ArticleHead & neck2026
Comparison of In-Office and General Anesthesia Biopsies for Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in a Public Healthcare System.
Article in Head & neck, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe compared treatment delays, costs, and management impact between oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) patients undergoing in-office versus general anesthesia panendoscopy-guided biopsies in two large tertiary centers in a public healthcare system.
methodsAll OPSCC patients included were treated between 2010 and 2024 with either curative radiation alone or chemoradiation.
resultsDemographic and tumor characteristics were comparable, except for smaller tumors in the panendoscopy group (n = 36) compared to the in-office group (n = 37) (mean size; 29.4 mm vs. 36.6 mm, respectively; difference -7.2 mm [95% CI, -11.3 to -3.1]). The panendoscopy group experienced substantially longer treatment initiation delays (mean days; 70.1 days vs. 44.5 days; difference 25.7 days [95% CI 13.0 to 38.2]). No additional synchronous tumors were detected through panendoscopy. Panendoscopy incurred a mean additional cost of 2025CAD $3886.
conclusionsPanendoscopy for OPSCC prolongs treatment initiation, incurs additional expenses, and provides no incremental synchronous tumor detection. When clinically feasible, in-office biopsies should be preferred.
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.