Dataset Information

Development and Validation of Prognostic Nomograms Based on Gross Tumor Volume and Cervical Nodal Volume for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Patients With Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Our study aimed to establish and validate prognostic nomograms based on gross tumor volume (GTV) and cervical nodal volume (CNV) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients treated with two cycles of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).

Methods

From 2012 to 2015, 620 eligible patients who received radical treatment at the Cancer Hospital of Shantou University Medical College were recruited for a nomogram study. Variables were determined in a training set of 463 patients from 2012 to 2014 by X-tile analysis, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses, and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). Another cohort of 157 patients in 2015 was validated with bootstrap resampling. The concordance index (C-index) and calibration curves were applied to assess its predictive discriminative and accuracy ability, while decision curve analysis (DCA), X-tile analysis and Kaplan-Meier curve for clinical application.

Results

Independent prognostic variables for overall survival (OS) were age, GTV, CNV, cranial nerve, positive cervical lymph node laterality below the caudal border of cricoid cartilage (LNBC), and were selected for the nomogram. Optimal prognostic factors including Karnofsky performance status (KPS), age, GTV, CNV, LNBC were incorporated in the nomogram for progression-free survival (PFS). In the training set, the C-index of our nomograms for OS and PFS were 0.755 (95% CI, 0.704 to 0.807) and 0.698 (95% CI, 0.652 to 0.744). The calibration curve showed good agreement between nomogram-predicted and actual survival. DCA indicated that our nomograms were of clinical benefit.

Conclusion

Our nomograms are capable of effective prognostic prediction for patients with NPC.

SUBMITTER: Zhang CD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8273655 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn 2018, a revised staging system was released for cervical cancer, which defined pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis as stages IIIC1 and IIIC2, respectively. In this study, we constructed and validated nomograms to predict the 3- and 5-year survival of patients with cervical cancer based on the revised International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system.MethodsWe retrospectively examined patients with 2009 FIGO stage IB-IVA cervical cancer who were treated at our institute between 2011 and 2015. Patients were randomized into the model development and validation cohorts (2:1). Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted for the model development cohort to identify prognostic factors. In the multivariate analysis, nomograms were built to predict overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) using significant variables. The nomograms were assessed based on the discrimination and calibration in both cohorts. Discrimination was assessed using the concordance index. Calibration was performed by comparing the mean nomogram estimated survival and the mean observed survival.ResultsWe included 1,192 patients, with 795 and 397 patients in the model development and validation cohorts, respectively. In the model development cohort, the median follow-up period was 49.2 months. After multivariate analysis, age, histology, 2018 FIGO stage, and pelvic lymph node number were independent factors for OS. Histology, 2018 FIGO stage, squamous cell carcinoma antigen, and pelvic lymph node number were significant predictors of DFS. The nomograms constructed to predict OS and DFS were based on these factors. In both model cohorts, the concordance index for the nomogram-predicted OS and DFS was 0.78 and 0.75 and 0.74 and 0.67, respectively. The calibration curve revealed good agreement between the nomogram predictions and actual values.ConclusionWe constructed robust nomograms to predict the OS and DFS of patients with cervical cancer undergoing treatment with concurrent chemoradiotherapy based on the 2018 FIGO staging system.

Project description:PurposeInduction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone are both standard treatment regimens for managing locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. However, the results of comparisons between them in clinical trials vary. Therefore, we designed this meta-analysis to illustrate their advantages and disadvantages in patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma.MethodsWe thoroughly searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases and then merged the effect indicators of hazard ratios and risk ratios using RevMan 5.1.ResultsSeven randomized controlled trials totaling 2,319 patients were included in our research. The synthesized results showed that induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy improved overall survival (HR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.63-0.89, P = 0.001), progression-free survival (HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.60-0.80, P < 0.001), distant metastasis-free survival (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.53-0.80, P < 0.001) and locoregional recurrence-free survival (HR = 0.68 95%, CI: 0.54-0.86, P = 0.001) versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone. It also increased the risk of anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia during concurrent chemoradiotherapy. However, the incidence of leukopenia and mucositis was similar in induction chemotherapy and induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Furthermore, the subgroup analysis showed better survival outcomes with induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy than with concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in the triweekly cisplatin subgroup (all P < 0.01), whereas induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy could only improve progression-free survival and locoregional recurrence-free survival in the weekly cisplatin subgroup (HR = 0.78, P = 0.02; and HR = 0.66, P = 0.03, respectively).ConclusionsInduction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy improved survival outcomes in patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy. For the weekly cisplatin regimen subgroup, it did not improve remote control or overall survival versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone, warranting further clarification.

Project description:BackgroundConcurrent 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.MethodsThis 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/m2 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.ResultsOf 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).ConclusionsThe 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.