Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41426313›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025

Systematic review of artificial intelligence and radiomics for preoperative prediction of extranodal extension and lymph node metastasis in oropharyngeal cancer.

Katarzyna Stawarz, Anna Gorzelnik, Wojciech Klos, Jacek Korzon, Filip Kissin, Karolina Bieńkowska-Pluta, Grzegorz Stawarz, Natalia Rusetska, Jakub Zwolinski

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Katarzyna StawarzHead and Neck Cancer Department, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Anna GorzelnikHead and Neck Cancer Department, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Wojciech KlosHead and Neck Cancer Department, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Jacek KorzonHead and Neck Cancer Department, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Filip KissinHead and Neck Cancer Department, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Karolina Bieńkowska-PlutaHead and Neck Cancer Department, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Grzegorz StawarzDepartment of Urology, Warsaw Praski Hospital, Warsaw, Poland.
Natalia RusetskaDepartment of Experimental Immunotherapy, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Jakub ZwolinskiHead and Neck Cancer Department, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Preoperative identification of extranodal extension (ENE) and cervical lymph node metastasis (LNM) in oropharyngeal cancer guides treatment escalation and de-escalation. Artificial intelligence (AI) and radiomics offer promise for nodal assessment, but clinical utility and reporting quality remain variable. Methods: This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines. We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published between 2020-2025. Eleven eligible studies (4 core, 7 supportive) addressed ENE (n=2) or LNM prediction (n=2), with additional supportive studies on segmentation, lymphatic spread modeling, MRI radiomics, and outcomes modeling. Extracted variables included study characteristics, performance metrics, validation, calibration, and unit of analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST; reporting quality was evaluated with TRIPOD. Due to heterogeneity and limited study numbers, no meta-analysis was performed; results were narratively synthesized. For ENE, we report study-level accuracy, decision-curve analysis (DCA), and per-1,000 management impact. Results: All core studies were CT-based. The task-specific deep-learning ENE model achieved AUC 0.86 with balanced operating points, while the generalist LVLM (Large Vision-Language Model) reached sensitivity 1.00 with specificity 0.34. DCA favored the DL model across thresholds 0.10-0.40, showing fewer unnecessary dissections per 1,000 patients than Treat-all or L(V)LM. For LNM, discrimination was high (AUC 0.865-0.919), calibration was reported, and one study included external validation, though threshold-level sensitivity/specificity were missing. External validation was reported in 25% of core studies, calibration in 50%; TRIPOD adherence was 74.5% overall, with frequent under-reporting of blinding and missing-data handling. Conclusions: AI and radiomics show promising potential for preoperative prediction of ENE and LNM in oropharyngeal cancer. Task-specific deep-learning models achieve balanced discrimination, while generalist LVLMs provide high recall at lower specificity. For LNM, encouraging performance is reported, but limited external validation and absent standardized thresholds still preclude clinical use. Broader validation and harmonized reporting are essential before translation into practice. Registration/Protocol: Not registered; methods followed PRISMA/TRIPOD/PROBAST guidance.

Indexed as

decision-curve analysisdeep learningextranodal extensionhead and neck cancerlymph node metastasisoropharyngeal cancerradiomicstripod

Identifiers

PMID41426313
PMCPMC12711475

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.