ArticlePloS one2025
Defining a need for rapid response and practical guidance for recurrent and metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN) management in France: A Delphi consensus.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiotherapy-Associated Pain in Head and Neck Cancer: From Clinical Burden to Neuroimmune Modulator.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Immunotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer-Where Are We Now and Where Are We Headed?International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecurrent and metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN) presents substantial treatment challenges due to its aggressive and heterogeneous nature. While evidence-based guidelines provide useful recommendations, they may not offer sufficient support for real-time clinical decision-making.
objectiveThis Delphi consensus aimed to establish expert agreement on clinical parameters guiding first- and second-line treatment decisions and the management of specific clinical scenarios in R/M SCCHN in France.
methodsA two-round Delphi consensus was conducted between December 2023 and June 2024. A scientific committee of six national experts developed consensus statements based on a literature review and supervised the process. An expert panel of 25 oncologists from across France participated in both rounds.
resultsAll respondents agreed that the need for a rapid therapeutic response and the presence of comorbidities were critical factors influencing first-line treatment choice. Seven major indicators of rapid response were identified: rapidly progressive relapse, partial airway obstruction, respiratory compromise, tumour-related bleeding, uncontrolled symptoms, carotid axis lesions, and pain resistant to third-step analgesics. For patients requiring rapid response, 76% supported using cetuximab with chemotherapy as a first-line option in cases with a combined positive score (CPS) between 1 and 19. Furthermore, 84% recommended immunotherapy (alone or combined with chemotherapy) as first-line treatment for CPS ≥ 20 tumours, while 41% would consider it for CPS 1-19 cases. A strong consensus (80%) held that first-line treatment should not restrict second-line options. Notably, 100% of respondents agreed that all patients should receive immunotherapy, cetuximab, taxanes, and platinum salts within the first two treatment lines.
conclusionsThis Delphi consensus offers valuable, expert-based perspectives on the management of R/M SCCHN in France. It highlights a progressive shift from standardized European guideline frameworks toward a more personalized approach that accounts for individual patient profiles and tumour characteristics. The insights generated provide practical guidance for clinical decision-making and lay the groundwork for future research and optimisation of treatment strategies in real-world settings.
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.