Evidence Hub

A systematic review of transoral robotic surgery and radiotherapy for early oropharynx cancer: a systematic review

de Almeida JR, Byrd JK, Wu R, Stucken CL, Duvvuri U, Goldstein DP, Miles BA, Teng MS et al.

The Laryngoscope, 2014

1,287 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) to intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for early T-stage oropharyngeal cancer.

DATA SOURCES: The search included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and bibliographies of relevant studies through September 2012.

METHODS: Studies included patients treated for early T-stage oropharynx cancer with TORS or IMRT. Study retrieval and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and resolved by consensus. Treatment- specific details, as well as recurrence, survival, and adverse events, were collected. Methodologic quality for each study was appraised.

RESULTS: Twenty case series, including eight IMRT studies (1,287 patients) and 12 TORS studies (772 patients), were included. Patients receiving definitive IMRT also received chemotherapy (43%) or neck dissections for persistent disease (30%), whereas patients receiving TORS required adjuvant radiotherapy (26%) or chemoradiotherapy (41%). Two-year overall survival estimates ranged from 84% to 96% for IMRT and from 82% to 94% for TORS. Adverse events for IMRT included esophageal stenosis (4.8%), osteoradionecrosis (2.6%), and gastrostomy tubes (43%)-and adverse events for TORS included hemorrhage (2.4%), fistula (2.5%), and gastrostomy tubes at the time of surgery (1.4%) or during adjuvant treatment (30%). Tracheostomy tubes were needed in 12% of patients at the time of surgery, but most were decannulated prior to…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, 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: 1,287 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