ArticleJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2025
Comparative Evaluation of Upfront Surgery and Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Surgery in Locally Advanced Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma.
Article in Journal of maxillofacial and oral 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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Oral squamous cell carcinoma with stage T3 and above constitutes locally advanced disease without distant metastasis. Even with multimodality treatment, the 5-year survival is less than 50%. In this retrospective study, we shared our experience from a single center of the utility of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the outcome of cT4 oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. Methods: Patients who underwent surgery either in the form of upfront resection or induction chemotherapy followed by surgery were considered for evaluation. Patients in the induction group underwent three cycles of NACT prior to response assessment. Patients with complete response underwent surgery, and partial responders were given fourth cycle of NACT prior to surgery. Patients with stable disease or disease progression were subjected to nonsurgical therapy. The primary endpoint assessment of the study was overall survival and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes assessed were the extent of resectability after NACT, frequency of marginal mandibulectomies, postoperative radiotherapy and response following NACT. Results: A total of 285 patients were initially screened for the review; of which 164 patients (Group A) underwent upfront surgical resection and 121 patients received NACT. The median DFS and OS in our study were 28 months and 30 months, respectively. There was no difference in DFS and OS between upfront surgery and NACT surgery. On subset analysis, NACT improved survival only in T4b patients. Positive margin, nodal metastasis and presence of extracapsular spread were the risk factors effecting survival. Discussion: Induction chemotherapy improved survival only in T4b patients. There was no difference in survival in T4a patients with the addition of NACT. Overall no difference was seen in survival with the use of induction chemotherapy.
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.