Question · asked by 1 review
Altered fractionation radiotherapy (hyperfractionated and/or accelerated) vs Conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy: Locoregional control
- Population
- People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials eligible where more than 50% of participants had oral cavity or oropharyngeal cancer (or separate data available)
- Intervention
- Altered fractionation radiotherapy (hyperfractionated and/or accelerated)
- Comparison
- Conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy
- Outcome
- Locoregional control
Hyperfractionated/accelerated radiotherapy led to lower locoregional control compared with conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Include earlier review versionsNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Hyperfractionated/accelerated radiotherapy vs Conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy Locoregional control · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and… Hyperfractionated/accelerated radiotherapy led to lower locoregional control compared with conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy; GRADE not reported. Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: radiotherapy (2010) · Cochrane All outcomes | HR 0.84 [0.72, 0.99] | 4 studies · 1071 participants | GRADE not reported |
Altered fractionation radiotherapy (hyperfractionated and/or accelerated) vs Conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy Locoregional control · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and… Altered fractionation radiotherapy (hyperfractionated and/or… led to lower locoregional control compared with conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy; GRADE not reported. Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: radiotherapy (2010) · Cochrane All outcomes | HR 0.79 [0.70, 0.89] | 11 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: radiotherapy 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2010-07 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.