Marginal or segmental mandibulectomy: treatment modality selection for oral cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Gou, Liming; Yang, Weixiao; Qiao, Xuguang; Ye, L.; Ke, Ya; Li, L.; Li, C.

doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2017.07.019

Cited by 50 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…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 2 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%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

“…But the locoregional recurrence-free and cancer-specific survivals were similar in patients without or with bone invasion, and local disease control rates were not different between patients with microscopically positive versus negative bone margins. A recent systematic review concluded that a marginal mandibulectomy would be an appropriate choice for oral cancers adherent to or superficially invading the cortex of mandible, since no statistically significant difference in 2- and 5-year local control rates and survivals was found between marginal and segmental resections in a meta-analyses [149].…”

Section: Guidelines For Surgical Treatment Of Oral Cancermentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for the Surgical Management of Oral Cancer: Korean Society of Thyroid-Head and Neck Surgery

Joo

Cho

Koo

et al. 2019

Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Korean Society of Thyroid-Head and Neck Surgery appointed a Task Force to provide guidance on the implementation of a surgical treatment of oral cancer. MEDLINE databases were searched for articles on subjects related to “surgical management of oral cancer” published in English. Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies. The quality of evidence was rated with use RoBANS (Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies) and AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Evidence-based recommendations for practice were ranked according to the American College of Physicians grading system. Additional directives are provided as expert opinions and Delphi questionnaire when insufficient evidence existed. The Committee developed 68 evidence-based recommendations in 34 categories intended to assist clinicians and patients and counselors, and health policy-makers. Proper surgical treatment selection for oral cancer, which is directed by patient- and subsite-specific factors, remains the greatest predictor of successful treatment outcomes. These guidelines are intended for use in conjunction with the individual patient’s treatment goals.

show abstract

“…So there would be a question whether safety margin must be acquired in mandibulectomy for oral cancer. A recent systematic review has concluded that a marginal mandibulectomy would be an appropriate choice for oral cancers adherent to or superficially invading the cortex of mandible, since there are no statistically significant difference in 2- and 5-year local control rates and survivals between marginal and segmental resections in metaanalyses [3]. McGregor and MacDonald [4] reported planning a clinical resection of 5- to 10-mm of unaffected bone around the tumor for oral cancer.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolving Strategy for Surgical Management of Oral Cancer: Present and Future

Joo

Koo

2019

Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marginal or segmental mandibulectomy: treatment modality selection for oral cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 50 publications

References 55 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

Guidelines for the Surgical Management of Oral Cancer: Korean Society of Thyroid-Head and Neck Surgery

Evolving Strategy for Surgical Management of Oral Cancer: Present and Future

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About