ArticleBMC cancer2026
Practice and impact of selection and centralization for oral cancer services: a scenario analysis.
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCentralization of cancer treatment may potentially improve cancer outcomes, enhance quality of life, and reduce complications; however, few scientific studies have demonstrated its effectiveness. We aimed to define a cancer care delivery system with the aid of selection/ centralization scenarios to enhance outcomes for oral cancer, which is recognized as a rare malignancy in Japan. The purpose of this study was to review our scenarios and discuss their effectiveness.
methodsWe confirmed and implemented the following pragmatic scenarios: (A) early-stage cancer can be treated at any hospital, (B) Stage III cases should be treated at cancer care hospitals, and (C) Stage IV and recurrent cases should be treated at the regional cancer care center. Participants included oral and maxillofacial surgeons in one prefectural cancer care hospital, eight regional cancer care hospitals (out of 11 base hospitals), and 10 other noncancer treatment hospitals. Medical records between 2017 and 2021 were examined. In addition, treatment outcomes from eight hospitals that had provided oral cancer treatment between 2000 and 2011 were examined to compare pre- and post-scenario treatment outcomes. Survival rates were analyzed via Kaplan-Meier estimation of 5-year overall survival (OS) and assessed for significant differences via the log-rank test. A P-value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate a significant difference. All analyses were performed using JMP ver.13.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).
resultsFour hundred sixty-nine patients with oral malignancies were seen at participating hospitals. A total of 158 (33.7%) patients were subsequently referred to other hospitals for cancer treatment. A comparison of survival rates stratified by hospital category showed no significant differences between hospital categories for early-stage cancers. In contrast, there were significant differences between groups in stages III and IV. A pre- and post-scenario comparison revealed that survival rates had improved, especially for those with advanced cancer (stage IVB).
conclusionThe results of this study suggest that the scenarios we developed are useful and may improve the outcomes of oral cancer.
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.