Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40759787›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

European Laryngological Society consensus statement on optimal monitoring schedules after treatment for early glottic cancer: a risk-stratification.

Malgorzata Wierzbicka, Agatha Baidun, Andy Bertolin, Marco Lionello, Giovanni Succo, Berit Verbist, Davide Farina, Martine Hendriksma, Marc Remacle, Ricard Simo and 2 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
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 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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.

Malgorzata WierzbickaFaculty of Medicine, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 27 Wybrzeże Stanisława Wyspiańskiego st, Wrocław, 50-370, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0006-6352
Agatha BaidunDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, Leiden, 2300RC, the Netherlands. a.s.baidun@lumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-2073-0273
Andy BertolinUnit of Otorhinolaryngology - ENT Dept, Vittorio Veneto Hospital, Vittorio Veneto, Italy.
Marco LionelloUnit of Otorhinolaryngology - ENT Dept, Vittorio Veneto Hospital, Vittorio Veneto, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2454-9618
Giovanni SuccoDepartment of Oncology, University of Turin, San Giovanni Bosco Hospital, Turin, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0375-6623
Berit VerbistDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1010-2583
Davide FarinaDepartment of Radiological Sciences (DSMC), University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4075-0001
Martine HendriksmaDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, Leiden, 2300RC, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5254-8842
Marc RemacleDepartment of Otolaryngology, Centre Hospitalier du Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2525-3154
Ricard SimoDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Guy's and St, Thomas' Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5410-1566
Elisabeth SjogrenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, Leiden, 2300RC, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7990-8510
Cesare PiazzaUnit of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, ASST Spedali Civili of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2391-9357

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early glottic cancer has an excellent prognosis provided that recurrences are detected in a timely manner. However, current guidelines lack specific recommendations for intervals or interventions during follow-up, and primarily advocate surveillance in the most advanced stages where the benefits are actually the lowest. This consensus statement introduces a risk-stratification-guided follow-up schedule for T1-T2N0 patients, aiming to optimize oncologic and functional outcomes while ensuring early detection of residual or recurrent disease to preserve organ function. Separate protocols are outlined for surgical and non-surgical patients, including endoscopic examination, radiological imaging, and thyroid function screening. Also, the pathway to reach this routine observation phase is described, specifying the criteria and timing of a second-look microlaryngoscopy.

Indexed as

GlottisLaryngeal NeoplasmsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalConsensusEuropeHumansLaryngoscopyNeoplasm StagingRisk AssessmentSocieties, MedicalEarly glottic carcinomaFollow-upLaryngeal cancerRecurrenceT1T2

Identifiers

PMID40759787
PMCPMC12423193

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.