ReviewLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2026
Tumor Growth Rate in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Scoping Review.
Review in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This scoping review evaluates the current literature on tumor growth rate in head and neck cancer patients and its potential prognostic value on survival, loco-regional control and recurrence (PROSPERO registration CRD42022370828). Review Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched for publications between 1990 and November 5th 2025. Studies providing measures of treatment-naïve HNSCC tumor growth, estimated from tumor volume derived from two pre-therapeutic scans and/or related outcome evaluations, were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the QUIPS tool. Data analysis was summarized in tables and reported following the PRISMA-ScR recommendations. Results: Thirteen papers met the inclusion criteria. Among them, eight provided an actual growth rate, and nine conducted a statistical analysis of survival outcomes. There was significant heterogeneity in study design, imaging technique, volume measurement, growth rate calculation, confounding factors, and prognostic impact. Overall, despite some studies suggesting a correlation between tumor kinetics and survival and loco-regional control, there is insufficient data to conduct a proper meta-analysis or to confirm tumor growth rate as a valid predictor. Conclusion: Tumor kinetics could influence treatment planning and therapy for HNSCC patients in a more personalized way. However, even though some authors have shown a significant impact of Tumor-specific growth rate (TSGR) on survival and loco-regional control, important heterogeneity across articles on this topic fails to yield consistent results, making it difficult to achieve good risk stratification. Recommendations for future research were summarized. Level of Evidence: NA.
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.