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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |