IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0277460.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Treatment options for resectable hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Author

Listed:
  • Smriti Panda
  • Pirabu Sakthivel
  • Kurinchi S Gurusamy
  • Atul Sharma
  • Alok Thakar

Abstract

Background: There is uncertainty in the treatment options for resectable hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Methods: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and Conference Proceedings databases and trial registries were searched until November 2020 for randomized controlled trials performed on resectable hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Two systematic review authors independently identified studies and extracted data. The primary outcomes evaluated were overall survival, disease-free survival, any recurrence, local recurrence, loco-regional recurrence, distal recurrence and laryngectomy-free survival. The secondary outcomes were response rates following neoadjuvant treatment and comparison of treatment-related toxicity. Assessment of risk of bias was performed for the selected studies using Cochrane’s tool for assessing risk of bias. The studies were evaluated for the quality of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations). Risk ratios (RR), rate ratios, and hazard ratios (HR) were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Results: Five RCTs met the inclusion criteria for this review. The risk of bias was unclear or high for the trials. Non-organ preservation(n = 140) versus organ preservation (n = 144) (two trials): no statistically significant difference could be identified for any of the primary outcomes. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (n = 37) versus sequential chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy (n = 34) (one trial): no statistically significant difference was noted between the two treatment arms for overall survival, disease-free survival and loco-regional recurrence. Laryngectomy-free survival was found to be superior in concurrent chemoradiotherapy arm (HR:0.28, 95% CI 0.13, 0.57). Induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (n = 53) versus induction chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy (n = 60) (one trial): no statistically significant difference was noted between the treatment arms for overall survival, disease-free survival and laryngectomy-free survival. Preoperative radiotherapy (n = 24) versus postoperative radiotherapy (n = 23) (one trial): overall survival was found to be better in the postoperative radiotherapy arm (HR:2.44, 95% CI1.18, 5.03). No statistically significant difference was noted in terms of treatment-related toxicity. Conclusions: There are considerable uncertainties in the management of resectable hypopharyngeal cancer. Trail registration: PROSPERO registration: CRD42019155613.

Suggested Citation

  • Smriti Panda & Pirabu Sakthivel & Kurinchi S Gurusamy & Atul Sharma & Alok Thakar, 2022. "Treatment options for resectable hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(11), pages 1-18, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0277460
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0277460
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0277460&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0277460?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0277460. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.