ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Preoperative biopsy underestimates tumour budding but retains prognostic value in oral squamous cell carcinoma.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Tumour budding is an established prognostic marker in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), but its reliability and prognostic performance in preoperative biopsy specimens remain uncertain. This study compared tumour budding assessment in matched biopsy and resection specimens and evaluated their respective prognostic value. Methods: We retrospectively analysed 256 patients with OSCC and matched preoperative biopsy and resection specimens. Tumour budding at the invasive front was assessed on hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections according to the International Tumour Budding Consensus Conference criteria and agreement between biopsy- and resection-based assessment was evaluated alongside associations with clinicopathological characteristics, disease-specific survival and occult nodal metastasis using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Biopsy-derived tumour budding showed only weak correlation with resection findings and systematically underestimated high tumour budding, resulting in poor categorical agreement (κ = 0.11) and low sensitivity (9.8%) despite high specificity (98.9%). Nevertheless, both biopsy- and resection-based tumour budding were associated with disease-specific survival when mutually adjusted for each other. The C-index was numerically higher for resection-based than biopsy-based assessment (0.72 vs. 0.60), with only a modest increase when both measures were combined (C-index 0.74). Both biopsy- and resection-derived tumour budding were also associated with local recurrence and distant metastasis in mutually adjusted Cox models, although these secondary analyses remain exploratory. Interpretation is limited by the small biopsy high-budding group (n = 10) and the limited number of events for several secondary outcomes. For later lymph-node metastasis, only resection-derived tumour budding remained statistically significant after mutual adjustment, whereas the association with biopsy-derived tumour budding was borderline. Resection-derived tumour budding, but not biopsy-derived tumour budding, remained associated with occult nodal metastasis after mutual adjustment, while no statistically significant specimen-type interactions were detected for the evaluated clinicopathological characteristics, with several estimates remaining imprecise. Discussion: Preoperative biopsy-derived tumour budding may provide clinically relevant prognostic information in OSCC despite systematically underestimating high tumour budding. Although resection-based assessment showed a numerically higher C-index, biopsy assessment may provide complementary preoperative prognostic information but should not be considered a surrogate for resection-based assessment.
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.