Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
BMC Cancer. 2020 Feb 3;20(1):89. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-6555-7.
We compared the efficacy and toxicity of three IC regimens (TPF: taxanes, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil; TP: taxanes and cisplatin; and PF: cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil) followed by CCRT in locoregionally advanced NPC.
The retrospective study involved 1354 patients with newly diagnosed stage III-IVA NPC treated with IC and CCRT. The median follow-up time in our cohort was 50 months. Based on EBV DNA level, all the patients with stage IV were divided into low- (pre-EBV DNA < 1500 copies) and high-risk group (pre-EBV DNA ≥ 1500 copies). Progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), locoregional relapse free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis free survival (DMFS) and grade 3-4 toxicities were compared among different IC regimens. The survival rates were compared using log-rank test and a Cox proportional hazards model was used to perform multivariate analyses.
A multivariate analysis revealed TPF to be more effective than TP. Among stage III patients, no significant difference in clinical outcome between the different IC regimens was showed, while TPF was associated with significantly better survival conditions in the stage IV patients. A further subgroup analysis revealed that only patients with pre-EBV DNA ≥ 1500 copies could benefit from the application of TPF among stage IV NPC. In terms of acute toxicities, PF was associated with fewer grade 3/4 acute toxicities.
In low-risk NPC patients, PF-based IC showed similar efficacy as TPF and TP but was associated with fewer grade 3/4 acute toxicities. In high-risk patients, however, the TPF regimen was superior to PF and TP, although grade 3/4 toxicities were more common with the TPF regimen.
我们比较了三种 IC 方案(TPF:紫杉烷类、顺铂和 5-氟尿嘧啶;TP:紫杉烷类和顺铂;和 PF:顺铂和 5-氟尿嘧啶)联合 CCRT 在局部晚期 NPC 中的疗效和毒性。
这项回顾性研究纳入了 1354 例接受 IC 和 CCRT 治疗的新诊断为 III-IVA 期 NPC 患者。我们队列的中位随访时间为 50 个月。根据 EBV DNA 水平,所有 IV 期患者被分为低危(pre-EBV DNA < 1500 拷贝)和高危组(pre-EBV DNA ≥ 1500 拷贝)。比较不同 IC 方案的无进展生存(PFS)、总生存(OS)、局部区域无复发生存(LRFS)、远处转移无复发生存(DMFS)和 3-4 级毒性。采用对数秩检验比较生存率,采用 Cox 比例风险模型进行多变量分析。
多变量分析显示 TPF 比 TP 更有效。在 III 期患者中,不同 IC 方案的临床结局无显著差异,而在 IV 期患者中,TPF 与生存状况显著改善相关。进一步的亚组分析显示,只有 EBV DNA≥1500 拷贝的 IV 期 NPC 患者才能从 TPF 的应用中获益。在急性毒性方面,PF 与较少的 3/4 级急性毒性相关。
在低危 NPC 患者中,PF 为基础的 IC 方案与 TPF 和 TP 疗效相似,但与较少的 3/4 级急性毒性相关。然而,在高危患者中,TPF 方案优于 PF 和 TP,尽管 TPF 方案的 3/4 级毒性更常见。