Chen Xueling, Zhu Xiaodong, Liang Zhongguo, Li Ling, Qu Song, Chen Kaihua, Pan Xinbin
Department of Radiation Oncology, Affiliated Tumor Hospital, Guangxi Medical University, Cancer Institute of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region.
Key Laboratory of Early Prevention and Treatment for Regional High Frequency Tumor (Guangxi Medical University), Ministry of Education.
Onco Targets Ther. 2017 Jun 9;10:2909-2921. doi: 10.2147/OTT.S135590. eCollection 2017.
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.
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.
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 (=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 (=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.
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.
新辅助化疗(NCT)后序贯同步放化疗(CCRT)是否能提高鼻咽癌(NPC)患者的生存率仍存在争议,尤其是在调强放射治疗(IMRT)时代,我们探讨了NCT在NPC患者中的作用。
对2006年12月至2012年12月期间基于IMRT接受NCT+CCRT(n=67)或单纯CCRT(n=188)治疗的255例NPC患者进行回顾性分析。为控制不均衡性,采用倾向评分匹配(PSM)方法,根据患者的异质性和同步化疗(CCT)方案进行1:2匹配。比较PSM后NCT组(n=67)和同步放化疗(CRT)组(n=134)的长期治疗结果和毒性。
NCT组的5年总生存率(OS)、无进展生存率(PFS)、无复发生存率(RFS)、局部无复发生存率(LRFS)、区域无复发生存率(RRFS)和远处无失败生存率(DFFS)分别为78.8%、69.1%、90.0%、90.0%、100%和78.3%,而CRT组分别为79.5%、75.7%、92.7%、94.2%、96.1%和82.7%(P=0.305、0.448、0.790、0.512、0.104和0.671)。这表明治疗方法(NCT+CCRT对比CCRT)并非NPC患者生存的独立预后因素,且无论是否接受NCT,仅完成至少两个周期CCT的患者有更好的OS、RFS和DFFS(P=0.009、0.016和0.043)。两组间任何急性和大多数晚期毒性的发生率均无差异。
我们的研究未显示NCT后序贯CCRT相较于单纯CCRT的确切优势,也未显示NCT组有更高的毒性发生率。这表明在IMRT时代,如果能很好地完成两个或更多周期的CCT,可能无需进行NCT,而当NCT完成得很好时,联合IMRT进行少于两个周期的CCT可能就足够了。然而,在IMRT时代,NCT的作用仍需进一步探索。