ReviewClinical and translational radiation oncology2026
Challenges in recurrent head and neck squamous cell cancer treatment: systematic review and
Review in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy versus definitive radiotherapy for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the pharynx and larynx: a propensity score-matched analysis.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2027Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Treatment of patients with recurrent head and neck squamous cell cancer in a previously irradiated field remains challenging. We performed a Material and methods: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SCOPUS and PsycINFO were systematically searched. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. A Results: 10 eligible studies with a median follow up of 24.9 months (9.6-78.1) and a total of 958 patients were identified, two of which are prospective trials. 455 were patients treated with post-operative/ adjuvant IMRT (aIMRT), while 503 patients received definitive IMRT (dIMRT). Median age was 62 years (48-63), 78 % were males and the rate of concomitant systemic therapy varied between 0 and 100 %.Post-operative IMRT showed significantly higher 1-year overall survival of 68 %, compared to 55 % for dIMRT, with a risk reduction (RR) of 0.84 (95 % CI: 0.76-0.93). aIMRT achieved superior 1-year locoregional control (65 %) in comparison to dIMRT (58 %) with an RR of 0.89 (95 % CI: 0.798 to 0.997). All other endpoints did not reach statistical significance. The certainty of our findings was low, due to limitations in the included studies. Radiotoxicity was insufficiently reported and does not allow any conclusions. Conclusion: Post-operative IMRT achieves superior survival and tumor control and should be the preferred option for patients eligible for surgery. Careful patient evaluation and selection are fundamental to maximizing therapeutic efficacy while minimizing treatment-related toxicities.
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.