Discontinuous Versus In-Continuity Neck Dissection in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Tongue and Floor of the Mouth: Comparing the Rates of Locoregional Recurrence

Wang, Hechen; Zheng, Yan; Pang, Pai; Li, Ruiwu; Qi, Zhong-zheng; Sun, Changfu

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2017.11.021

Cited by 13 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The research yielded 2,547 records after removing duplicates. After title and abstract screening, 127 articles were obtained for final full-text review; 15 SRs15–29 met the eligibility criteria (Figure 1). The list of excluded studies along with exclusion rationale is available in Supplementary material 2.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirteen SRs15,16,18–27,29 included a meta-analysis, and all SRs15–29 were published in English between 2010 and 2018. Nine SRs15,19,22–26,28,29 had focused on oral cavity cancer exclusively, whereas other six SRs16–18,20,21,27 had focused on head and neck cancers, with the oropharyngeal cancer being the most frequent among them. Eight SRs15,17,19,22,24,27–29 assessed surgical interventions, three SRs16,21,25 assessed radiotherapy, three SRs20,23,26 assessed chemotherapy and one SR18 assessed targeted therapy and immunotherapy.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ten SRs15,19,22–29 scored “Critically low”, three SRs16,20,21 scored “Low” and only two SRs17,18 scored “High” methodological quality, according to the AMSTAR-2 critical appraisal criteria (Figure 2). The SRs were downgraded mainly because the SR authors did not explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review,16–23,25–29 sources of funding for the included studies were not clearly stated,15,16,19,22–29 there was no reference to a protocol,15,19,22–29 and the list of excluded studies was not provided 15,19,22,24–27,29…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirteen SRs15,17–24,26–29 were conducted including 18 PICOs. Eight PICOs evaluated surgical interventions,17,19,22,24,27–29 five PICOs assessed chemotherapy,20,23,26 three PICOs assessed radiotherapy17,21 and two PICOs assessed immunotherapy. Eight PICOs were reported as “beneficial”, one PICO as “probably beneficial”, eight PICOs as “no differential effect” and one PICO was reported as “inconclusive” (Table 2).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Evidence mapping and quality assessment of systematic reviews on therapeutic interventions for oral cancer

Anaya¹,

Franco²,

Ballesteros³

et al. 2018

CMAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This evidence mapping aims to describe and assess the quality of available evidence in systematic reviews (SRs) on treatments for oral cancer. Materials and methods: We followed the methodology of Global Evidence Mapping. Searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Epistemonikos and The Cochrane Library were conducted to identify SRs on treatments for oral cancer. The methodological quality of SRs was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 tool. We organized the results according to identified Population-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) questions and presented the evidence mapping in tables and a bubble plot. Results: Fifteen SRs met the eligibility criteria, including 118 individual reports, of which 55.1% were randomized controlled clinical trials. Ten SRs scored "Critically low" methodological quality. We extracted 30 PICOs focusing on interventions such as surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy; 18 PICOs were for resectable oral cancer, of which 8 were reported as beneficial. There were 12 PICOs for unresectable oral cancer, of which only 2 interventions were reported as beneficial. Conclusion: There is limited available evidence on treatments for oral cancer. The methodological quality of most included SRs scored "Critically low". The main beneficial treatment reported by authors for patients with resectable oral cancer is surgery alone or in combination with radiotherapy or chemotherapy. Evidence about the benefits of the treatments for unresectable oral cancer is lacking. These findings highlight the need to address future research focused on new treatments and knowledge gaps in this field, and increased efforts are required to improve the methodology quality and reporting process of SRs on treatments for oral cancer.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evidence mapping and quality assessment of systematic reviews on therapeutic interventions for oral cancer

Anaya¹,

Franco²,

Ballesteros³

et al. 2018

CMAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Lymph node metastasis in oral squamous cell carcinoma: Where we are and where we are going

Cao

Zhong

et al. 2023

Clinical and Translational Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOral cancer is a common malignant tumour in the head and neck region, with over 90% of cases being oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). Lymph node metastasis (LNM) is a significant adverse prognostic factor in OSCC; however, the mechanism of LNM in OSCC remains unclear, while the strategies for managing cervical lymph nodes (CLNs) in OSCC continue to evolve. At present, neck dissection is necessary for the vast majority of OSCC patients, but complications of surgery can significantly impair patients’ postoperative quality of life. A recent clinical trial discovery indicates that immunotherapy can activate anti‐tumour T cells in nearby lymph nodes, leading to vibrant discussions among clinicians about the importance of preserving lymph nodes during surgical treatment.AimThis review aims to provide an overview of where we are: the current knowledge of OSCC LNM patterns and management strategies, and where we are going: prospects for clinical and basic research on the issue of OSCC LNM in the era of cancer immunotherapy.ResultWe summarize the general patterns and management strategies of OSCC LNM. The process of LNM in OSCC encompasses four stages: Preparation, Unleash, Migration, and Planting (‘PUMP’ principle). We propose adopting the ‘PRECISE’ model, an overall workflow that includes seven elements—prevention, radiology, preoperative evaluation, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, surgery, and postoperative evaluation—for neck management in OSCC, promoting personalized precision medicine augmented by neoadjuvant therapy. We further discussed recent advances in clinical and basic research on OSCC LNM and provided an outlook on future research directions.ConclusionOver the past two centuries, our understanding and management strategies of LNM in OSCC have evolved, seeking more precise and personalized approaches to reduce patient burden and enhance survival and quality of life. Further research should explore lymph nodes’ role in cancer immunotherapy and OSCC interactions, leading to better, less invasive treatments and improved outcomes.

show abstract

High‐risk early‐stage oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma, when free margins are not enough: Critical review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma (OTSCC) is a quite peculiar disease from an anatomical and biological standpoint. An increasing amount of literature highlights the existence of a small subset of T1‐T2N0 OTSCC, properly resected on a margin‐dependent basis, which conversely proved higher than expected rates of loco‐regional/distant failure and disease‐specific mortality. These specific high‐risk tumors might not have a margin‐dependent disease and could possibly benefit from a more aggressive upfront loco‐regional treatment, especially addressing the so‐called T‐N tract. Widespread adoption of a histopathological risk model would allow early recognition of these high‐risk diseases and, consequently, intensification of the traditional treatment strategies in that specific niche. We reviewed the available knowledge trying to shed light on the potential determinants of the dismal prognosis of these high‐risk OTSCC, with special reference to the role of overlooked T‐N tract involvement and possible alternatives in terms of elective neck management and risk stratification.

show abstract

Discontinuous Versus In-Continuity Neck Dissection in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Tongue and Floor of the Mouth: Comparing the Rates of Locoregional Recurrence

Cited by 13 publications

References 23 publications

Evidence mapping and quality assessment of systematic reviews on therapeutic interventions for oral cancer

Evidence mapping and quality assessment of systematic reviews on therapeutic interventions for oral cancer

Lymph node metastasis in oral squamous cell carcinoma: Where we are and where we are going

High‐risk early‐stage oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma, when free margins are not enough: Critical review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About