Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 186

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Role of Cervical Lymphadenectomy After Aggressive Concomitant Chemoradiotherapy: The Feasibility of Selective Neck Dissection

Stenson, Kerstin M., Haraf, Danial J., Pelzer, Harold, Recant, Wendy, Kies, Merrill S., Weichselbaum, Ralph R., Vokes, Everett E.·2000·Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the necessity, technical feasibility, and complication rate of neck dissection performed on patients with head and neck cancer after 5 cycles of concomitant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and to justify a selective neck dissection (SND) approach and define the optimal timing of post-CRT neck dissection. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective analysis in an academic university medical center. PATIENTS: Sixty-nine eligible patients with advanced (stage III and IV) head and neck cancer who have undergone 1 of 4 CRT protocols. Patients ranged in age from 36 to 75 years, and surgical procedures were performed over a 4-year period. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 64 months. INTERVENTION: Neck dissection (most commonly unilateral SND) performed within 5 to 17 weeks after CRT completion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Complication rate and incidence of positive pathology (viable cancer) in pathologic neck dissection specimens. RESULTS: Seven (10%) of 69 patients developed wound healing complications, 4 (6%) of whom required surgical intervention for ultimate closure. There were no wound infections. Other complications occurred in 11 (16%) of 69 patients and included need for tracheotomy, nerve transection and paresis, and permanent hypocalcemia. Twenty-four (35%) of 69 patients revealed microscopic residual disease. Ten (50%) of 20 patients with N3 neck disease had positive pathology, whereas 14 (36%) of 39 patients with N2 disease had viable carcinoma in the dissection specimen (P =.09 by chi(2) analysis). There was no significant relation between radiologic complete response or partial response and residual microscopic cancer. In 1 patient, disease recurred in the neck after dissection. Mean follow-up time was 30.3 months. CONCLUSIONS: (1) Neck dissection for patients with N2 or greater neck disease after CRT is necessary to eradicate residual disease. (2) The complication rate of SND after CRT with hyperfractionated radiotherapy is low. (3) SNDs are technically feasible when performed within the "window" between the acute and chronic CRT injury (4-12 weeks). (4) SNDs, rather than more radical procedures, appear to be therapeutically appropriate in this group of patients because of the low incidence of disease recurrence in the neck.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archotol.126.8.950

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 186

Metadata

Authors
Stenson, K. M., Haraf, D. J., Pelzer, H., Recant, W., Kies, M. S., Weichselbaum, R. R., & Vokes, E. E.
Venue
Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery
Published
2000-08-01
Volume
126
Issue
8
Pages
950
ISSN
0886-4470 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2112275574
Cited by
186
References
0
FWCI
4.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Role of Cervical Lymphadenectomy After Aggressive Concomitant Chemoradiotherapy: The Feasibility of Selective Neck Dissection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archotol.126.8.950
The paper
Stenson, K. M., Haraf, D. J., Pelzer, H., Recant, W., Kies, M. S., Weichselbaum, R. R., & Vokes, E. E. (2000). The Role of Cervical Lymphadenectomy After Aggressive Concomitant Chemoradiotherapy: The Feasibility of Selective Neck Dissection. Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.126.8.950

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.