ReviewCancers2026
Diagnostic and Prognostic Significance of Chemokines in Head and Neck Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHead and neck cancers (HNCs) represent a global health burden, with high morbidity and mortality largely driven by late-stage diagnosis and heterogeneous clinical outcomes. Reliable biomarkers are needed to improve early detection, prognostic stratification, and therapeutic decision-making. This study evaluates the diagnostic and prognostic value of chemokines in HNCs and identifies candidates with clinical relevance.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted on 28 March 2026 across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and EBSCO. Observational studies involving patients or biological samples with confirmed HNCs were included if they evaluated chemokines as diagnostic or prognostic biomarkers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for prognostic studies and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool for diagnostic studies. Meta-analyses were performed for chemokines evaluated in ≥3 studies using the inverse-variance heterogeneity model.
resultsForty-four studies encompassing 7294 participants were included. Prognostic findings were heterogeneous across biomarkers. MIP-3α demonstrated consistently significant associations with poorer survival outcomes. In contrast, IL-8, CXCL10, and CXCR4 showed inconsistent or predominantly non-significant associations with overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and locoregional control (LRC). For diagnostic performance, IL-8, in saliva, demonstrated relatively high sensitivity and specificity for oral squamous cell carcinoma. Chemerin showed high diagnostic accuracy, although evidence remains limited.
conclusionsCertain chemokines show potential as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in HNCs. However, heterogeneity across tumor types, samples, and methodologies limits evidence. Larger, well-designed studies are needed to validate their clinical utility in risk stratification and personalized management of HNCs.
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.