Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 632

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

PET-CT Surveillance versus Neck Dissection in Advanced Head and Neck Cancer

Open access
Mehanna, Hisham, Wong, Wai-Lup, McConkey, Christopher C., Rahman, Joy K., Robinson, Max, Hartley, Andrew G.J., Nutting, Christopher, Powell, Ned, Al-Booz, Hoda, Robinson, Martin, Junor, Elizabeth, Rizwanullah, Mohammed, von Zeidler, Sandra V., Wieshmann, Hulya, Hulme, Claire, Smith, Alison F., Hall, Peter, Dunn, Janet·2016·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The role of image-guided surveillance as compared with planned neck dissection in the treatment of patients with squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck who have advanced nodal disease (stage N2 or N3) and who have received chemoradiotherapy for primary treatment is a matter of debate. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, controlled trial, we assessed the noninferiority of positron-emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT)-guided surveillance (performed 12 weeks after the end of chemoradiotherapy, with neck dissection performed only if PET-CT showed an incomplete or equivocal response) to planned neck dissection in patients with stage N2 or N3 disease. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: From 2007 through 2012, we recruited 564 patients (282 patients in the planned-surgery group and 282 patients in the surveillance group) from 37 centers in the United Kingdom. Among these patients, 17% had nodal stage N2a disease and 61% had stage N2b disease. A total of 84% of the patients had oropharyngeal cancer, and 75% had tumor specimens that stained positive for the p16 protein, an indicator that human papillomavirus had a role in the causation of the cancer. The median follow-up was 36 months. PET-CT-guided surveillance resulted in fewer neck dissections than did planned dissection surgery (54 vs. 221); rates of surgical complications were similar in the two groups (42% and 38%, respectively). The 2-year overall survival rate was 84.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.7 to 89.1) in the surveillance group and 81.5% (95% CI, 76.9 to 86.3) in the planned-surgery group. The hazard ratio for death slightly favored PET-CT-guided surveillance and indicated noninferiority (upper boundary of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio, <1.50; P=0.004). There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to p16 expression. Quality of life was similar in the two groups. PET-CT-guided surveillance, as compared with neck dissection, resulted in savings of £1,492 (approximately $2,190 in U.S. dollars) per person over the duration of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Survival was similar among patients who underwent PET-CT-guided surveillance and those who underwent planned neck dissection, but surveillance resulted in considerably fewer operations and it was more cost-effective. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme and Cancer Research UK; PET-NECK Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN13735240.).

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa1514493

Cites

9 of 9 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 9 references

Cited by

See all 632

Metadata

Authors
Mehanna, H., Wong, W.-L., McConkey, C. C., Rahman, J. K., Robinson, M., Hartley, A. G. J., Nutting, C., Powell, N., Al-Booz, H., Robinson, M., Junor, E., Rizwanullah, M., von Zeidler, S. V., Wieshmann, H., Hulme, C., Smith, A. F., Hall, P., & Dunn, J.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2016-04-14
Volume
374
Issue
15
Pages
1444-1454
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2313665888
Cited by
632
References
9
FWCI
63.04
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: PET-CT Surveillance versus Neck Dissection in Advanced Head and Neck Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1514493
The paper
Mehanna, H., Wong, W.-L., McConkey, C. C., Rahman, J. K., Robinson, M., Hartley, A. G. J., Nutting, C., Powell, N., Al-Booz, H., Robinson, M., Junor, E., Rizwanullah, M., von Zeidler, S. V., Wieshmann, H., Hulme, C., Smith, A. F., Hall, P., & Dunn, J. (2016). PET-CT Surveillance versus Neck Dissection in Advanced Head and Neck Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1514493

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.