ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Clinical prognostic characteristics of ocular mucoepidermoid carcinoma: a retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in 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.
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
Aim: This study aimed to characterize the clinical presentation, pathological features, and prognostic indicators of ocular mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) based on an institutional cohort and a systematic literature review. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted including two distinct datasets: six patients with histopathologically confirmed ocular MEC treated at our institution and twenty-one cases identified through literature review. Institutional cases were evaluated for clinical course, treatment, and recurrence, whereas literature-derived cases were summarized descriptively due to reporting heterogeneity and incomplete follow-up. Results: Patients in the institutional cohort (n = 6) had a median age of 64 years, with no sex predominance. The lacrimal gland was the most frequent primary site, followed by the eyelid and lacrimal sac. The predominant manifestation was a painless orbital mass, while diplopia and visual loss were less frequent. Intermediate-grade lesions were most common, and orbital tissue invasion was histologically confirmed in two patients. Both patients with invasion experienced tumor recurrence, whereas no recurrence was observed among patients without invasion during follow-u No disease-related deaths occurred within this cohort. The literature-derived group demonstrated substantial variability in grading, invasion patterns, and follow-up duration, reflecting selective reporting toward advanced or recurrent cases. Conclusions: Ocular MEC demonstrates a high tendency toward local recurrence but generally low disease-specific mortality. Orbital tissue invasion appears to be associated with an elevated risk of recurrence in the institutional cohort, underscoring the need for prolonged surveillance. Given the marked heterogeneity of published cases, survival inference should be limited to consistently followed institutional data.
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.