ArticleHead & neck2021
Diagnostic discrepancy in second opinion reviews of primary epithelial neoplasms involving salivary gland: An 11-year experience from a tertiary referral center focusing on useful pathologic approaches and potential clinical impacts.
Article in Head & neck, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hyalinizing Clear Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: A Multicenter Retrospective Study of 87 Cases Focusing on Prognostic Pathologic Features and Grading Scheme.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2025Article
- Clinical value of second opinions in oncology: A retrospective review of changes in diagnosis and treatment recommendations.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsIn the era of precision medicine, accurate pathologic diagnoses are crucial for appropriate management.
methodsWe herein described the histologic features and clinical impacts of 66 salivary gland epithelial neoplasms in which the diagnosis was altered after expert review.
resultsThe most common revised diagnosis was that of salivary duct carcinoma (SDC, n = 12), adenoid cystic carcinoma (n = 12), and myoepithelial carcinoma (n = 10). The most common initial diagnosis was mucoepidermoid carcinoma (n = 19) with SDC being the most common revised diagnosis (7/19). Thirteen salivary gland carcinomas were initially diagnosed as benign entities, whereas five benign tumors were initially interpreted as carcinoma. The change in diagnosis was considered to be clinically significant in 65 (97%) cases.
conclusionsGiven their rarity, salivary gland neoplasms are prone to diagnostic inaccuracy and discrepancy. A constellation of histologic features and ancillary studies are useful in reaching the correct diagnosis, which can have significant clinical impacts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.