transoral vs. open surgery did not change over a decade. T2-stage patients showed significantly lower RFS than T1-stage patients. Initial R status significantly influenced OS and tumor recurrence.

conclusionThe findings of this study exhibited a significantly longer laryngeal preservation time in patients with T1/2 N0 M0 glottic cancer treated surgically than in those treated with radiotherapy. No significant differences in OS or RFS were observed between open partial laryngectomy and transoral laser surgery. The R status had a significant impact on OS and RFS, with OS being significantly associated with an R0 status, regardless of T status or the surgical approach (open versus transoral). Laryngeal preservation surgery is recommended as a central therapeutic strategy for T1/2 N0 M0 glottic cancer because it has a higher laryngeal preservation rate than the conservative treatment. Given the high recurrence rate (18.5%) and the necessity of laryngo- (pharyng) ectomy in a substantial proportion of recurrent patients (7.7%), the choice of initial therapeutic approach is critical.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Squamous CellGlottisLaryngeal NeoplasmsLaryngectomyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGermanyHumansLaser TherapyMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingOrgan Sparing TreatmentsGlottic laryngeal carcinomaHead and neck cancer, radiotherapyOpen partial vertical laryngectomyOverall survivalSurgical managementTransoral laser surgery

Identifiers

PMID40515846
PMCPMC12680883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.