Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: The status of lymph nodes in the neck is the most important prognostic factor for the outcomes of patients with oral tongue cancer. However, surgical prophylaxis of the neck is controversial.
Methods: We reviewed 22 patients with clinically T1/T2, N0 Union Internationale Contre le Cancer oral squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue. Patients were assigned to groups according to the management strategy selected for the neck. One group underwent a "watchful waiting" policy and the other underwent sentinel node navigation surgery (SNNS).
Results: Three of 11 patients (27%) in the watchful waiting group developed regional recurrence and underwent neck dissection. Only 1 of 11 patients (9.1%) in the SNNS group developed regional recurrence. Although the groups did not significantly differ, the SNNS group tended to have less regional recurrence.
Conclusion: SNNS should be the third strategy formanaging early oral tongue carcinoma.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hed.21776 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!