Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41122669›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2025

Letter to the Editor: Reply to Topkan et al.

Shengjin Dou, Guopei Zhu

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Shengjin DouDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial-Head Neck Oncology, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Guopei ZhuDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial-Head Neck Oncology, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We appreciate the insightful letter from Topkan et al., which highlights important considerations regarding postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in highrisk head and neck adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) and offers valuable perspectives on future directions. First of all, we agree that the standard use of CCRT cannot be recommended until prospective evidence is available. While chemotherapy may offer some benefit in local control and overall survival in ACC patients, it inevitably increases the risk of treatment-related toxicities. Therefore, the routine use of CCRT in ACC patients cannot be recommended unless sufficient survival benefit is demonstrated in prospective trials. Second, we recognize that one of the limitations of the study was the relatively small sample size, which may have limited its ability to detect statistically significant differences between the CCRT and RT-alone groups. Given the low incidence of ACC, recruiting an adequately large cohort across multiple centers would require substantial collaboration and coordination. This presents a significant challenge, as the rarity of ACC often results in slow patient recruitment, potentially affecting the generalizability of the findings. Nevertheless, with robust multi-institutional collaboration, such studies remain feasible and could yield valuable insights into treatment outcomes for this patient population.

Indexed as

Concurrent chemoradiotherapyIntensity-modulated radiotherapyRadiation toxicities

Identifiers

PMID41122669
PMCPMC12536585

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.