ReviewCurrent opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery2026
Surveillance after treatment for head and neck cancer.
Review in Current opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Plant Bioactive Constituents and Their Potential Benefits in HPV-Positive Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma-A Narrative Review.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Integrative single-cell eQTL and multi-omics analyses reveal AIM1 and ANXA1 as immune-related hub genes and potential therapeutic targets in head and neck cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewSystematic follow-up protocols, often including regular imaging, are an essential component of posttreatment care for head and neck cancer, aimed at the early detection of disease relapse and mitigating treatment-related morbidity. However, there is no consensus on the optimal length of follow-up and the value of imaging in surveillance. RECENT
findingsMost head and neck cancer recurrences occur within 1-2 years after treatment. After 2 years, the recurrence rate decreases significantly, and after 3 years, recurrences are infrequent. Most of the recent studies suggest that prolonged scheduled follow-up programs are not necessary, as asymptomatic salvageable late recurrences are rare. Imaging surveillance for the early detection of otherwise undetected recurrences is supported by many studies, although its impact on survival remains unclear. SUMMARY: Recent literature emphasizes intensive follow-up programs during 1-2 years, as well as patient education for self-observation of alarming symptoms. Prolonged surveillance programs after 2-3 years may not be effective in detecting asymptomatic recurrences. While personalized surveillance based on risk factors is suggested, a lack of strict evidence hampers stratification. Imaging may be of value in detecting early asymptomatic recurrences at least up to 2 years, but disagreement exists regarding its utility in improving survival.
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.