Long-term outcomes of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) vs CCRT alone for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the era of intensity-modulated radiation therapy using propensity score matching method
Authors Chen X, Zhu X, Liang Z, Li L, Qu S, Chen K, Pan X
Received 25 February 2017
Accepted for publication 27 April 2017
Published 9 June 2017 Volume 2017:10 Pages 2909—2921
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Ru Chen
Peer reviewer comments 3
Editor who approved publication: Dr Carlos E Vigil
Xueling Chen,1 Xiaodong Zhu,1–3 Zhongguo Liang,1 Ling Li,1–3 Song Qu,1–3 Kaihua Chen,1 Xinbin Pan1
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Affiliated Tumor Hospital, Guangxi Medical University, Cancer Institute of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, 2Key Laboratory of Early Prevention and Treatment for Regional High Frequency Tumor (Guangxi Medical University), Ministry of Education, 3Guangxi Key Laboratory of Early Prevention and Treatment for Regional High Frequency Tumor, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, People’s Republic of China
Purpose: Whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) could improve survival in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) remains controversial especially in the era of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and we explored the role of NCT for NPC patients.
Patients and methods: A retrospective review was conducted of 255 NPC patients treated with NCT+CCRT (n=67) or CCRT alone (n=188) based on IMRT between December 2006 and December 2012. To control the imbalance, a 1:2 match was performed using propensity score matching (PSM) method based on patient’s heterogeneity and regimens of concurrent chemotherapy (CCT). The long-term treatment outcomes and toxicity between NCT group (n=67) and concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) group (n=134) after PSM were compared.
Results: The 5-year overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), regional recurrence-free survival (RRFS) and distant failure-free survival (DFFS) were 78.8%, 69.1%, 90.0%, 90.0%, 100% and 78.3% for NCT group, while 79.5%, 75.7%, 92.7%, 94.2%, 96.1% and 82.7% for CRT group (P=0.305, 0.448, 0.790, 0.512, 0.104 and 0.671). It indicated that the treatment method (NCT+CCRT vs CCRT) was not the independent prognostic factor for the survival in NPC patients, and only patients who had completed at least two cycles of CCT got better OS, RFS and DFFS (P=0.009, 0.016 and 0.043), whether to receive NCT or not. No difference in the incidences of any acute and most late toxicity between the two groups was shown.
Conclusion: Our study did not show the exact advantage of NCT followed by CCRT compared with CCRT alone or higher incidences of toxicity in NCT group. It suggests that NCT might not be necessary if two or more cycles of CCT are finished well in the era of IMRT, and when NCT is finished well, less than two cycles of CCT with IMRT could be enough. However, in the era of IMRT, the role of NCT still needs to be further explored.
Keywords: propensity score matching, PSM, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, concurrent chemotherapy, IMRT
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. 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. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]