Oral oncology · 2018
Role of sequential chemoradiotherapy in stage II and low-risk stage III-IV nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the era of intensity-modulated radiotherapy: A propensity score-matched analysis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Xu Cheng, Sun Rui, Tang Ling-Long, Chen Lei, Li Wen-Fei, Mao Yan-Ping, Zhou Guan-Qun, Guo Rui, Lin Ai-Hua, Sun Ying, Ma Jun, Hu Wei-Han
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the role of sequential chemoradiotherapy (SCRT; induction chemotherapy [IC] followed by intensity-modulated radiotherapy [IMRT]) in stage II and low-risk stage III-IV nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four well-matched groups were individually generated using propensity score matching in patients (n = 689) with stage II (SCRT vs. concurrent chemoradiotherapy [CCRT], SCRT vs. IMRT alone) and low-risk stage III-IV NPC (SCRT vs. CCRT, SCRT vs. IC + CCRT). Five-year overall/disease-free/locoregional relapse-free/distant metastasis-free survival (OS/DFS/LRRFS/DMFS) and acute hematological toxicities were compared between groups. The value of SCRT was further investigated in multivariate analysis and subgroup analysis by adjusting for covariates and limiting IC-to-IMRT time interval, respectively.
RESULTS: SCRT led to equivalent survival outcomes compared to CCRT/IMRT alone and CCRT/IC + CCRT in stage II and low-risk stage III-IV NPC, respectively (all P > .050). In multivariate analysis, patients with stage II NPC treated by SCRT obtained higher DMFS (AHR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.05-1.00, P = .050), but not OS, DFS or LRRFS, compared to patients receiving CCRT; non-significant differences were observed between SCRT and other treatments. SCRT with short IC-to-IMRT time interval (≤70 days) achieved higher 5-year survival rates than IMRT alone (DMFS: P = .046), CCRT (stage II NPC; OS: P = .047; DMFS: P = .020) and IC + CCRT (DFS: P = .041). Moreover, SCRT was associated with higher, equivalent and lower frequencies of acute hematological toxicities than IMRT alone, CCRT and IC + CCRT, respectively.
CONCLUSION: SCRT is mainly beneficial in stage II NPC, leading to better DMFS and/or equivalent acute hematological toxicities compared to CCRT/IMRT alone. CCRT is still the best choice for low-risk stage III-IV NPC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four well-matched groups were individually generated using propensity score matching in patients (n = 689) with stage II (SCRT vs. concurrent chemoradiotherapy [CCRT], SCRT vs. IMRT alone) and low-risk stage III-IV NPC (SCRT vs. CCRT, SCRT vs. IC + CCRT). Five-year overall/disease-free/locoregional relapse-free/distant metastasis-free survival (OS/DFS/LRRFS/DMFS) and acute hematological toxicities were compared between groups. The value of SCRT was further investigated in multivariate analysis and subgroup analysis by adjusting for covariates and limiting IC-to-IMRT time interval, respectively.
RESULTS: SCRT led to equivalent survival outcomes compared to CCRT/IMRT alone and CCRT/IC + CCRT in stage II and low-risk stage III-IV NPC, respectively (all P > .050). In multivariate analysis, patients with stage II NPC treated by SCRT obtained higher DMFS (AHR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.05-1.00, P = .050), but not OS, DFS or LRRFS, compared to patients receiving CCRT; non-significant differences were observed between SCRT and other treatments. SCRT with short IC-to-IMRT time interval (≤70 days) achieved higher 5-year survival rates than IMRT alone (DMFS: P = .046), CCRT (stage II NPC; OS: P = .047; DMFS: P = .020) and IC + CCRT (DFS: P = .041). Moreover, SCRT was associated with higher, equivalent and lower frequencies of acute hematological toxicities than IMRT alone, CCRT and IC + CCRT, respectively.
CONCLUSION: SCRT is mainly beneficial in stage II NPC, leading to better DMFS and/or equivalent acute hematological toxicities compared to CCRT/IMRT alone. CCRT is still the best choice for low-risk stage III-IV NPC.