Dataset Information

Residual Volume of Lymph Nodes During Chemoradiotherapy Based Nomogram to Predict Survival of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Patient Receiving Induction Chemotherapy.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To accurately stratify nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients who were benefit from induction chemotherapy (IC) followed by chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), we established residual volume of lymph nodes during chemoradiotherapy based nomogram to predict survival for NPC patients.

Methods

Cox regression analysis were used to evaluate predictive effects of tumor volume parameters. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to identify the prognostic factors, and nomogram models were developed to predict survival of NPC patients receiving IC followed by CCRT.

Results

Compared with other tumor volumetric parameters, midRT GTVnd was the best predictive factor for OS (HR: 1.043, 95%CI: 1.031-1.055), PFS (HR: 1.040, 95%CI: 1.030- 1.051), and DMFS (HR: 1.046, 95%CI: 1.034 - 1.059) according to the HR of Cox regression analysis. Based on multivariate analysis, three nomograms included midRT GTVnd were constructed to predict 4-year survival. The C-index of nomograms for each survival endpoints were as follow (training cohort vs. validation cohort): 0.746 vs. 0.731 for OS; 0.747 vs. 0.735 for PFS; 0.768 vs. 0.729 for DMFS, respectively. AUC showed a good discriminative ability. Calibration curves demonstrated a consistence between actual results and predictions. Decision curve analysis (DCA) showed that the nomograms had better clinical predictive effects than current TNM staging system.

Conclusion

We identified the best volumetric indicator associated with prognosis was the residual volume of lymph nodes at the fourth week of chemoradiotherapy for patients receiving IC followed by CCRT. We developed and validated three nomograms to predict specific probability of 4-year OS, PFS and DMFS for NPC patient receiving IC followed by CCRT.

SUBMITTER: Li Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8451592 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the risk stratification among elderly Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients (≥60 years old) and select the beneficiaries from concurrent chemotherapy (CCRT) combined with induction chemotherapy (IC).Materials and methodsA total of 909 elderly non-metastatic NPC patients treated with cisplatin-based CCRT or IC + CCRT between January 2007 and December 2016 were included. Prognostic nomograms were generated according to clinical characteristics and serum biomarkers. The survival outcomes of patients treated with CCRT versus IC + CCRT were compared in three well-matched risk groups (high, medium, and low risk) after PSM analysis. Benefit of IC in people older or younger than 70 years and effect of different IC regimens and cycles on prognosis were analyzed.ResultsNomograms of overall survival (OS) (C-index: 0.64, 95% CI, 0.61-0.89) and disease special survival (DSS) (C-index: 0.65, 95% CI, 0.62-0.71) showed good prognostic accuracy. The nomogram for DSS included variables of age, gender, ACE, EBV DNA, N stage, and T stage. OS included variables of age, smoking history, ACE, ALB, EBV DNA, N stage, and T stage. The corresponding 5-year OS rates of high, medium and low risk groups were 87.4%, 82.2%, and 60.9%, respectively (p < 0.001), while the 5-year DSS rates were 92.2%, 84.3%, and 69.0%, respectively (p < 0.001). In the high risk group, IC + CCRT led to significantly higher 5-year OS and DSS rate compared with CCRT (5-year OS rate, 73.5% versus 51.8%, p = 0.006; 5-year DSS rate, 81.4% versus 61.3%, p = 0.002). While in the medium and low risk groups, OS and DSS were not significantly different (OS: p = 0.259, 0.186; DSS: p = 0.29, 0.094). Subgroup analysis showed in the high risk group, only people younger than 70 years old could benefit from IC. TPF and IC cycles of three could lead to the best survival results.ConclusionCompared with CCRT, OS, and DSS among high risk elderly patients were significantly improved by the addition of IC in patients younger than 70 years old. TPF and three IC cycles were recommended.