Liu Mei, You Wei, Song Yi-Bing, Miao Ji-Dong, Zhong Xiu-Bo, Cai Dian-Kun, Xu Lun, Xie Lu-Feng, Gao Yang
Department of Oncology, Zigong NO. 4 People's Hospital, Zigong, China.
Front Oncol. 2018 Dec 19;8:597. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2018.00597. eCollection 2018.
Both induction chemotherapy (IC) followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT; IC+CCRT) and CCRT plus adjuvant chemotherapy (AC; CCRT+AC) are standard treatments for advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). However, no prospective randomized trials comparing these two approaches have been published yet. We conducted this network meta-analysis to address this clinical question. We recruited randomized clinical trials involving patients with advanced NPC randomly allocated to IC+CCRT, CCRT+AC, CCRT, or radiotherapy (RT) alone. Pairwise meta-analysis was first conducted, then network meta-analysis was performed using the frequentist approach. Effect size was expressed as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Overall, 12 trials involving 3,248 patients were recruited for this study, with 555 receiving IC+CCRT, 840 receiving CCRT+AC, 1,039 receiving CCRT, and 814 receiving radiotherapy (RT) alone. IC+CCRT achieved significantly better overall survival ([HR], 0.69; 95% [CI], 0.51-0.92), distant metastasis-free survival (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.78), and locoregional recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.98) than CCRT. However, survival outcomes did not significantly differ between IC+CCRT and CCRT+AC, or between CCRT+AC and CCRT arms for all the endpoints. As expected, RT alone is the poorest treatment. In terms of P-score, IC+CCRT ranked best for overall survival (96.1%), distant metastasis-free survival (99.0%) and locoregional recurrence-free survival (87.1%). IC+CCRT may be a better and more promising treatment strategy for advanced NPC; however, head-to-head randomized trials comparing IC-CCRT with CCRT-AC are warranted.
诱导化疗(IC)序贯同步放化疗(CCRT;IC+CCRT)以及CCRT联合辅助化疗(AC;CCRT+AC)均为晚期鼻咽癌(NPC)的标准治疗方案。然而,尚无比较这两种治疗方法的前瞻性随机试验发表。我们开展了这项网状Meta分析以解决这一临床问题。我们纳入了将晚期NPC患者随机分配至IC+CCRT、CCRT+AC、CCRT或单纯放疗(RT)组的随机临床试验。首先进行成对Meta分析,然后采用频率学派方法进行网状Meta分析。效应量以风险比(HR)和95%置信区间(CI)表示。总体而言,本研究共纳入12项试验,涉及3248例患者,其中555例接受IC+CCRT,840例接受CCRT+AC,1039例接受CCRT,814例接受单纯放疗(RT)。与CCRT相比,IC+CCRT在总生存期([HR],0.69;95%[CI],0.51-0.92)、无远处转移生存期(HR,0.58;95%CI,0.44-0.78)和无局部区域复发生存期(HR,0.67;95%CI,0.47-0.98)方面均显著更优。然而,在所有终点方面,IC+CCRT与CCRT+AC之间以及CCRT+AC与CCRT组之间的生存结局并无显著差异。正如预期的那样,单纯放疗是最差的治疗方法。就P值而言,IC+CCRT在总生存期(96.1%)、无远处转移生存期(99.0%)和无局部区域复发生存期(87.1%)方面排名最佳。IC+CCRT可能是晚期NPC更好且更有前景的治疗策略;然而,仍有必要开展将IC-CCRT与CCRT-AC进行直接比较的随机试验。