ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Mandibular preservation vs. sacrifice following neoadjuvant immunotherapy in locally advanced oral cancer: a comparative study of surgical and quality-of-life outcomes.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study compared surgical complication, quality of life (QoL), functional recovery, and oncologic outcomes between mandibular preservation (MP) and mandibular sacrificing (MS) procedures in patients with locally advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) abutting the mandible who achieved a radiologic complete response (rCR) following neoadjuvant immunotherapy (NAT). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 78 patients who achieved a primary site rCR post-NAT. Patients were allocated to an MP cohort (n=42) or an MS cohort (n=36) based on the definitive surgery performed. Primary outcomes were major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) and longitudinal QoL (EORTC QLQ-C30/H&N35). Secondary outcomes included functional recovery and 3-year oncologic survival. Results: The MP cohort experienced significantly fewer major complications than the MS cohort (2.4% vs. 19.4%, p=0.013), a finding that held in multivariable analysis (aOR: 3.85, p=0.008). The MP cohort also demonstrated a significantly shorter median hospital stay (9 vs. 16 days, p<0.001), lower rates of gastrostomy dependence at discharge (28.6% vs. 63.9%, p=0.002) and at 3 months (0% vs. 11.1%, p=0.037), and superior QoL scores across multiple domains from 6 months onwards. With a median follow-up of 3 years, there were no significant differences in local (p=0.534), regional (p=0.305), or disease-free survival (p=0.332) between the cohorts. Conclusion: For select patients with OSCC achieving rCR after NAT, a mandibular preservation strategy is associated with significantly less postoperative complication, improved functional recovery and quality of life, while not compromising short-term oncologic control in this cohort. These findings suggest the feasibility of challenging the paradigm of mandatory mandibular sacrifice in exceptional responders, pending further prospective validation.
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.