ReviewThe oncologist2025
Navigating challenging patient factors in systemic therapy for head and neck cancer.
Review in The oncologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Adverse effects of the PENTO(CLO) protocol in the prevention and management of iatrogenic head and neck bone necrosis in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Pooled it
- ChatGPT-assisted evaluation of dysphagia in head and neck cancer radiotherapy patients: A practical tool.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with head and neck cancer often present with complex challenges due to a substantial comorbidity burden, including substance use disorders, and the tumor's location in regions that are both cosmetically and anatomically sensitive. These challenges can be categorized into 6 areas, that is, overall health (eg, performance status, biological age), physiological life stages (eg, aging), organ dysfunctions (including autoimmune comorbidities, organ transplants, and psychiatric disorders), previous and concurrent malignancies, previous and current therapies, and adherence to therapy. We provide a practical guide to help physicians understand and address the phenotypic multitude of potential complications in the management of these patients. The process has 4 main phases involving identification of the clinical challenge, understanding the reasons for ineligibility (contraindications), assessment of the risk to benefit ratio, and finally making informed decisions about systemic treatment. Proactive interventions, including prehabilitation, are crucial for optimizing patient outcomes and reversing some ineligibility issues. The evidence supporting contraindications is drawn from both clinical trials and real-world data, each with its strengths and limitations. These contraindications are applied as absolute or relative and further refined by expert opinions and consensus statements. There are 2 main reasons for ineligibility for a given treatment, absence of supporting data or negative outcome data. In these cases, careful interpretation using all levels of clinical evidence, including extrapolation and preclinical rationale, is essential. By mastering these skills, that may in the future be enhanced by artificial intelligence methods, significant advancements in patient care can be achieved.
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.