Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Wanglang Road, Bangkoknoi, Bangkok, 10700, Thailand.
BMC Cancer. 2018 Mar 27;18(1):329. doi: 10.1186/s12885-018-4210-3.
Concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (CCRT-AC) is currently recommended as the standard treatment for locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NAC-CCRT) is an alternative strategy for decreasing tumor size and controlling micrometastases before main treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare survival outcomes between LA-NPC patients treated with CCRT-AC and those treated with NAC-CCRT.
This retrospective cohort study included consecutive histologically confirmed LA-NPC patients that were treated with NAC-CCRT or CCRT-AC at Siriraj Hospital during the March 2010 to October 2014 study period. CCRT in both protocols consisted of 3-week cycles of cisplatin 100 mg/m with concurrent radiotherapy. Either NAC or AC consisted of 3-week cycles of cisplatin on day 1 and fluorouracil/leucovorin on days 1-4 for a maximum three cycles. The primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival (OS). Flexible parametric survival analysis was used, because the proportional hazards assumption of Cox regression was violated.
Of the 266 LA-NPC patients that received treatment during the study period, 79 received NAC-CCRT and 187 received CCRT-AC. Median follow-up was 37 months. Significantly more patients with advanced clinical stage (stage IVA-IVB) received NAC-CCRT (86% in NAC-CCRT vs. 29% in CCRT-AC; p < 0.001). Compared to CCRT-AC in crude analysis, 3-year and 5-year OS of NAC-CCRT were 72% vs. 86% and 62% vs. 75% respectively (p = 0.059). Interestingly, the 3-year and 5-year post-estimation adjusted OS was 84% and 74% for NAC-CCRT and 81% and 70% for CCRT-AC, respectively (HR: 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-1.56; p = 0.571). Also, adjusted analysis of distant-metastasis survival, NAC-CCRT showed HR was 0.79 (95% CI:0.37-1.72, p = 0.557). Conversely, adjusted analysis of locoregional relapse (LLR)-free survival revealed NAC-CCRT to have a significantly higher risk of LRR (HR: 2.18, 95% CI: 0.98-4.87; p = 0.057).
The results suggested that prognosis in the NAC-CCRT treated patients was not superior to that of the CCRT-AC treated individuals. In patients that receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy, locoregional relapse should be of concern. High-risk distant metastasis patients (N3 stage) that could achieve survival advantage from NAC-CCRT is an interesting and important topic for further study.
同期放化疗后辅助化疗(CCRT-AC)目前被推荐为局部晚期鼻咽癌(LA-NPC)的标准治疗方法。新辅助化疗后同期放化疗(NAC-CCRT)是一种在主要治疗前缩小肿瘤大小和控制微转移的替代策略。本研究旨在探讨和比较接受 CCRT-AC 和 NAC-CCRT 治疗的 LA-NPC 患者的生存结局。
这是一项回顾性队列研究,纳入了 2010 年 3 月至 2014 年 10 月期间在 Siriraj 医院接受 NAC-CCRT 或 CCRT-AC 治疗的连续组织学确诊的 LA-NPC 患者。两种方案中的 CCRT 均为顺铂 100mg/m 的 3 周周期,同时进行放疗。NAC 或 AC 均为顺铂 100mg/m 的 3 周周期,第 1 天氟尿嘧啶/亚叶酸,第 1-4 天,最多 3 个周期。主要终点是 5 年总生存率(OS)。由于 Cox 回归的比例风险假设被违反,因此使用了灵活参数生存分析。
在研究期间接受治疗的 266 例 LA-NPC 患者中,79 例接受 NAC-CCRT,187 例接受 CCRT-AC。中位随访时间为 37 个月。明显更多的晚期临床分期(IVA-IVB 期)患者接受了 NAC-CCRT(NAC-CCRT 中 86%,CCRT-AC 中 29%;p<0.001)。与 CCRT-AC 相比,NAC-CCRT 的 3 年和 5 年 OS 分别为 72%比 86%和 62%比 75%(p=0.059)。有趣的是,NAC-CCRT 的 3 年和 5 年经估计调整后的 OS 分别为 84%和 74%,CCRT-AC 分别为 81%和 70%(HR:0.83,95%CI:0.45-1.56;p=0.571)。此外,对远处转移生存的调整分析显示,NAC-CCRT 的 HR 为 0.79(95%CI:0.37-1.72,p=0.557)。相反,对局部区域无复发生存(LLR)的调整分析显示,NAC-CCRT 发生 LLR 的风险明显更高(HR:2.18,95%CI:0.98-4.87;p=0.057)。
结果表明,NAC-CCRT 治疗患者的预后并不优于 CCRT-AC 治疗患者。在接受新辅助化疗的患者中,应关注局部区域复发。能够从 NAC-CCRT 中获得生存优势的高危远处转移(N3 期)患者是一个有趣且重要的研究课题。