Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 371

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Management of locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Open access
Lee, Anne W.M., Ng, Wai Tong, Chan, Jimmy Y.W., Corry, June, Mäkitie, Antti, Mendenhall, William M., Rinaldo, Alessandra, Rodrigo, Juan P., Saba, Nabil F., Strojan, Primož, Suárez, Carlos, Vermorken, Jan B., Yom, Sue S., Ferlito, Alfio·2019·Cancer Treatment Reviews

Abstract

As a consequence of the current excellent loco-regional control rates attained using the generally accepted treatment paradigms involving intensity-modulated radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), only 10-20% of patients will suffer from local and/or nodal recurrence after primary treatment. Early detection of recurrence is important as localized recurrent disease is still potentially salvageable, but this treatment often incurs a high risk of major toxicities. Due to the possibility of radio-resistance of tumors which persist or recur despite adequate prior irradiation and the limited tolerance of adjacent normal tissues to sustain further additional treatment, the management of local failures remains one of the greatest challenges in this disease. Both surgical approaches for radical resection and specialized re-irradiation modalities have been explored. Unfortunately, available data are based on retrospective studies, and the majority of them are based on a small number of patients or relatively short follow-up. In this article, we will review the different salvage treatment options and associated prognostic factors for each of them. We will also propose a treatment algorithm based on the latest available evidence and discuss the future directions of treatment for locally recurrent NPC.

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 · 10.1016/j.ctrv.2019.101890

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 30 references

Cited by

See all 371

Metadata

Authors
Lee, A. W. M., Ng, W. T., Chan, J. Y. W., Corry, J., Mäkitie, A., Mendenhall, W. M., Rinaldo, A., Rodrigo, J. P., Saba, N. F., Strojan, P., Suárez, C., Vermorken, J. B., Yom, S. S., & Ferlito, A.
Venue
Cancer Treatment Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-09
Volume
79
Pages
101890
ISSN
0305-7372 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2969932016
Cited by
371
References
30
FWCI
26.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Management of locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ctrv.2019.101890
The paper
Lee, A. W. M., Ng, W. T., Chan, J. Y. W., Corry, J., Mäkitie, A., Mendenhall, W. M., Rinaldo, A., Rodrigo, J. P., Saba, N. F., Strojan, P., Suárez, C., Vermorken, J. B., Yom, S. S., & Ferlito, A. (2019). Management of locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Treatment Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2019.101890

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.