Evidence Hub

Survival Outcomes in Primary Head and Neck Adult Sarcoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

S. Zayed, C. Lin, G. Boldt, P. Lang, N. Read, V. Venkatesan, J. Sathya, K. Fung et al.

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2021

21,228 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Head and neck sarcomas (HNS) are rare entities and confer substantial morbidity and mortality. Yet, the optimal management of HNS remains unclear. This study aimed to describe the epidemiology of HNS and to identify the most favorable treatment approach.

MATERIALS/METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, using the PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases, queried from 1990 until present. Articles in the English language reporting on survival outcomes of adult primary HNS patients treated with curative-intent were included. All estimates were weighted based on sample size. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and two-sample t-tests were used as appropriate. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021220970).

RESULTS

A total of 3652 articles were identified, with 42 articles reporting on 21228 patients, meeting inclusion criteria. Mean ± SD age was 56.7 ± 14.6 years with 14170 (67.0%) men and 6991 (33.0%) women. The most common locations included skin and soft tissues (n = 12749, 63.3%), bones of skull and face (n = 2256, 11.2%), and oral cavity (n = 1775, 8.8%). The most common histologies included undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (n = 5065, 24.8%), osteosarcoma (n = 2578, 12.6%), Kaposi sarcoma (n = 2316, 11.3%), chondrosarcoma (n = 2141, 10.5%), and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 21,228 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free