ReviewJournal of the Korean Society of Radiology2026
Recent AJCC Version 9 Staging of Nasopharyngeal Cancer.
Review in Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology, 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.
- Therapeutic Innovations in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Current Strategies and Emerging Perspectives.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- [Preface to the Special Issue on 'Recent Updates in AJCC Staging of Head and Neck Cancer'].Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recently revised American Joint Committee on Cancer Version 9 staging system for nasopharyngeal cancer reflects advances in high-resolution imaging techniques and aims for more detailed risk stratification. Key revisions include the requirement of unequivocal cortical bone destruction or marrow infiltration for T3 category and the introduction of imaging criteria for extranodal extension in the N3 category. Additionally, the M category was subdivided based on the number of distant metastatic lesions. These changes highlight the importance of accurate evaluations using CT, MRI, and PET. This review details the updated criteria and radiological considerations that support accurate imaging interpretation and staging.
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.