Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNorman, Alyson
dc.contributor.authorGlenny, A-M
dc.contributor.authorFurness, S
dc.contributor.authorClarkson, JE
dc.contributor.authorOliver, R
dc.contributor.authorConway, DI
dc.contributor.authorMacluskey, M
dc.contributor.authorPavitt, S
dc.contributor.authorSloan, P
dc.contributor.authorWorthington, HV
dc.date.accessioned2014-10-27T14:33:18Z
dc.date.available2014-10-27T14:33:18Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.identifier.issn1469-493X
dc.identifier.issn1465-1858
dc.identifier.otherARTN CD006205
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/3145
dc.description.abstract

BACKGROUND: Surgery is an important part of the management of oral cavity cancer with regard to both the removal of the primary tumour and removal of lymph nodes in the neck. Surgery is less frequently used in oropharyngeal cancer. Surgery alone may be treatment for early stage disease or surgery may be used in combination with radiotherapy, chemotherapy and immunotherapy/biotherapy. There is variation in the recommended timing and extent of surgery in the overall treatment regimens of people with these cancers. OBJECTIVES: To determine which surgical treatment modalities for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers result in increased overall survival, disease free survival, progression free survival and reduced recurrence. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17 February 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 17 February 2011) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 February 2011). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared two or more surgical treatment modalities or surgery versus other treatment modalities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias was undertaken independently by two or more review authors. Study authors were contacted for additional information as required. Adverse events data were collected from published trials. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials (n = 669; 667 with cancers of the oral cavity) satisfied the inclusion criteria, but none were assessed as low risk of bias. Trials were grouped into three main comparisons. Four trials compared elective neck dissection (ND) with therapeutic neck dissection in patients with oral cavity cancer and clinically negative neck nodes, but differences in type of surgery and duration of follow-up made meta-analysis inappropriate. Three of these trials reported overall and disease free survival. One trial showed a benefit for elective supraomohyoid neck dissection compared to therapeutic ND in overall and disease free survival. Two trials found no difference between elective radical ND and therapeutic ND for the outcomes of overall survival and disease free survival. All four trials found reduced locoregional recurrence following elective ND.A further two trials compared elective radical ND with elective selective ND and found no difference in overall survival, disease free survival or recurrence. The final trial compared surgery plus radiotherapy to radiotherapy alone but data were unreliable because the trial stopped early and there were multiple protocol violations.None of the trials reported quality of life as an outcome. Two trials, evaluating different comparisons reported adverse effects of treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Seven included trials evaluated neck dissection surgery in patients with oral cavity cancers. The review found weak evidence that elective neck dissection of clinically negative neck nodes at the time of removal of the primary tumour results in reduced locoregional recurrence, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that elective neck dissection increases overall survival or disease free survival compared to therapeutic neck dissection. There is very weak evidence from one trial that elective supraomohyoid neck dissection may be associated with increased overall and disease free survival. There is no evidence that radical neck dissection increases overall survival compared to conservative neck dissection surgery. Reporting of adverse events in all trials was poor and it was not possible to compare the quality of life of patients undergoing different surgeries.

dc.format.extentCD006205-
dc.format.mediumElectronic
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherWiley
dc.subjectCombined Modality Therapy [methods]
dc.subjectMouth Neoplasms [*surgery]
dc.subjectOropharyngeal Neoplasms [*surgery]
dc.subjectRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic
dc.subjectHumans
dc.titleInterventions for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.typeMeta-Analysis
dc.typeReview
dc.typeSystematic Review
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000294642700030&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.issue9
plymouth.publication-statusPublished online
plymouth.journalCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/14651858.cd006205.pub3
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/School of Psychology
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA04 Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Centre for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour (CBCB)
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Centre for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour (CBCB)/Behaviour
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dc.publisher.placeEngland
dc.identifier.eissn1465-1858
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1002/14651858.cd006205.pub3
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV