Survival of stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients with or without concurrent chemotherapy: A propensity score matching study

Recent advances in early detection of nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) arises from the mucosal epithelium of the nasopharynx and is frequently located in the pharyngeal crypts. This is a highly aggressive malignant tumor that frequently leads to distant metastases in many cases and poses a significant public health challenge, particularly in certain geographic regions globally. This review discusses the epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment options for NPC, emphasizing the importance of early detection and comprehensive management strategies in improving patient outcomes. Moreover, the article explores the intricate mechanisms that cause NPC. Comprehending these fundamental principles can assist in creating specific prevention and therapy approaches for NPC. Recent advances in diagnostic methods, including imaging tests and molecular biomarkers, are emphasized to improve early diagnosis and individualized treatment strategies for individuals with NPC. The review also explores the most recent advancements in treating early-stage (stage I and II) NPC patients, highlighting the changing landscape of individualized therapy approaches for this particular set of patients.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy alone compared with intensity-modulated radiotherapy plus concurrent chemotherapy in intermediate-risk nasopharyngeal carcinoma : A prospective multicenter phase II trial

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the clinical benefit of adding concurrent chemotherapy to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients with an intermediate risk (stage II and T3N0M0).

METHODS

A multicenter phase II randomized trial was conducted in intermediate-risk NPC patients. Enrolled patients were previously untreated and aged ranged from 18 to 70 years without severe coexisting diseases. Patients were randomly assigned to receive IMRT alone or IMRT+concurrent chemotherapy (CC; three cycles of 80 mg/m2 cisplatin every 3 weeks). Primary endpoint was defined as 3‑year progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), locoregional relapse-free survival (LRRFS), overall survival (OS), and treatment-associated toxicity. We registered this study with Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (CliCTR1800017132; registered July 13, 2018, study start July 13, 2018).

RESULTS

From November 2015 to July 2019, 42 patients with stage II and T3N0M0 NPC were enrolled; 20 patients received IMRT alone while 22 patients received IMRT+CC. After a median of 58 months of follow-up, we estimated the 3‑year PFS rates as 90% (IMRT group) and 86.4% (IMRT+CC group; hazard ratio 1.387, 95% confidence interval 0.240-8.014; P = 0.719). The 3‑year PFS, OS, and cumulative DMFS and LRRFS showed no significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, the IMRT group displayed a lower incidence of nausea/vomiting, leucopenia, and dry mouth than the IMRT+CC group.

CONCLUSION

Adding CC to IMRT provided no survival benefit but increased treatment-associated toxicities in patients with intermediate-risk NPC.

Significance of chemotherapy for older patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the intensity-modulated radiotherapy era: A propensity score matching analysis

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the survival and prognosis of older patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) who received intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) alone versus IMRT plus chemotherapy using propensity score matching (PSM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We enrolled 841 older patients with NPC aged 60 years and above without metastasis receiving IMRT alone or chemoradiotherapy from 2012 to 2019. The comorbidity was assessed by adult comorbidity evaluation (ACE-27). PSM (1:3 ratio) was conducted between the two treatment groups based on four clinical factors including age, T-stage, N-stage, and ACE-27. Differences in overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard model.

RESULTS

A total of 841 patients with NPC were included in the study, there were 94 patients in the IMRT alone group and 747 patients in the chemoradiotherapy (CRT) group. After a 1:3 ratio PSM, 89 patients underwent IMRT alone and 223 patients underwent CRT. The baseline analysis showed an insignificant difference after PSM (P > 0.05). In multivariate analysis, we found that ACE-27 (≥2) was associated with worse five-year OS and CSS (HR = 1.994, 95%CI: 1.276-3.116, P = 0.002; HR = 1.849, 95%CI: 1164-2.935, P = 0.009, respectively). Chemotherapy was an independent prognosticator of better five-year OS and CSS (HR = 0.333, 95%CI: 0.213-0.552, P < 0.001; HR = 0.327, 95%CI: 0.204-0.524, P < 0.001, respectively). In terms of subgroup analysis, chemotherapy was a statistically beneficial predictor for stage III-IV patients (P < 0.05), but no significant difference in stage II patients (P > 0.05). About the adverse events, the incidence of hepatotoxicity (P = 0.002), neutropenia (P < 0.001), anemia (P < 0.001), and thrombocytopenia (P < 0.001) were significantly higher in the CRT group.

DISCUSSION

Combined modality therapy was associated with improved five-year OS and CSS in older adults with stage III-IV NPC, but was not associated with improved survival over IMRT alone in patients with stage II disease. Risk factors including T3-4 disease, positive lymph nodes, ACE-27 score ≥ 2, and IMRT alone were were associated with worse OS and CSS. There was a significantly higher incidence of hepatotoxicity and blood toxicity in the CRT group.

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the era of intensity-modulated radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy has long been a standardized therapy for localized advanced nasopharyngeal cancer. It is widely used in clinical applications. In contrast, NCCN guidelines highlight that the efficacy of concurrent chemoradiotherapy for stage II nasopharyngeal cancer in the new era of intensity-modulated radiotherapy has not been defined. Thus, we systematically reviewed the significance of concurrent chemoradiotherapy for stage II nasopharyngeal cancer.

METHODS

We searched the relevant literature in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane, extracting relevant data from the searched literature. The main items extracted were hazard ratios (HRs), risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). When the HR could not be extracted from the literature, we used Engauge Digitizer software for extraction. Data analysis was accomplished using the Review Manager 5.4 tool.

RESULTS

Our study included seven articles involving 1633 cases of stage II nasopharyngeal cancer. The survival outcomes were overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.03, 95% CI (0.71-1.49), P = 0.87), progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.91, 95% CI (0.59-1.39), P = 0.66), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) (HR = 1.05, 95% CI (0.57-1.93), P = 0.87), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) (HR = 0.87, 95% CI (0.41-1.84), P = 0.71, P > 0.05), and locoregional failure-free survival (LFFS) (HR = 1.18, 95% CI (0.52-2.70), P = 0.69).

CONCLUSIONS

In the era of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, concurrent chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy alone have the same survival benefits, and concurrent chemoradiotherapy increases acute hematological toxicity. Subgroup analysis showed that for people with N1 nasopharyngeal cancer at risk of distant metastases, concurrent chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy alone also had equal survival benefits.

The role of radiologic extranodal extension in predicting prognosis and chemotherapy benefit for T1-2 N1 nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

This multicenter retrospective study aimed to investigated the prognostic value of unequivocal radiologic extranodal extension (rENE) and the efficacy of chemotherapy for stage T1-2 N1 nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) in the IMRT era.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included 1,082 patients treated in 2005-2017 from three centers. rENE was recorded as G1 (coalescent nodal mass comprising ≥ 2 inseparable nodes) or G2 (invading beyond perinodal fat to frankly infiltrate adjacent structures). Multivariable analysis (MVA) evaluated the prognostic value of rENE. The value of chemotherapy was assessed in rENE-positive (rENE + ) and rENE-negative (rENE - ) subset separately.

RESULTS

Centers 1, 2, and 3 had 139/515 (27.0 %), 100/365 (27.4 %), and 43/202 (21.3 %) cN + patients with rENE, respectively. Compared to rENE-, rENE + patients had a worse distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS) (all p < 0.001). MVA confirmed the prognostic of both G1-rENE and G2-rENE for distant metastasis [G1: hazard ratio (HR): 2.933, G2: HR: 6.942, all p < 0.001] and death (G1: HR: 1.587, p = 0.040; G2: HR: 6.162, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference for DMFS and OS between chemo-radiotherapy and radiotherapy alone in rENE + and rENE - groups (all p > 0.1). However, rENE + patients with a cumulative cisplatin/nedaplatin dose (CCND) of > 160 mg/m² had an improved DMFS (p = 0.033) but no OS (p = 0.197).

CONCLUSION

Unequivocal rENE is prognostic in patients with T1-2 N1 NPC. Addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy did not affect DMFS and OS in rENE - patients. Chemotherapy with a CCND of > 160 mg/m² improved DMFS in rENE + patients.

MRI-identified multidimensional nodal features predict survival and concurrent chemotherapy benefit for stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Reliable predictors are urgently needed to identify stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients who could benefit from concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). We aimed to develop a nomogram integrating MRI-identified multidimensional features of lymph nodes to predict survival and assist the decision-making of CCRT for stage II NPC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 242 stage II NPC patients treated from January 2007 to December 2017. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint. Performance of nomogram was evaluated using calibration curves, Harrell Concordance Index (C-index), area under the curve (AUC) and decision curves analysis (DCA) and was compared with TNM staging. According to the individualized nomogram score, patients were classified into two risk cohorts and therapeutic efficacy of CCRT were evaluated in each cohort.

RESULTS

Three independent prognostic factors for OS: age, number and location of positive lymph nodes were included into the final nomogram. T stage was also incorporated due to its importance in clinical decision-making. Calibration plots demonstrated a good match between the predicted and our observed OS rates. C-index for nomogram was 0.726 compared with 0.537 for TNM staging (p < 0.001). DCAs confirmed the superior clinical utility of nomograms compared with TNM staging. CCRT compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) delivered OS benefit to patients in the high-risk group (5-year: 89.9% vs. 72.1%; 10-year: 72.5% vs. 34.2%, p = 0.011), but not in the low-risk group.

CONCLUSIONS

This lymph node features-based nomogram demonstrated excellent discrimination and predictive accuracy for stage II patients and could identify patients who can benefit from CCRT.

Nedaplatin-based chemotherapy or cisplatin-based chemotherapy combined with intensity-modulated radiotherapy achieve similar efficacy for stage II-IVa nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients

This retrospective study compared the efficacy and safety of nedaplatin-based chemoradiotherapy and cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy in stage II-IVa nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients. Patients treated with cisplatin-based or nedaplatin-based chemoradiotherapy between January 2012 and December 2015 were evaluated. Survival was estimated by the Kaplan‒Meier method and compared by the log-rank test. Multivariate analysis was performed using the Cox proportional hazards model. A cohort of 538 NPC patients was enrolled. There were no significant differences in the 5-year overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), locoregional relapse-free survival (LRRFS), or distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) between the cisplatin and nedaplatin groups. During the whole treatment course, patients in the cisplatin group had higher incidences of grade 3‒4 vomiting and anorexia, while patients in the nedaplatin group had higher incidences of grade 3‒4 leucopenia and mucositis. In terms of late toxicities, patients in the cisplatin group had a higher incidence of xerostomia. In multivariate analysis, T stage, N stage, and clinical stage were prognostic factors for OS, PFS, and DMFS. In subgroup analyses, nedaplatin-based chemotherapy achieved comparable treatment outcomes in specific populations stratified by age, sex, ECOG PS score and clinical stage. Cisplatin and nedaplatin are effective choices for stage II-IVa NPC patients, with a different spectrum of side effects.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies Comparing Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy With Radiotherapy Alone in the Treatment of Stage II Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

Purpose

The role of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is still controversial. Our objective is to evaluate the value of concurrent chemotherapy in stage II NPC receiving radiotherapy (RT).

Methods

We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases for studies comparing CCRT versus RT alone in stage II NPC with survival outcomes and toxicities, including locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), metastasis-free survival (DMFS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and grade 3–4 acute toxicities. The hazard ratios (HRs) of survival outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) of toxicities were extracted for meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis for stage N1 patients was performed to further explore whether these populations can earn benefits from concurrent chemotherapy.

Results

Nine eligible studies with a total of 4,092 patients were included. CCRT was associated with a better OS (HR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.44–0.82), LRFS (HR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.50–0.78), and PFS (HR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.54–0.79), but with similar DMFS (HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.46–1.45) compared with two-dimensional RT (2DRT) alone. However, CCRT showed no survival benefit in terms of OS (HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.62–1.15), LRFS (HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.54–1.34), DMFS (HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.60–1.54), and PFS (HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.66–1.37) compared with intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) alone. Subgroup analyses indicated that CCRT had similar OS (HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.37–2.96), LRFS (HR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.34–1.45), DMFS (HR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.53–2.00), and PFS (HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.58–1.88) in the stage N1 populations. Meanwhile, compared to RT alone, CCRT significantly increased the incidence of grade 3–4 leukopenia (RR = 4.00, 95% CI 2.29–6.97), mucositis (RR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.16–1.77), and gastrointestinal reactions (RR = 8.76, 95% CI 2.63–29.12). No significant differences of grade 3–4 toxicity in thrombocytopenia (RR = 3.45, 95% CI 0.85–13.94) was found between the two groups.

Conclusion

For unselected patients with stage II NPC, CCRT was superior to 2DRT alone with better LRFS, PFS, and OS, while adding concurrent chemotherapy to IMRT did not significantly improve survival but exacerbated acute toxicities.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022318253.

Development and prospective validation of a risk score model in guiding individualized concurrent chemoradiotherapy in stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma in intensity-modulated radiotherapy era

Purpose

We aimed to develop and prospectively validate a risk score model to guide individualized concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for patients with stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) in intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) era.

Materials and Methods

In total, 1220 patients who received CCRT or IMRT alone were enrolled in this study, including a training cohort (n = 719), a validation cohort (n = 307), and a prospective test cohort (n = 194). Patients were stratified into different risk groups by a risk score model based on independent prognostic factors, which were developed in the training cohort. Survival rates were compared by the log‐rank test. The validation and prospective test cohorts were used for validation.

Results

Total tumor volume, Epstein–Barr virus DNA, and lactate dehydrogenase were independent risk factors for failure‐free survival (FFS, all p < 0.05). A risk score model based on these three risk factors was developed to classify patients into low‐risk group (no risk factor, n = 337) and high‐risk group (one or more factors, n = 382) in the training cohort. In the high‐risk group, CCRT had better survival rates than IMRT alone (5‐year FFS: 82.6% vs. 74.0%, p = 0.028). However, there was no survival difference between CCRT and IMRT alone either in the whole training cohort (p = 0.15) or in the low‐risk group (p = 0.15). The results were verified in the validation and prospective test cohorts.

Conclusion

A risk score model was developed and prospectively validated to precisely select high‐risk stage II NPC patients who can benefit from CCRT, and thus guided individualized treatment in IMRT era.

A Comprehensive Analysis of Treatment Management and Survival Outcomes in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

To comprehensively investigate nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treatment, overall survival (OS), and the influence of clinical/sociodemographic factors on outcome.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective database study.

SETTING

National Cancer Database.

METHODS

The 2004-2015 National Cancer Database was queried for all patients with NPC receiving definitive treatment. Log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards models were used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 8260 patients with NPC were included (71.4% male; 42.5% with keratinizing histology; mean ± SD age, 52.1 ± 15.1 years), with a 5-year OS of 63.4%. Multivariate predictors of mortality included age ≥65 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.81; P < .001), Charlson/Deyo score ≥1 (HR, 1.27; P = .001), American Joint Committee on Cancer clinical stage III to IV (HR, 1.85; P < .001), and government insurance or no insurance (HR, 1.53; P < .001). Predictors of survival included female sex (HR, 0.82; P = .002), Asian/Pacific Islander race (HR, 0.74; P < .001), nonkeratinizing/undifferentiated histology (HR, 0.79; P = .004), and receiving treatment at academic centers (HR, 0.87; P = .02). Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) demonstrated improved OS as compared with radiotherapy (RT) only for stage II (P = .006) and stage III (P = .005) and with RT or chemotherapy only in stage IVA NPC (P < .001). When compared with CRT alone, surgery plus CRT provided OS benefits in keratinizing (P = .013) or stage IVA (P = .030) NPC. When compared with RT, CRT provided OS benefits in keratinizing (P = .005) but not nonkeratinizing (P = .240) or undifferentiated (P = .390) NPC. Substandard radiation dosing of <60 Gy and <30 fractions were associated with inferior OS (both P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

NPC survival is dependent on a variety of clinical/sociodemographic factors. Stage-specific treatments with optimal OS include CRT or RT for stages I to II and CRT for stage III to IV. The large representation of nonendemic histology is valuable, as these cases are not well characterized.

Survival of stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients with or without concurrent chemotherapy: A propensity score matching study

Background

To ascertain if concurrent chemotherapy (CCT) benefits people with stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treated with two‐dimensional radiotherapy (2DRT) or intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).

Methods

A total of 4157 patients diagnosed with stage II NPC were evaluated. Patients received radiotherapy (RT) with/without CCT. Patients were divided into 2DRT and IMRT subgroups. After propensity score matching, the role of CCT was explored in these two subgroups. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint and progression‐free survival (PFS), locoregional relapse‐free survival (LRFS) and distant metastasis‐free survival (DMFS) were secondary endpoints.

Results

In the 2DRT subgroup, CCT addition to RT benefited cases with T1N1/T2N1 in OS, PFS and LRFS (P < .001, P = .003 and P = .003, respectively) significantly, but no difference was observed in patients with T2N0. DMFS were similar in the two arms. CCT was a significant protective factor for OS, PFS, and LRFS for patients with stage N1. In the IMRT subgroup, RT alone could maintain equivalent OS, PFS, LRFS and DMFS (P = .209, .448, .477 and .602 respectively) and cause less acute toxicity compared with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).

Conclusion

CCRT was better than 2DRT alone among patients with T1‐2N1M0 stage. CCT application for NPC patients receiving IMRT led to no survival benefit and greater toxic effects.