4.7 Article

Management of Salivary Gland Malignancy: ASCO Guideline

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 17, Pages 1909-+

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.21.00449

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the management of salivary gland malignancy, addressing diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up strategies based on a comprehensive review of relevant studies.
PURPOSE To provide evidence-based recommendations for practicing physicians and other healthcare providers on the management of salivary gland malignancy. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, neuroradiology, pathology, and patient advocacy experts to conduct a literature search, which included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective comparative observational studies published from 2000 through 2020. Outcomes of interest included survival, diagnostic accuracy, disease recurrence, and quality of life. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS The literature search identified 293 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. Six main clinical questions were addressed, which included subquestions on preoperative evaluations, surgical diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, appropriate radiotherapy techniques, the role of systemic therapy, and follow-up evaluations. RECOMMENDATIONS When possible, evidence-based recommendations were developed to address the diagnosis and appropriate preoperative evaluations for patients with a salivary gland malignancy, therapeutic procedures, and appropriate treatment options in various salivary gland histologies. (C) 2021 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available