%0 Journal Article
%T An umbrella review exploring the effect of radiotherapy for head and neck cancer patients on the frequency of jaws osteoradionecrosis.
%A Li CX
%A Sun JL
%A Gong ZC
%A Liu H
%A Ding MC
%A Zhao HR
%J Cancer Radiother
%V 27
%N 5
%D 2023 Sep 31
%M 37268457
%F 1.217
%R 10.1016/j.canrad.2023.01.009
%X OBJECTIVE: Efforts have been made to reduce epidemiological indicators of osteoradionecrosis in patients with head and neck cancer over recent years. This umbrella review aims to synthesize the information of the systematic reviews/meta-analyses investigating the effect of radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer on the frequency of osteoradionecrosis and to identify and analyze the gaps in current scientific literature.
METHODS: A systematic review of systematic reviews with and without meta-analysis of intervention studies was conducted. Qualitative analysis of the reviews and their quality evaluation were performed.
RESULTS: A total of 152 articles were obtained, and ten of them were selected for the final analysis, where six were systematic reviews and four were meta-analysis. According to the guide Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (Amstar), eight articles included were of high quality and two of medium quality. These descriptive systematic reviews/meta-analyses included a total of 25 randomized clinical trials, showing that radiotherapy has positive effects on the frequency of osteoradionecrosis. Even though a reduction in the incidence of osteoradionecrosis was observed back in the history, in systematic reviews with meta-analysis, overall effect estimators were not significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Differential findings are not enough to demonstrate that there is a significant reduction in the frequency of osteoradionecrosis in patients with head and neck cancer treated by radiation. Possible explanations are related to factors such as the type of studies analyzed, indicator of irradiated complication considered, and specific variables included in the analysis. Many systematic reviews did not address publication bias and did identify gaps in knowledge that require further clarification.