Yang Shujuan, Wu Siying, Zhou Jing, Chen Xiao Y
West China School of Public Health, Sichuan University, South Renmin Road No. 16, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China, 610041.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 6;2015(11):CD008423. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008423.pub2.
Nasopharyngeal cancer is endemic in a few well-defined populations. The prognosis for advanced nasopharyngeal cancer is poor, but early-stage disease is curable and a high survival rate can be achieved. Screening for early-stage disease could lead to improved outcomes. Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) serology and nasopharyngoscopy are most commonly used for screening. The efficacy and true benefit of screening remain uncertain due to potential selection, lead-time and length-time biases.
To determine the effectiveness of screening of asymptomatic individuals by EBV serology and/or nasopharyngoscopy in reducing the mortality of nasopharyngeal cancer compared to no screening. To assess the impact of screening for nasopharyngeal cancer on incidence, survival, adverse effects, cost-effectiveness and quality of life.
The Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group (CENTDG) Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the CENTDG Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 6); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Clinicaltrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 6 July 2015.
Randomised controlled trials (RCT) and controlled clinical trials (CCT) evaluating screening for nasopharyngeal cancer versus no screening. Randomisation either by clusters or individuals was acceptable.
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Our primary outcome measure was nasopharyngeal cancer-specific mortality. Secondary outcomes were incidence of nasopharyngeal cancer by stage and histopathological classification at diagnosis, survival (two-year, three-year, five-year and 10-year), harms of screening (physical and psychosocial), quality of life (via validated tools such as the SF-36 and patient satisfaction), cost-effectiveness and all-cause mortality.
We identified no trials that met the review inclusion criteria. We retrieved 31 full-text studies for further investigation following the search. However, none met the eligibility criteria for a RCT or CCT investigation on the efficacy of screening for nasopharyngeal cancer.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No data from RCTs or CCTs are available to allow us to determine the efficacy of screening for nasopharyngeal cancer, or the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of a screening strategy. High-quality studies with long-term follow-up of mortality and cost-effectiveness are needed.
鼻咽癌在一些特定人群中呈地方流行。晚期鼻咽癌预后较差,但早期疾病可治愈,能实现较高的生存率。早期疾病筛查可能改善预后。爱泼斯坦-巴尔病毒(EBV)血清学检查和鼻咽镜检查是最常用于筛查的方法。由于潜在的选择偏倚、领先时间偏倚和病程长短偏倚等,筛查的有效性和真正益处仍不确定。
确定与不进行筛查相比,通过EBV血清学检查和/或鼻咽镜检查对无症状个体进行筛查在降低鼻咽癌死亡率方面的有效性。评估鼻咽癌筛查对发病率、生存率、不良反应、成本效益和生活质量的影响。
Cochrane耳鼻喉疾病小组(CENTDG)试验搜索协调员检索了CENTDG试验注册库;对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL 2015年第6期);PubMed;EMBASE;CINAHL;科学引文索引;Clinicaltrials.gov;国际临床试验注册平台及其他已发表和未发表试验来源。检索日期为2015年7月6日。
评估鼻咽癌筛查与不筛查的随机对照试验(RCT)和对照临床试验(CCT)。采用整群随机或个体随机均可。
我们采用了Cochrane协作网预期的标准方法程序。我们的主要结局指标为鼻咽癌特异性死亡率。次要结局包括诊断时按分期和组织病理学分类的鼻咽癌发病率、生存率(两年、三年、五年和十年)、筛查的危害(身体和心理社会方面)、生活质量(通过如SF-36等经过验证的工具和患者满意度)、成本效益和全因死亡率。
我们未找到符合综述纳入标准的试验。检索后我们获取了31篇全文研究以供进一步调查。然而,没有一项符合关于鼻咽癌筛查有效性RCT或CCT调查的合格标准。
尚无RCT或CCT的数据可让我们确定鼻咽癌筛查的有效性,或筛查策略的成本效益和成本效益比。需要开展对死亡率和成本效益进行长期随访的高质量研究。