Optimal Sequencing of Chemotherapy with Chemoradiotherapy Based on TNM Stage Classification and EBV DNA in Locoregionally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma
Li-Ting Liu,Melvin L. K. Chua,Yungan Tao,Lin-Quan Tang,Hai-Qiang Mai
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40880-019-0398-0
IF: 15.2825
2019-01-01
Cancer Communications
Abstract:Cancer CommunicationsVolume 39, Issue 1 64 p. 1-3 Research HighlightOpen Access Optimal sequencing of chemotherapy with chemoradiotherapy based on TNM stage classification and EBV DNA in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma Li-Ting Liu, Li-Ting Liu Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine; Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060 Guangdong, P. R. China Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060 Guangdong, P. R. ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorMelvin L. K. Chua, Melvin L. K. Chua Divisions of Radiation Oncology and Medical Sciences, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, 169610 Singapore Oncology Academic Programme, Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore, 169857 SingaporeSearch for more papers by this authorYungan Tao, Yungan Tao Institute Gustave-Roussy, 94800 Villejuif, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorLin-Quan Tang, Lin-Quan Tang Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine; Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060 Guangdong, P. R. China Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060 Guangdong, P. R. ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorHai-Qiang Mai, Corresponding Author Hai-Qiang Mai maihq@sysucc.org.cn Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine; Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060 Guangdong, P. R. China Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060 Guangdong, P. R. China Correspondence: maihq@sysucc.org.cnSearch for more papers by this author Li-Ting Liu, Li-Ting Liu Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine; Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060 Guangdong, P. R. China Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060 Guangdong, P. R. ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorMelvin L. K. Chua, Melvin L. K. Chua Divisions of Radiation Oncology and Medical Sciences, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, 169610 Singapore Oncology Academic Programme, Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore, 169857 SingaporeSearch for more papers by this authorYungan Tao, Yungan Tao Institute Gustave-Roussy, 94800 Villejuif, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorLin-Quan Tang, Lin-Quan Tang Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine; Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060 Guangdong, P. R. China Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060 Guangdong, P. R. ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorHai-Qiang Mai, Corresponding Author Hai-Qiang Mai maihq@sysucc.org.cn Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine; Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060 Guangdong, P. R. China Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060 Guangdong, P. R. China Correspondence: maihq@sysucc.org.cnSearch for more papers by this author First published: 25 October 2019 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40880-019-0398-0Citations: 4AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Main text In the past decades, there have been several studies concerning the efficacy of sequencing of chemotherapy on disease control and survival in locoregionally advanced (LA) nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). The addition of concurrent cisplatin to radiotherapy has demonstrated survival improvements that are attributable to both distant metastasis and locoregional control. Specific to the latter, the advent of intensity-modulated radiotherapy has resulted in superior tumor control given the better dosimetry compared to conventional techniques [1]. However, distant recurrence still occurs in 20–30% patients and accounts for the main cause of death. To address this, several groups have explored the advantages of adding neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) or adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) to the backbone of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). Still, controversy remains regarding the superiority of the NACT or ACT approaches [2–4]. A possible reason for these controversial results could be the therapeutic decisions in the aforementioned studies were based primarily on the TNM stage for risk stratification. However, it is known that patients with similar stages have markedly different prognoses, and thus additional complementary prognostic and predictive biomarkers are needed in NPC. In endemic regions where the majority of NPC cases are associated with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection, circulating cell-free EBV DNA that is being released by both the replicating and dead tumor cells can be a quantifiable biomarker to complement the TNM stage classification [5]. Of note, plasma EBV DNA load at baseline and post-treatment has been used for predicting survival outcomes of NPC patients [6]. In this regard, two randomized clinical trials were designed to investigate the role of using post-treatment EBV DNA to personalize treatment intensity in the adjuvant setting (NRG-HN001 [NCT02135042] and NPC-0502 [7]). Recently, a study published in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network entitled "Neoadjuvant or Adjuvant Chemotherapy Plus CCRT Versus CCRT Alone in the Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Study Based on EBV DNA" explored the value of adding NACT or ACT to CCRT in locoregionally advanced NPC patients, who have been stratified into disparate risk groups of distant metastasis [8]. In this study, patients with stage III-IVb (7th edition of UICC/AJCC stage classification system) disease were classified into three risk groups according to their N-status (N0–1 vs. N2–3) and baseline plasma EBV DNA before treatment (< 4000 and ≥ 4000 copies/mL). One of our previous studies reported that these factors were significantly correlated with distant metastasis [6]. Briefly, the low-risk group comprised of patients with N0–1 and EBV DNA < 4000 copies/mL; intermediate-risk group consisted of patients with N0–1 status and high EBV DNA (≥ 4000 copies/mL) or N2–3 status and low EBV DNA (< 4000 copies/mL); and high-risk patients comprised of patients with both adverse risk factors, N2–3 and high EBV DNA (≥ 4000 copies/mL). Based on this risk stratification, we were able to select patients with disparate risk of distant metastasis, for which 6.6%, 14.4% and 26.0% of the patients developed distant metastasis in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk subgroups, respectively. The efficacy of NACT or ACT to CCRT was then investigated in the different risk groups. We observed that among the different risk-groups, NACT followed by CCRT significantly reduced the risk of distant metastasis recurrence in the low-risk group (5-year distant metastasis-free survival, 96.2% [NACT + CCRT] vs. 91.3% [CCRT]), but the effect was less apparent in the intermediate-risk group (85.8% vs. 87.3%, respectively). Of note, the NACT regimes that were used included the doublet combinations of taxotere or 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin or the triplet combination of these three drugs. NACT was also more efficacious than CCRT in the high-risk group, albeit this did not reach statistical significance (75.2% [NACT + CCRT] vs. 70.2% [CCRT]). These findings are consistent with a randomized controlled phase 3 trial conducted by Sun et al. which showed that the addition of the triplet combination of taxotere, 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (TPF) to CCRT improved survival. Interestingly, the investigators found that NACT followed by CCRT offered better distant metastasis-free survival than CCRT alone in the N1-subgroup, but not in the N2–3-subgroups, although admittedly, this was an unplanned subgroup analysis [7]. Based on these observations, we hypothesized that perhaps the strategy of NACT + CCRT would be most efficacious in patients with a low burden of occult metastases, and in patients with a high burden of occult metastases alternative strategies of systemic intensification are needed. It is, however, important to highlight a key confounder here that is the number of cycles of NACT was not controlled in this analysis, and thus we cannot exclude the effect of physician bias on these results (tailoring the intensity of NACT depending on the longitudinal tumor response). Going forward, it is also important to improve the tolerability of NACT in these patients, given that triplet TPF is myelotoxic [9]. More recently, it was shown that the doublet combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin also improves survival when added to CCRT, and this regime seemed better tolerated than TPF [10]. Another interesting observation was that CCRT + ACT yielded the most impressive distant metastasis-free survival than CCRT alone in the high-risk group (5-year: 82.4% vs. 70.2%). This result was in line with findings of the network meta-analysis demonstrated by Ribassin-Majed et al. [11]. However, it is important to point out that this cohort comprised of a very small subgroup of patients (n = 53), and therefore over-interpretation of this finding should be avoided. Moreover, 37 (69.8%) of the 53 patients received only 1–2 cycles of ACT and had dose reductions, and hence the improvement in survival was unexpected considering the suboptimal treatment intensity. The role of ACT remains to be defined, and we await the ongoing trials of adjuvant capecitabine (NCT02143388; NCT02958111) and immunotherapy [12], which may shed additional insights on the drug of choice and optimal dosing (metronomic [13] vs. conventional dosing). Currently, most clinical trials concerning NACT followed by CCRT were primarily conducted in patients at high-risk of treatment failure. The results of this study provided another direction for trials investigating the addition of NACT to CCRT in the low-risk group. Meanwhile, for patients in the intermediate and high-risk group, prescribing combinations of new drugs with reduced toxicities or immune checkpoint inhibitors to improve compliance with ACT or modify the cycles of NACT (more vs. less) might result in improvements in survival. Additionally, these trials will help to validate this method of risk stratifying patients that integrates EBV DNA and TNM-stage classification. Future trials can also be designed to compare the efficacy of NACT plus CCRT versus CCRT followed by ACT, particularly in the high-risk group. Meanwhile, the data presented in the study could help guide clinical practice. In summary, we provided some insights on the optimal treatment intensity of different risk-groups for locoregionally advanced NPC patients. This is aligned with the direction of future management to personalize the treatment intensity for these patients by employing and monitoring robust biomarkers such as EBV DNA at baseline, post-NACT [14] and prior to ACT. At present, EBV DNA remains the most effective clinically used biomarker, but emerging data from molecular profiling studies will uncover other novel biomarkers that could predict tumor aggression and drug response [15, 16]. Until then, the management of locoregionally advanced NPC patient must entail a detailed discussion with the patient about the potential benefits and risks of toxicities and the impact to quality of life with the different treatment strategies. Acknowledgements MC is supported by the National Medical Research Council Singapore Clinician-Scientist Award - #NMRC/CSA/0027/2018 and the Duke-NUS Oncology Academic Program Proton Research Program. This work was supported by grants from the National Key R&D Program of China (2017YFC0908500, 2017YFC1309003), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81425018, No. 81672868, No. 81602371). Authors' contributions All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Funding MC reports personal fees from Astellas, personal fees from Janssen, grants and personal fees from Ferring, non-financial support from Astrazeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Varian, grants from Sanofi Canada, grants from GenomeDx Biosciences, non-financial support from Medlever, outside the submitted work. Availability of data and materials Not applicable. Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The author declares no competing interests. References 1Peng H, Chen L, Guo R, Zhang Y, Li WF, Mao YP, et al. Clinical treatment considerations in the intensity-modulated radiotherapy era for patients with N0-category nasopharyngeal carcinoma and enlarged neck lymph nodes. Chin J Cancer. 2017; 36 1: 32. 10.1186/s40880-017-0199-25364609 2Lee AW, Ngan RK, Tung SY, Cheng A, Kwong DL, Lu TX, et al. Preliminary results of trial NPC-0501 evaluating the therapeutic gain by changing from concurrent-adjuvant to induction-concurrent chemoradiotherapy, changing from fluorouracil to capecitabine, and changing from conventional to accelerated radiotherapy fractionation in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer. 2015; 121 8: 1328– 1338. 10.1002/cncr.29208 3Liu GY, Lv X, Wu YS, Mao MJ, Ye YF, Yu YH, et al. Effect of induction chemotherapy with cisplatin, fluorouracil, with or without taxane on locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a retrospective, propensity score-matched analysis. Cancer Commun. 2018; 38 1: 21. 10.1186/s40880-018-0283-2 4Hui EP, Ma BB, Leung SF, King AD, Mo F, Kam MK, et al. Randomized phase II trial of concurrent cisplatin-radiotherapy with or without neoadjuvant docetaxel and cisplatin in advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27 2: 242– 249. 10.1200/jco.2008.18.1545 5Yao JJ, Zhou GQ, Wang YQ, Wang SY, Zhang WJ, Jin YN, et al. Prognostic values of the integrated model incorporating the volume of metastatic regional cervical lymph node and pretreatment serum Epstein–Barr virus DNA copy number in predicting distant metastasis in patients with N1 nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Chin J Cancer. 2017; 36 1: 98. 10.1186/s40880-017-0264-x5747160 6Chen YP, Chan ATC, Le QT, Blanchard P, Sun Y, Ma J. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Lancet. 2019; 394 10192: 64– 80. 10.1016/s0140-6736(19)30956-0 7Chan ATC, Hui EP, Ngan RKC, Tung SY, Cheng ACK, Ng WT, et al. Analysis of plasma Epstein–Barr virus DNA in nasopharyngeal cancer after chemoradiation to identify high-risk patients for adjuvant chemotherapy: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018; 10.1200/jco.2018.77.78475993168 8Liu LT, Chen QY, Tang LQ, Guo SS, Guo L, Mo HY, et al. Neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy plus concurrent CRT versus concurrent CRT alone in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a study based on EBV DNA. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2019; 17 6: 703– 710. 10.6004/jnccn.2018.7270 9Sun Y, Li WF, Chen NY, Zhang N, Hu GQ, Xie FY, et al. Induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a phase 3, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17 11: 1509– 1520. 10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30410-7 10Zhang Y, Chen L, Hu GQ, Zhang N, Zhu XD, Yang KY, et al. Gemcitabine and cisplatin induction chemotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2019; 10.1056/NEJMoa1905287 11Ribassin-Majed L, Marguet S, Lee AWM, Ng WT, Ma J, Chan ATC, et al. What is the best treatment of locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma? An individual patient data network meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2017; 35 5: 498– 505. 10.1200/jco.2016.67.4119 12Wang YQ, Chen YP, Zhang Y, Jiang W, Liu N, Yun JP, et al. Prognostic significance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in nondisseminated nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a large-scale cohort study. Int J Cancer. 2018; 142 12: 2558– 2566. 10.1002/ijc.31279 13Brandi G, Venturi M, De Lorenzo S, Garuti F, Frega G, Palloni A, et al. Sustained complete response of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with metronomic capecitabine: a report of three cases. Cancer Commun. 2018; 38 1: 41. 10.1186/s40880-018-0312-1 14Chua MLK. Circulating tumor DNA to personalize treatment in nasopharynx cancer—time to look "ahead"?. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019; 104 2: 362– 364. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.02.043 15Li YY, Chung GT, Lui VW, To KF, Ma BB, Chow C, et al. Exome and genome sequencing of nasopharynx cancer identifies NF-kappaB pathway activating mutations. Nat Commun. 2017; 8: 14121. 10.1038/ncomms141215253631 16Zheng H, Dai W, Cheung AK, Ko JM, Kan R, Wong BW, et al. Whole-exome sequencing identifies multiple loss-of-function mutations of NF-kappaB pathway regulators in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016; 113 40: 11283– 11288. 10.1073/pnas.1607606113 Citing Literature Volume39, Issue1December 2019Pages 1-3 This article also appears in:Head and Neck CancerNPC ReferencesRelatedInformation
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
-
Neoadjuvant or Adjuvant Chemotherapy Plus Concurrent CRT Versus Concurrent CRT Alone in the Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Study Based on EBV DNA.
Li-Ting Liu,Qiu-Yan Chen,Lin-Quan Tang,Shan-Shan Guo,Ling Guo,Hao-Yuan Mo,Yang Li,Qing-Nan Tang,Xue-Song Sun,Yu-Jing Liang,Chong Zhao,Xiang Guo,Chao-Nan Qian,Mu-Sheng Zeng,Jin-Xin Bei,Ming-Huang Hong,Jian-Yong Shao,Ying Sun,Jun Ma,Hai-Qiang Mai
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2018.7270
IF: 12.6934
2019-01-01
Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network
Abstract:Background: The goal of this study was to explore the value of adding neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) or adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) to concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) with different risks of treatment failure. Patients and Methods: A total of 2,263 eligible patients with stage III-IVb NPC treated with CCRT +/- NACT or ACT were included in this retrospective study. Distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), overall survival, and progression-free survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and differences were compared using the log-rank test. Results: Patients in the low-risk group (stage N0-1 disease and Epstein-Barr virus [EBV] DNA < 4,000 copies/mL) who received NACT followed by CCRT achieved significantly better 5-year DMFS than those treated with CCRT alone (96.2% vs 91.3%; P=.008). Multivariate analyses also demonstrated that additional NACT was the only independent prognostic factor for DMFS (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22-0.80; P=.009). In both the intermediate-risk group (stage N0-1 disease and EBV DNA >= 4,000 copies/mL and stage N2-3 disease and EBV DNA <4,000 copies/mL) and the high-risk group (stage N2-3 disease and EBV DNA >= 4,000 copies/mL), comparison of NACT or ACT + CCRT versus CCRT alone indicated no significantly better survival for all end points. Conclusions: The addition of NACT to CCRT could reduce distant failure in patients with low risk of treatment failure.
-
Individualized Concurrent Chemotherapy for Patients with Stage III–IVa Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Combined with Definitive Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
Pengjie Ji,Qiongjiao Lu,Xiaoqiang Chen,Yuebing Chen,Xiane Peng,Zhiwei Chen,Cheng Lin,Shaojun Lin,Jingfeng Zong
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2022.1651
IF: 5.036
2023-05-11
Cancer Research and Treatment
Abstract:Purpose: This retrospective study aimed to re-evaluate the effect of concurrent chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) in the era of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).Materials and Methods: A total of 498 patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) combined with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) or IMRT were retrospectively reviewed. The distribution of baseline characteristics was balanced using propensity score matching. Additionally, the results of NCT+IMRT and NCT+CCRT were compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and differences in survival rates were analyzed using the log rank test.Results: There were no significant differences in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and local progression-free survival (LRFS) between the two groups. Patients were further categorized into risk subgroups based on pretreatment Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA cutoff values using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. There were no statistically significant differences in OS, PFS, DMFS, and LRFS between patients who received NCT+CCRT and NCT+IMRT in the high-risk group. In the low-risk group, although there were no differences between NCT+CCRT and NCT+IMRT in OS, PFS, and LRFS, patients who received NCT+CCRT had better DMFS than those who received NCT+IMRT.Conclusion: Pretreatment EBV DNA level can be used to individualize concurrent chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced NPC. Patients with low pretreatment EBV DNA levels may benefit from concurrent chemotherapy, whereas those with high levels may not. Other treatment modalities need to be explored for high-risk patients to improve their prognosis.
oncology
-
Premilinary Survival Results and Potential Beneficiaries for Locally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy.
Mei Feng,Jinyi Lang,Lu Li,Yecai Huang,Peng Xu,Yunxiang Qi,Fang Li,Weidong Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.6030
IF: 45.3
2017-01-01
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:6030 Background: Neoadjuvant is a promising chemotherapy modality for recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). However, there is still controversy for locally advanced NPC. We study the survival results of locally advanced NPC treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NACT) retrospectively, and to explore the potential beneficiaries. Methods: 147 stage III-IVa+b NPC treated with IMRT were included and divided into two groups. NACT group (76) received 2-3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with TP or TPF, and then 2-3 cycles of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). CCRT group (71) received 3 cycles of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy. TNM stage, age and whole blood count before treatment were all collected. The stratified analysis was used for distinguishing the potential beneficiaries. Results: median follow-up time was 30 months. For all patients, the 3-year LRRFS, DMFS and OS in NACT and CCRT were 94.5%, 96.8%; 85.8%, 82.8% and 81.6%, 83.4% respectively ( p> 0.05). For stage III patients, the 3-year LRRFS, DMFS and OS were 95.2%, 97.3%; 91.4%, 84.6% and 86.3%, 82.1% respectively ( p= 0.38, p= 0.15, p= 0.58). Though there was no statistical significance, DMFS in NACT was better than it in CCRT. However, for stage IV, the survival rate had no significant difference. The incidence of grade 3-4 bone marrow suppression was higher in NACT ( p= 0.007), and the other toxicities were similar. Univariate analysis showed the percentages of neutrophil and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) were significantly correlated with OS ( p= 0.031, p= 0.049). N and clinical stage were the adverse prognostic factors for OS ( p= 0.025, p= 0.007) and DMFS ( p= 0.018, p= 0.001). Clinical stage was the prognostic factors for OS and DMFS in multivariate analyses ( p= 0.019, p= 0.01). Conclusions: NACT had a comparable survival results and tolerable toxicity with CCRT for locally advanced NPC. Stage III might be the potential beneficiaries from NACT, especially for DMFS. Percentages of neutrophil and NLR might be the new adverse prognostic factor for OS. Clinical stage was still the prognostic factor for OS and DMFS.
-
The Effect of Adding Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy to Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Patients with Locoregionally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma and Undetectable Pretreatment Epstein-Barr Virus DNA
Ya-Nan Jin,Ji-Jin Yao,Si-Yang Wang,Wang-Jian Zhang,Fan Zhang,Guan-Qun Zhou,Zhi-Bin Cheng,Hao-Yuan Mo,Ying Sun
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranon.2017.03.007
IF: 4.803
2017-01-01
Translational Oncology
Abstract:PURPOSE:To assess the effect of adding neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) to concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and undetectable pretreatment Epstein-Barr virus (pEBV) DNA.MATERIALS AND METHODS:We enrolled 639 NPC patients with stage II to IVB and undetectable pEBV DNA to receive CCRT with or without NACT. Radiotherapy was 2.0 to 2.27 Gy per fraction with five daily fractions per week for 6 to 7 weeks to the primary tumor and 62 to 70 Gy to the involved neck area. NACT was cisplatin (80-100 mg/m2day 1) and 5-fluorouracil (800-1000 mg/m2, 120-hour continuous intravenous infusion) every 3 weeks for two or three cycles. CCRT was cisplatin (80-100 mg/m2day 1) every 3 weeks for three cycles.RESULTS:For all patients, the 5-year overall survival (OS), locoregional relapse-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 91.9%, 92.2%, 95.0%, and 86.4%, respectively. There was no significant difference in OS (5-year OS 90.8% [NACT + CCRT group] vs 92.7% [CCRT alone]; hazard ratio [HR] 1.24; P=.486), LRFS (HR 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-2.14, P=.715), DMFS (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.34-1.78, P=.554), or PFS (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.75-1.95, P=.472).CONCLUSION:CCRT with or without NACT produced a good treatment outcome in patients with locoregionally advanced NPC and undetectable pEBV DNA, but NACT before CCRT did not significantly improve survival rates.
-
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Defining High-Risk Patients Who May Benefit Before Concurrent Chemotherapy Combined with Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy.
Xiao-Jing Du,Ling-Long Tang,Lei Chen,Yan-Ping Mao,Rui Guo,Xu Liu,Ying Sun,Mu-Sheng Zeng,Tie-Bang Kang,Jian-Yong Shao,Ai-Hua Lin,Jun Ma
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep16664
IF: 4.6
2015-01-01
Scientific Reports
Abstract:The purpose of this study was to create a prognostic model for distant metastasis in patients with locally advanced NPC who accept concurrent chemotherapy combined with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (CCRT) to identify high-risk patients who may benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). A total of 881 patients with newly-diagnosed, non-disseminated, biopsy-proven locoregionally advanced NPC were retrospectively reviewed; 411 (46.7%) accepted CCRT and 470 (53.3%) accepted NACT followed by CCRT. Multivariate analysis demonstrated N2-3 disease, plasma Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA >4000 copies/mL, serum albumin <= 46 g/L and platelet count >300 k/cc were independent prognostic factors for distant metastasis in the CCRT group. Using these four factors, a prognostic model was developed, as follows: 1) low-risk group: 0-1 risk factors; and 2) high-risk group: 2-4 risk factors. In the high-risk group, patients who accepted NACT + CCRT had significantly higher distant metastasis-free survival and progression-free survival rates than the CCRT group (P = 0.001; P = 0.011). This simple prognostic model for distant metastasis in locoregionally advanced NPC may facilitate with the selection of high-risk patients who may benefit from NACT prior to CCRT.
-
Preliminary Results of a Phase III Randomized Study Comparing Chemotherapy Neoadjuvantly or Concurrently with Radiotherapy for Locoregionally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma
Tingting Xu,Chaosu Hu,Guopei Zhu,Xiayun He,Yongru Wu,Hongmei Ying
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-010-9803-x
2011-01-01
Medical Oncology
Abstract:The current study was conducted to compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) with concurrent chemotherapy for efficacy, toxicities and compliance of locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Eligible patients were randomized to NACT + radiotherapy (RT) + adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) arm or concurrent chemoradiotherapy(CCRT) + AC arm. Two arms received same conventional RT at a planned dose of 70 Gy. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy comprised cisplatin 90 mg/m(2) (30 mg/m(2)/day) and 5-fluorouracil 1,500 mg/m(2) (500 mg/m(2)/day) over 3 days for two 21-day cycles. The same regimen at equal dosage was administered on the 1st and 22nd days of the radiotherapy as concurrent chemotherapy. Four cycles of the same chemotherapy regimen were given to both two arms as AC. A total of 338 NPC patients were recruited. 170 patients were randomized to NACT arm and 168 patients to CCRT arm. The median duration of follow-up was 38 months. The 3-year OS and DFS rates were 95.9 versus 94.5% (P = 0.54) and 78.5 versus 82.5% (P = 0.16), respectively, in NACT and CCRT arms. An unplanned subgroup analysis according to the N-classification suggested that CCRT improves MFS in patients with N0-1 disease (80.1 vs. 94.9%, P = 0.034). Among the acute toxicities observed, the rates of grade 3/4 mucositis (52.4 vs. 35.9% P = 0.023) and vomiting (13.7 vs. 4.7% P = 0.000) were significantly higher in CCRT arm. Our preliminary results only showed an advantage of CCRT over NACT in NPC patients with limited N disease in MFS. More acute toxicities were observed in CCRT arm and a trend of better tolerance was observed in NACT arm.
-
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Versus Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Alone in Locoregionally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Phase III Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial.
Ming‐Yuan Chen,Su‐Mei Cao,Qi Yang,Ling Guo,Hai‐Qiang Mai,Hao‐Yuan Mo,Ka–Jia Cao,Chao‐Nan Qian,Chong Zhao,Xiang Yanqun,Xiuping Zhang,Zhixiong Lin,Weixiong Li,Xiang Guo,Ming-Huang Hong
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.6005
IF: 45.3
2017-01-01
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:6005 Background: The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is unclear. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of NACT followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) versus CCRT alone in locoregionally advanced NPC. Methods: Patients with stage III-IVB (excluding T3N0-1) NPC were randomly assigned to receive NACT followed by CCRT (investigational arm) or CCRT alone (control arm). Both arms were treated with 80 mg/m² cisplatin every three weeks concurrently with radiotherapy. The investigational arm received cisplatin (80 mg/m² d1) and fluorouracil (800 mg/m² civ d1-5) every three weeks for two cycles before CCRT. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). Secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: 476 patients were randomly assigned to the investigational (n = 238) and control arms (n = 238). The investigational arm achieved higher 3-year DFS rate (82.0%, 95% CI = 0.77-0.87) than the control arm (74.1%, 95% CI = 0.68-0.80, P = 0.028). The 3-year DMFS rate was 86.0% for the investigational arm versus 82.0% for the control arm, with marginal statistical significance (P = 0.056). However, there were no statistically significant differences in OS or locoregional relapse-free survival (LRRFS) rates between two arms (OS: 88.2% vs 88.5%, P = 0.815; LRRFS: 94.3% vs 90.8%, P = 0.430). The most common grade 3–4 toxicity during NACT was neutropenia (16.0%). During CCRT, the investigational arm experienced statistically significantly more grade 3–4 toxicities (P < 0.001). Conclusions: NACT improved tumor control compared with CCRT alone in locoregionally advanced NPC, particularly at distant sites. However, there was no early gain in overall survival. Longer follow-up is needed to determine the eventual therapeutic efficacy. Clinical trial information: NCT00705627.
-
Prognostic Value of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Locoregionally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma with Low Pre-treatment Epstein-Barr Virus DNA: a Propensity-matched Analysis.
Hao Peng,Lei Chen,Wen-Fei Li,Rui Guo,Yuan Zhang,Fan Zhang,Li-Zhi Liu,Li Tian,Ai-Hua Lin,Ying Sun,Jun Ma
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.15736
IF: 3.9
2016-01-01
Journal of Cancer
Abstract:Background: The aim of this study is to investigate the prognostic value of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) with low pre-treatment Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA in the era of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Methods: Data on 1099 locoregionally advanced NPC patients treated with IMRT were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score matching (PSM) method was adopted to balance influence of covariates. Patient survival between NCT and non-NCT groups were compared. Results: The cut-off value of pre-treatment Epstein-Barr virus DNA (pre-DNA) was 1550 copies/ml for DMFS (area under curve [AUC], 0.655; sensitivity, 0.819; specificity, 0.445). For the 145 pairs selected by PSM, the 3-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and locoregional relapse-free survival (LRRFS) rates were 98.6% vs. 93.7% (P = 0.101), 95.8% vs. 94.4% (P = 0.881), 91.7% vs. 87.5% (P = 0.309) and 94.4% vs. 95.0% (P = 0.667), respectively. Multivariate analysis did not identify NCT as an independent prognostic factor (P > 0.05 for all rates), and stratified analysis based on overall stage (III and IV) and N category (N0-1 and N2-3) also got the same results. Conclusion: NCT was not established as an independent prognostic factor, and it should not be used in locoregionally advanced NPC with low pre-DNA.
-
The Prognostic Value of Plasma Epstein-Barr Viral DNA and Tumor Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Advanced-Stage Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.
Li-Ting Liu,Lin-Quan Tang,Qiu-Yan Chen,Lu Zhang,Shan-Shan Guo,Ling Guo,Hao-Yuan Mo,Chong Zhao,Xiang Guo,Ka-Jia Cao,Chao-Nan Qian,Mu-Sheng Zeng,Jin-Xin Bei,Ming-Huang Hong,Jian-Yong Shao,Ying Sun,Jun Ma,Hai-Qiang Mai
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.08.003
2015-01-01
Abstract:PURPOSE:To explore the prognostic value of the plasma load of Epstein-Barr viral (EBV) DNA and the tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in advanced-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).PATIENTS AND METHODS:In all, 185 consecutive patients with stage III to IVb NPC treated with NACT followed by concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) were prospectively enrolled. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints included locoregional relapse-free survival (LRFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS).RESULTS:EBV DNA was detected in 165 (89%) patients before treatment but was undetectable in 127 (69%) patients after NACT. Detectable EBV DNA levels after NACT were correlated with poor prognosis (3-year PFS 71.8% vs 85.2%, P=.008 and 3-year DMFS 82.5% vs 92.3%, P=.013). An unsatisfactory tumor response (stable disease or disease progression) after NACT was also correlated with poor clinical outcome (3-year PFS 71.1% vs 85.9%, P=.005 and 3-year LRFS 82.7% vs 93.5%, P=.012). Multivariate analysis showed that the EBV DNA level after NACT (hazard ratio [HR] 2.31, 95% CI 1.18-4.54, P=.015) and the tumor response to NACT (HR 2.84, 95% CI 1.42-5.67, P=.003) were both significant prognostic factors for PFS. Multivariate analysis also showed that EBV DNA after NACT was the only significant predictor of DMFS (HR 2.99, 95% CI 1.25-7.15, P=.014) and that tumor response to NACT was the only significant predictor of LRFS (HR 3.31, 95% CI 1.21-9.07, P=.020).CONCLUSION:Detectable EBV DNA levels and an unsatisfactory tumor response (stable disease or disease progression) after NACT serve as predictors of poor prognosis for patients with advanced-stage NPC. These findings will facilitate further risk stratification, early treatment modification, or both before CCRT.
-
Exploration of the Value of Concurrent Chemotherapy for T2N1 Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma under Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy Mode
Kai Liao,Jian Zhang,Wenze Qiu,Ronghui Zheng
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1424804
IF: 4.7
2024-01-01
Frontiers in Oncology
Abstract:ProblemIn the era of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), the status of concurrent chemoradiotherapy(CCRT) for stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma(NPC), particularly for patients in T2N1 subtype, remains controversial nowadays.AimThis study exclusively aims to explore the value of concurrent chemotherapy in the treatment of T2N1 NPC under IMRT mode.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 218 cases of T2N1 NPC patients treated at our hospital from January 2015 to December 2020, comprising 75 cases treated with IMRT and 143 cases treated with CCRT. The study compared therapeutic outcomes and side effects between the two groups.ResultsThe 5-year progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), locoregional relapse-free survival (LRRFS) and,distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) estimated by the K-M method for the IMRT vs. CCRT groups were 86.1% vs. 85.1%,89.3% vs. 87.9%, 95.9% vs. 94.9%,and 90.2% vs. 89.1%, respectively, with no statistically significant differences (Log-rank P>0.05 for all comparisons). Cox regression analysis identified Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA copy level (≥1000 vs. <1000 copies/ml)(the cutoff value was determined through the ROC curve), lymph node necrosis (yes vs. no) and extra-nodal extension (yes vs. no) as independent prognostic factors for PFS(P<0.05 for all comparisons). Subgroup analysis indicated an interaction effect between lymph node necrosis (yes vs. no) and treatment modality (IMRT vs. CCRT) regarding PFS (P for interaction<0.05). In the subgroup with lymph node necrosis, IMRT compared to CCRT had a poorer prognosis (HR: 1.85,95% CI: 1.02-3.50). CCRT was noted to increase acute hematological, gastrointestinal and other toxicities.ConclusionsThis study provides a reference for clinical treatment decisions in T2N1 NPC. For the entire population of T2N1 NPC, the therapeutic effects of IMRT and CCRT are comparable, with increased acute toxicities in the latter. However, for patients with EBV-DNA copy level ≥1000 copies/ml, lymph node necrosis and extra-nodal extension, CCRT may be considered as appropriate. Particularly, patients with lymph node necrosis may be potential beneficiaries for CCRT.
-
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy And Prognostic Subgroups Defined By Survival Benefit In Patients With Locoregionally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.
X. Ji,Yahua Zhong,Yunfeng Zhou,Fuxiang Zhou,G. Zhang,G. Chen,D. Deng,H. Liu,J. Zhang,Conghua Xie
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2011.29.15_suppl.5536
IF: 45.3
2011-01-01
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:5536 Background: To evaluate the contribution of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and to identify the prognostic subgroups that could benefit the most from neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Methods: From 2004 through 2009, 164 patients with stage II to IVb NPC were treated by radiotherapy alone (RT; n = 74) or chemoradiotherapy (RT/CT; n = 90). All patients received 68-70 Gy to the nasopharynx. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy consisted of 2-4 cycles of cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil, or cisplatin and docetaxel every 3 weeks. Both groups were well-matched for prognostic factors except cancer stage, with more advanced NPC in RT/CT. Results: With a mean follow-up of 34.5 months, the 3-year actuarial rates of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), metastasis-free survival and relapse-free survival for RT/CT and RT alone groups were 84.3% v 78.2% (Log-rank P = 0.132), 81.2% v 58.3% (Log-rank P = 0.024), 86.4% v 71.4% (Log-rank P = 0.029) and 94.8% v 79.8% (Log-rank P = 0.114), respectively. Using the Cox model adjusted for prognostic factors, improvement in OS on RT/CT was significant (P = 0.049). Stratification analysis showed that DFS improvement was pronounced in the following prognostic subgroups: stage IV, T3/T4 stage, N2/N3 stage, non-keratinizing carcinoma, youngers, males, smokers, drinkers and patients without family history of cancer. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves OS, DFS and MFS for locoregionally advanced NPC, and DFS improvement was pronounced in some prognostic subgroups. Such work could be helpful to guide effective therapy of individuation.
-
The Role of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma with Bulky Neck Lymph Nodes in the Era of Imrt
Tingting Xu,Chunying Shen,Xiaomin Ou,Xiayun He,Hongmei Ying,Chaosu Hu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.7849
2016-01-01
Oncotarget
Abstract:Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients with N2-3 diseases are prone to develop distant metastasis even treated with standard concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). Our study is aim to determine the optimal treatment strategy of these patients. Patients with histologically proven NPC were retrospectively analyzed according to the AJCC 2002 stage classification system. A total of 547 patients who had N2-3 diseases were enrolled. They were all treated with Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) combined with systemic treatments, including radiotherapy alone (RT alone), neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy (NACT+RT), CCRT, NACT+CCRT, NACT followed by radiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT+RT+AC), CCRT+AC and NACT+CCRT+AC. A subgroup analysis was also conducted. With a median follow-up time of 53.8 months, adjuvant chemotherapy significantly decreased the risk of distant metastasis (HR 0.413, 95% CI 0.194-0.881, p = 0.022) as well as significantly increased the OS (HR 0.398, 95% CI 0.187-0.848, p = 0.017) in patients with N3 disease. The addition of adjuvant chemotherapy seemed to provide benefits to patients with N3 stage NPC and the current study may indicate the need for further randomized investigation.
-
Preliminary Outcome of the Survival Rate and Possible Prognostic Factors for Locally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Patients Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy.
Jin Yi Lang,Mei Feng,Mengzhen Yuan,Yecai Huang,Yangkun Luo,Zhixuan Fan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.e17044
IF: 45.3
2015-01-01
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:e17044 Background: Neoadjuvant was a promising chemotherapy modality for head and neck cancer. However there was still controversy for it. We did an retrospectively analysis to evaluate the early survival results of locally advanced NPC patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and aim to explore the substantial prognostic factors further. Methods: 147 squamous NPC patients of stage Ⅲ-Ⅳa+b (UICC2002 statging system) treated with IMRT in our center from Oct. 2007 to Oct. 2013 were analyzed retrospectively. They were divided into two groups. Group NACT (76 patients) was treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed with concurrent chemoradiotherapy, and group CCRT (71 patients) treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. NACT received 2 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with the TP (docetaxel 75 mg/m2 d1 + cisplatin 80 mg/m2 d1) or TPF (docetaxel 75 mg/m2 d1 + cisplatin 80 mg/m2 d1 + 5-Fu 750 mg/m2 d1-5) regimens, and then received 2-3 cycles of the platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy. CCRT only received 2-3 cycles of concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Cumulative survival rate was analyzed by Kaplan Meier method. The log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard model was used for prognostic analyses. Results: the median follow-up time was 26 and 30 months in NACT and CCRT respectively. The 3-year LRRFS, DMFS and OS for group NACT and CCRT were 94.5%, 96.8%; 85.8%, 81.6% and 83.3%, 85.0% respectively (p< 0.05). Age, sex, HGB, clinical stage, T, N stage and radiation dose was included in prognostic analysis. For univariate analysis, only N stage was the adverse prognostic factor for 3-year DMFS (p< 0.05). However, for multivariate analyses, there was no statistical significance for these possible prognostic factors. Conclusions: There was no statistical significance for early survival results in NACT and CCRT groups, however the neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed with concurrent chemoradiotherapy could increase the DMFS for locally advanced NPC patients in some degree. N stage was also a possible prognostic factor for the survival results of the local advanced NPC patients.
-
Development and validation of a risk model integrating plasma Epstein-Barr virus DNA (EBV DNA) level and TNM stage for stratification of nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) to adjuvant therapy
E.P. Hui,W.F. Li,B.B.Y. Ma,F. Mo,W.K.J. Lam,K.C.A. Chan,Q.H. Ai,A.D. King,C.H. Wong,R. Guo,D.M.C. Poon,M. Tong,L. Li,T.K.H. Lau,K.C.W. Wong,D.C.M. Lam,Y.M.D. Lo,J. Ma,A.T.C. Chan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz428.001
IF: 51.769
2019-11-01
Annals of Oncology
Abstract:Background Clinical guidelines for treatment decision in NPC are mainly based on the anatomical classification by UICC TNM staging. The concentration of plasma EBV DNA measured after radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiation (CRT) is highly prognostic and independent of UICC stage, which may be useful in risk stratification of NPC patients to adjuvant therapy. Methods For model development, we used the prospective multi-center 0502 EBV DNA screening cohort (recruitment period 2006 - 2015; n = 745). Eligible patients had histologically confirmed NPC of stage II-IVB (UICC 7th Edition) and post-RT EBV DNA measured in plasma, no loco-regional disease or distant metastasis after RT/CRT and received no adjuvant therapy. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). We used recursive-partitioning analysis (RPA) to classify patients into groups of low-, intermediate- and high-risk of death. For internal validation, we pooled independent patient cohorts from previous published biomarker studies (1997-2006; n = 340). For external validation, we used external cohort of NPC patients treated at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (2009 - 2012; n = 837) using SYSU EBV DNA test. Results RPA classified NPC patients based on the post-RT plasma EBV DNA level and UICC stage into three distinct prognostic groups (Table). RPA low risk group shared similar 5-yr OS (89.4%; 95% CI = 86.4-92.5%) as UICC stage II (88.5%; 84.0-93.1%) but included 2.3x number of patients that could be potentially spared of adjuvant therapy toxicity. The overall C-index of OS was 0.7118 for RPA risk group, compared to 0.6042 for TNM stage and 0.6747 for EBV DNA (both p < 0.01). RPA risk group has improved hazard discrimination and calibration than either TNM stage or plasma EBV DNA level. The result was validated in both internal and external cohorts. Table 287O Table Patient No. (%) 5-yr OS HR (95% C.I.) P UICC TNM stage (7th Ed) 1) Stage II 209 (28.1) 88.5 - 2) Stage III 368 (49.4) 81.0 1.50 (0.99-2.25) 0.054 3) Stage IVAB 168 (22.6) 69.4 3.01 (1.97-4.59) <0.0001 Post-RT plasma EBV DNA (copies/ml) 1) 0 573 (76.9) 87.3 - 2) 1-49 74 (9.9) 83.2 1.32 (0.76-2.27) 0.3259 3) 50-499 59 (7.9) 50.5 3.85 (2.55-5.81) <0.0001 4) > =500 39 (5.2) 28.3 11.59 (7.60-17.67) <0.0001 RPA risk group 1) Low risk EBV DNA 0 and stage II/III 1-49 and stage II 483 (64.8) 89.4 - 2) Intermediate risk EBV DNA 0 and stage IVAB 1-49 and stage III/IVAB 50-499 and stage II 176 (23.6) 78.5 2.40 (1.65-3.50) <0.0001 3) High risk EBV DNA 50-499 and stage III/IVAB >500 and any stage 86 (11.5) 37.2 8.54 (5.93-12.29) <0.0001 Conclusions Incorporation of post-RT plasma EBV DNA level into UICC TNM stage improved risk stratification of NPC patients to adjuvant therapy. Clinical trial identification Identifier: NCT00370890. Legal entity responsible for the study Comprehensive Cancer Trials Unit, Department of Clinical Oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Funding Has not received any funding. Disclosure E.P. Hui: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck Sharp & Dohme; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Merck Serono; Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer. W.K.J. Lam: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Grail. K.C.A. Chan: Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Grail; Leadership role, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Take2; Leadership role, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: DRA. Y.M.D. Lo: Advisory / Consultancy, Leadership role, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Grail; Leadership role, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Take2 Health; Leadership role, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: DRA. A.T.C. Chan: Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Research grant / Funding (institution): Boehringer Ingelheim; Research grant / Funding (institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck Sharp & Dohme. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
oncology
-
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy + Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Versus Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy ± Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Locoregionally Advanced NPC: an Update Meta-Analysis and Efficacy-Toxicity Joint Analysis.
S. Liu,D. Xie,S. Zhou,C. Xu,Z. Ye,G. Wang,S. Ding,Y. Xia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy438.018
IF: 51.769
2018-01-01
Annals of Oncology
Abstract:Background: We aimed to reappraise the actual effect on multiple survival and toxicity outcomes of NACT + CCRT versus CCRT ± AC. Methods: PROSPERO number were CRD42017078857.Databases searched: PubMed, EMBASE, WOS and The Cochrane Library. Cochrane recommended criteria assessed methodological quality of included studies. Fixed or random effects model used Revman 5.3 to pooled HR, OR and I2. The primary outcome were OS, LRFS and DMFS; secondary outcomes were PFS, DFS and G3-4 adverse events (AE). Supplementary network meta-analysis (NMA) used R, Stata and ITC software. Results: Until 8 May 2018,10 RCTs and 6 cohorts including 4652 patients with low to moderate risk of bias were analyzed. Pooled estimates demonstrated a benefit in OS (HR 0.79 [0.62-0.99], I2=42%), DMFS (HR 0.82 [0.69-0.98], I2=0%), PFS (HR 0.66 [0.52-0.84], I2=0%) and DFS (HR 0.71[0.55-0.92], I2=0%), no benefit was found in LRFS (HR 1.06 [0.82-1.36], I2=0%), with more frequent acute AE (thrombocytopenia (OR = 3.03 [1.88, 4.87], I2=4%), anemia (OR = 1.85 [1.30, 2.61],I2=30%), leukopenia (OR = 2.28 [1.39, 3.74], I2=71%), neutropenic fever (OR = 8.77 [1.56, 49.23], I2=0%) in the NACT group. Subgroup analysis for OS, significant difference were between RCTs and cohorts (HR 0.66 [0.54, 0.80] vs 1.23 [0.94, 1.61], Pinter =0.0003) ; in clinical stage subgroup for LRFS, II-III-IV arm presented a significant harm of NACT (HR 2.69 [1.34-5.41], Pinter=0.005) while no significant difference in III-IV and modified III-IV arms (HR 1.13 [0.78-1.62] and HR 0.71 [0.47-1.06], respectively). Supplementary NMA showed TP as NACT had the highest SUCRA values (89.8% and 80.5%, respectively) or OS and anemia; DDP as CCRT plus PF as AC for thrombocytopenia (SUCRA=81.2%), CBP as CCRT for leukemia (SUCRA=93.8%). Cluster analysis showed NACT (TP or TPF) significantly improved OS with the lowest rate of G3-4 anemia while thrombocytopenia or leukemia combined with OS, no upper right best treatments were found. Conclusions: NACT delays disease progression and may improve OS for LA NPC. More effective and better tolerated agent options and specific subgroup selection for NACT phase need further exploration. Legal entity responsible for the study: Professor Yunfei Xia. Funding: Has not received any funding. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
-
Combined pre-treatment and middle-treatment Epstein–Barr virus DNA load contributes to prognostication and treatment modification in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients
Kaiqi Lan,Jingrong Mao,Xuesong Sun,Suchen Li,Siyi Xie,Rui Sun,Sailan Liu,Haiqiang Mai
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17588359231221343
2024-01-01
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology
Abstract:Objective: To investigate whether pre-treatment and middle-treatment plasma Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) DNA loads are useful predictors of prognosis and indicators of therapy modification in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients undergoing radical concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). Methods: Plasma EBV DNA load was measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction before treatment (pre-DNA) and during the second cycle of DDP (mid-DNA). The primary endpoint was 5-year progression-free survival (PFS). Results: A total of 775 NPC patients treated with CCRT were included. In total, 553 patients with pre-DNA <4000 copies/mL and 222 with ⩾4000 copies/mL. A total of 559 patients had mid-DNA undetectable and 216 had detectable. Multivariate analysis showed that pre- and mid-DNA were independent prognostic predictors of PFS [hazard ratio (HR), 2.035; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.406–2.944; p < 0.001; HR, 1.597; 95% CI, 1.101–2.316; p = 0.014]. The area under the curve of the combination of pre-DNA and mid-DNA for 5-year PFS was higher than that of pre-DNA, mid-DNA, and tumor node metastasis (TNM) stage (0.679 versus 0.622, 0.608, 0.601). In the low-risk group (pre-DNA <4000 copies/mL and undetectable mid-DNA), patients receiving ⩽200 mg/m 2 showed similar efficacy as those receiving >200 mg/m 2 cumulative cisplatin dose (CCD) but were associated with fewer all-grade late toxicities. However, in the high-risk group (pre-DNA ⩾4000 copies/mL or detectable mid-DNA), patients receiving >200 mg/m 2 CCD showed a higher 5-year PFS (73.1% versus 58.6%, p = 0.027) and locoregional relapse-free survival (88.5% versus 76.1%, p = 0.028) than those receiving ⩽200 mg/m 2 CCD. Conclusion: The combination of pre-DNA and mid-DNA could be particularly useful for guiding risk stratification and early treatment modification for NPC treated with CCRT. A total of 200 mg/m 2 cisplatin seemed to be the optimal dose for the low-risk patients, while >200 mg/m 2 cisplatin may be adequate to achieve satisfactory survival outcomes in the high-risk group.
oncology
-
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Plus Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Versus Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Plus Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Ascending or Descending Types of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study.
Qin Lin,Linbin Lu,Xuewen Wang,Yihong Lin,Yaying Chen,Hong Chen,Shuyi Chen,Shaoqin Lin,Yan Zhang,Peichan Zheng,Xiong Chen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2021.103193
IF: 2.873
2021-01-01
American Journal of Otolaryngology
Abstract:Purpose: This study aimed to compare the efficacy between neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) plus intensitymodulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and NACT plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Materials and methods: Data from 603 patients with ascending (T4 and N0-1) or descending (T1-2&N3) NPC who were treated at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center between October 2009 and February 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. These patients were divided into two groups: NACT+IMRT (n = 302) and NACT+CCRT (n = 301). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), which was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, Cox proportional hazards model, and landmark analysis. Results: In univariate analysis, there was no significant difference in 5-year OS between the NACT+IMRT and NACT+CCRT groups (hazard ration [HR]: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47-1.01; P = 0.057). However, after adjustment for age (<45 years, >= 45 years), gender, histological stage (I/II, III), T stage (1/2, 3, 4), and N stage (0/1, 2/3), NACT+IMRT was more effective in improving OS, with a 33% decrease in the risk of death than NACT+CCRT (HR: 0.67; 95%CI: 0.45-0.99). Furthermore, landmark analysis indicated that patients in the NACT+IMRT group had higher OS rates within 24 months (HR: 1.83; 95%CI: 1.00-3.34), whereas those treated with NACT+CCRT had higher OS rates after 24 months (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29-0.77). We also found significant survival benefits of NACT+IMRT regimen in patients younger than 45 years old (HR: 0.27; 95%CI: 0.14-0.49), and in those at stage T3 (HR: 0.50; 95%CI: 0.27-0.93) and stage N2/3 (HR: 0.52; 95%CI: 0.32-0.83). Conclusion: Patients with ascending or descending NPC who are treated with NACT+IMRT may have better longterm survival outcomes than those treated with NACT+CCRT, especially the patients younger than 45 years old or in stage T3/N2/N3. Additionally, NACT+IMRT may be a better option than NACT+CCRT in patients within the first 24 months.
-
Comparison of long-term efficacy between intensity-modulated radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by intensity-modulated radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal
Ying Guan,Xueming Sun,Lei Zeng,Chunyan Chen,Fei Han,Taixiang Lu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2014.02.013
2014-01-01
Abstract:Objective To compare the long-term efficacy between two radiochemotherapy regimens for locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC):intensity-modulated radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy (CCRT) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by CCRT.Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of 278 patients with locally advanced NPC who were admitted to our hospital from 2001 to 2008.Of the 278 patients,133 received CCRT,and 145 received NACT followed by CCRT (NACT + CCRT).Results The follow-up rate was 96.6％.The 5-year overall survival (OS),distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS),recurrence-free survival (RFS),and progression-free survival (PFS) were 78.1％,78.0％,90.6％,and 72.0％,respectively.There were no significant differences between the CCRT group and NACT + CCRT group in 5-year OS (79.9％ vs.76.4％,P =0.443),DMFS (77.1％ vs.78.9％,P=0.972),RFS (91.6％ vs.89.8％,P=0.475),and PFS (71.6％ vs.72.2％,P=0.731).Subgroup analysis showed that compared with CCRT,NACT + CCRT did not significantly improve 5-year RFS in T3-4N0-1 patients (90.7％ vs.86.9％,P=0.376) and did not significantly improve 5-year DMFS in patients with advanced N-stage disease (57.6％ vs.69.7％,P =0.275).There were significantly higher numbers of individuals with neutropenia,decrease in hemoglobin,and upper gastrointestinal reactions in patients treated with NACT + CCRT than in those treated with CCRT (100 vs.52,P=0.000;64 vs.35,P=0.010;90 vs.63,P=0.044).Conclusions Compared with CCRT,NACT + CCRT does not significantly improve the prognosis in patients with locally advanced NPC and leads to significant increases in grade ≥ 3 toxicities (neutropenia,decrease in hemoglobin,and upper gastrointestinal reactions).The role of NACT in the treatment of locally advanced NPC needs further study
-
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy for the treatment of locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a retrospective controlled study
Wen-Ze Qiu,Pei-Yu Huang,Jun-Li Shi,Hai-Qun Xia,Chong Zhao,Ka-Jia Cao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40880-015-0076-9
2016-01-01
Chinese Journal of Cancer
Abstract:Background In the era of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is under-evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of NAC plus IMRT and concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) plus adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) on locoregionally advanced NPC. Methods Between January 2004 and December 2008, 240 cases of locoregionally advanced NPC confirmed by pathologic assessment in Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center were reviewed. Of the 240 patients, 117 received NAC followed by IMRT, and 123 were treated with CCRT plus AC. The NAC + IMRT group received a regimen that included cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). The CCRT + AC group received cisplatin concurrently with radiotherapy, and subsequently received adjuvant cisplatin and 5-FU. The survival rates were assessed by Kaplan–Meier analysis, and the survival curves were compared using a log-rank test. Multivariate analysis was conducted using the Cox proportional hazard regression model. Results The 5-year overall survival (OS), locoregional relapse-free survival (LRRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were 78.0, 87.9, 79.0, and 69.8%, respectively, for the NAC + IMRT group and 78.7, 84.8, 76.2, and 65.6%, respectively, for the CCRT + AC group. There were no significant differences in survival between the two groups. In multivariate analysis, age (<50 years vs. ≥50 years) and overall stage (III vs. IV) were found to be independent predictors for OS and DFS; furthermore, the overall stage was a significant prognostic factor for DMFS. Compared with the CCRT + AC protocol, the NAC + IMRT protocol significantly reduced the occurrence rates of grade 3–4 nausea–vomiting (6.5 vs. 1.5%, P = 0.023) and leukopenia (9.7 vs. 0.8%, P = 0.006). Conclusions The treatment outcomes of the NAC + IMRT and CCRT + AC groups were similar. Distant metastasis remained the predominant mode of treatment failure.
-
Prognostic Value of Plasma Epstein-Barr Virus DNA for Local and Regionally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Treated With Cisplatin-Based Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Era
Wen-Hui Chen,Lin-Quan Tang,Shan-Shan Guo,Qiu-Yan Chen,Lu Zhang,Li-Ting Liu,Chao-Nan Qian,Xiang Guo,Dan Xie,Mu-Sheng Zeng,Hai-Qiang Mai
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000002642
Abstract:This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of plasma Epstein-Barr Virus DNA (EBV DNA) for local and regionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) era.In this observational study, 404 nonmetastatic local and regionally advanced NPC patients treated with IMRT and cisplatin-based concurrent chemotherapy were recruited. Blood samples were collected before treatment for examination of plasma EBV DNA levels. We evaluated the association of pretreatment plasma EBV DNA levels with progression-free survival rate (PFS), distant metastasis-free survival rate (DMFS), and overall survival rate (OS).Compared to patients with an EBV DNA level < 4000 copies/mL, patients with an EBV DNA ≥ 4000 copies/mL had a lower rate of 3-year PFS (76%, 95% CI [68-84]) versus (93%, 95% CI [90-96], P < 0.001), DMFS (83%, 95% CI [76-89]) versus (97%, 95% CI [94-99], P < 0.001), and OS (85%, 95% CI [78-92]) versus (98%, 95% CI [95-100], P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that pretreatment EBV DNA levels (HR = 3.324, 95% CI, 1.80-6.138, P < 0.001) and clinical stage (HR = 1.878, 95% CI, 1.036-3.404, P = 0.038) were the only independent factor associated with PFS, pretreatment EBV DNA level was the only significant factor to predict DMFS (HR = 6.292, 95% CI, 2.647-14.956, P < 0.001), and pretreatment EBV DNA levels (HR = 3.753, 95% CI, 1.701-8.284, P < 0.001) and clinical stage (HR = 2.577, 95% CI, 1.252-5.050, P = 0.010) were significantly associated with OS. In subgroup analysis, higher plasma EBV DNA levels still predicted a worse PFS, DMFS, and OS for the patients stage III or stage IVa-b, compared with those with low EBV DNA levels.Elevated plasma EBV DNA was still effective prognostic biomarker for local and regionally advanced NPC patients treated with IMRT and cisplatin-based concurrent chemotherapy. Future ramdomized clinical trials are needed to further evaluate whether plasma EBV DNA levels could be applied to guide concurrent chemotherapy regimen for local and regionally advanced NPC patients.