ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Transoral Robotic Surgery (TORS) versus radical radiotherapy following neoadjuvant therapy for oropharyngeal carcinoma: a multicenter, real-world efficacy and safety analysis.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 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
This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) versus radical radiotherapy (RT) following neoadjuvant therapy in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC). OPC patients who received neoadjuvant therapy followed by either transoral robotic surgery(TORS) or radiotherapy (RT) between 2018 and 2024 across two centers were included in this study. To address potential confounding and ensure comparability, the overlap weighting (OW) method was employed. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), locoregional relapse-free survival (LRRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and adverse events were evaluated. A total of 367 eligible patients were included (264 in the RT group and 103 in the TORS group). Over a median follow-up of 41 months in the OW-adjusted cohort, no significant differences were observed between TORS and RT groups in 3-year PFS (75.6% vs. 74.4%, p = 0.834), OS (80.5% vs. 84.8%, p = 0.703), LRRFS (76.1% vs. 75.0%, p = 0.909), or DMFS (80.0% vs. 82.0%, p = 0.941). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the treatment effect remained highly consistent across all subgroups, without significant statistical interactions (all P for interaction > 0.05). Toxicity patterns differed: the RT group had higher rates of xerostomia, mucositis, and leukopenia, while the TORS group had more hemorrhage (including one fatal case) and infection. Following neoadjuvant therapy, survival outcomes were comparable between TORS and RT in the OW-adjusted cohort. Toxicity patterns differ between the groups, underscoring the importance of personalized, multidisciplinary treatment decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42762275What 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.