Cargando…

NACT+IMRT versus NACT+IMRT+CCRT in locoregionally advanced NPC patients: a retrospective study

PURPOSE: The outcomes and safety profiles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) + intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or NACT + IMRT + concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients were retrospectively analyzed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Xialin, Zhu, Xiang, Wang, Jianfang, Liu, Jianjiang, Ji, Rong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6390870/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30863119
_version_ 1783398219445698560
author Chen, Xialin
Zhu, Xiang
Wang, Jianfang
Liu, Jianjiang
Ji, Rong
author_facet Chen, Xialin
Zhu, Xiang
Wang, Jianfang
Liu, Jianjiang
Ji, Rong
author_sort Chen, Xialin
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The outcomes and safety profiles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) + intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or NACT + IMRT + concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients were retrospectively analyzed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2010 and 2014, 125 patients with stage III–IVb NPC, who were treated with IMRT (36, 28.8%) or IMRT + CCRT (89, 71.2%) following NACT, participated in the research. There were grade 3–4 toxicities during NACT or radiotherapy (RT) in NACT + IMRT group and NACT + IMRT + CCRT group. RESULTS: MRI within 3 months demonstrated that no patient suffered with progressive disease, 116 patients (92.8%) achieved a response rate (RR) with the complete response (CR) rate of 70.4% (88/125) and partial response (PR) rate of 22.4% (28/125), and nine patients (7.2%) showed stable disease (SD) at the primary site and metastatic nodes. Compared with NACT + IMRT group, patients in NACT + IMRT + CCRT group did not show significantly better RR (93.3% vs 91.7%, P=1.00), CR rate (71.9% vs 66.7%, P=0.67), or PR rate (21.4% vs 25%, P=0.81). There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS, P=0.114), local relapse-free survival (LRFS, P=0.124), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS, P=0.668) or progression-free survival (PFS, P=0.475) between NACT + IMRT group and NACT + IMRT + CCRT group. T classification (P=0.042) and N classification (P=0.021) were independent prognostic factors for DMFS. CONCLUSION: To sum up, no significant difference was observed in combined RR, CR rate, LRFS, DMFS, PFS, or OS between the two groups.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6390870
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63908702019-03-12 NACT+IMRT versus NACT+IMRT+CCRT in locoregionally advanced NPC patients: a retrospective study Chen, Xialin Zhu, Xiang Wang, Jianfang Liu, Jianjiang Ji, Rong Onco Targets Ther Original Research PURPOSE: The outcomes and safety profiles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) + intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or NACT + IMRT + concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients were retrospectively analyzed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2010 and 2014, 125 patients with stage III–IVb NPC, who were treated with IMRT (36, 28.8%) or IMRT + CCRT (89, 71.2%) following NACT, participated in the research. There were grade 3–4 toxicities during NACT or radiotherapy (RT) in NACT + IMRT group and NACT + IMRT + CCRT group. RESULTS: MRI within 3 months demonstrated that no patient suffered with progressive disease, 116 patients (92.8%) achieved a response rate (RR) with the complete response (CR) rate of 70.4% (88/125) and partial response (PR) rate of 22.4% (28/125), and nine patients (7.2%) showed stable disease (SD) at the primary site and metastatic nodes. Compared with NACT + IMRT group, patients in NACT + IMRT + CCRT group did not show significantly better RR (93.3% vs 91.7%, P=1.00), CR rate (71.9% vs 66.7%, P=0.67), or PR rate (21.4% vs 25%, P=0.81). There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS, P=0.114), local relapse-free survival (LRFS, P=0.124), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS, P=0.668) or progression-free survival (PFS, P=0.475) between NACT + IMRT group and NACT + IMRT + CCRT group. T classification (P=0.042) and N classification (P=0.021) were independent prognostic factors for DMFS. CONCLUSION: To sum up, no significant difference was observed in combined RR, CR rate, LRFS, DMFS, PFS, or OS between the two groups. Dove Medical Press 2019-02-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6390870/ /pubmed/30863119 Text en © 2019 Chen et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Original Research
Chen, Xialin
Zhu, Xiang
Wang, Jianfang
Liu, Jianjiang
Ji, Rong
NACT+IMRT versus NACT+IMRT+CCRT in locoregionally advanced NPC patients: a retrospective study
title NACT+IMRT versus NACT+IMRT+CCRT in locoregionally advanced NPC patients: a retrospective study
title_full NACT+IMRT versus NACT+IMRT+CCRT in locoregionally advanced NPC patients: a retrospective study
title_fullStr NACT+IMRT versus NACT+IMRT+CCRT in locoregionally advanced NPC patients: a retrospective study
title_full_unstemmed NACT+IMRT versus NACT+IMRT+CCRT in locoregionally advanced NPC patients: a retrospective study
title_short NACT+IMRT versus NACT+IMRT+CCRT in locoregionally advanced NPC patients: a retrospective study
title_sort nact+imrt versus nact+imrt+ccrt in locoregionally advanced npc patients: a retrospective study
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6390870/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30863119
work_keys_str_mv AT chenxialin nactimrtversusnactimrtccrtinlocoregionallyadvancednpcpatientsaretrospectivestudy
AT zhuxiang nactimrtversusnactimrtccrtinlocoregionallyadvancednpcpatientsaretrospectivestudy
AT wangjianfang nactimrtversusnactimrtccrtinlocoregionallyadvancednpcpatientsaretrospectivestudy
AT liujianjiang nactimrtversusnactimrtccrtinlocoregionallyadvancednpcpatientsaretrospectivestudy
AT jirong nactimrtversusnactimrtccrtinlocoregionallyadvancednpcpatientsaretrospectivestudy