These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: 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.
    Author: Xu C, Sun R, Tang LL, Chen L, Li WF, Mao YP, Zhou GQ, Guo R, Lin AH, Sun Y, Ma J, Hu WH.
    Journal: Oral Oncol; 2018 Mar; 78():37-45. PubMed ID: 29496056.
    Abstract:
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]