Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41353568›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery2026

Surveillance after treatment for head and neck cancer.

Petri Koivunen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

1 author.

Petri KoivunenOulu University Hospital, Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, University of Oulu, Clinical Medicine Research Unit, Oulu, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Head and Neck NeoplasmsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalHumanshead and neck cancerimagingrecurrencesurveillance

Identifiers

PMID41353568
PMCPMC12978729

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.