RESUMO
Objective:To compare the efficacy and adverse events of induction chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy alone (IC+ RT) and induction chemotherapy combined with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (IC+ CCRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the era of intensity-modulated radiation therapy in this Meta-analysis.Methods:Retrospective or randomized controlled clinical studies published between 2010 and 2020 were searched from the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. The selected studies included nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients treated with IC+ CCRT or IC+ RT. STATA 12 software was used to combine the hazard ratio (HR), risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), and random or fixed effect models were used for statistical analysis.Results:A total of 2483 patients from eight retrospective studies were included. The overall survival in the IC+ CCRT group was similar to that in the IC+ RT group ( HR=0.78, 95% CI: 0.58-1.04, P=0.091). However, the distant metastasis-free survival ( HR=0.56, 95% CI: 0.42-0.74, P<0.001) and progression-free survival ( HR=0.65, 95% CI: 0.54-0.77, P<0.001) were improved in the IC+ CCRT group compared with those in the IC+ RT group. In terms of adverse reactions, the acute adverse reactions in the IC+ CCRT group were increased significantly compared with those in the IC+ RT group. Conclusions:In the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma, the overall survival of two treatment modes is similar, but the distant metastasis-free survival and progression-free survival in the IC+ CCRT group are better than those in the IC+ RT group, whereas the incidence of adverse reactions is also increased. IC+ CCRT may be a recommended treatment for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients, but more research is needed.
RESUMO
Objective:To evaluate the efficacy of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) combined with chemotherapy for treating patients with T 1-2N 1M 0 nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Methods:343 patients diagnosed with T 1-2N 1M 0 NPC in Zhejiang Cancer Hospital and Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center from January 2008 to December 2016 were recruited in this study. All patients received IMRT and divided into the radiotherapy (RT) and chemoradiotherapy (CRT) groups. Patients in the CRT group were further assigned into the concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), induction chemotherapy+ CCRT (IC+ CCRT) and CCRT+ adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) groups. Locoregional failure-free survival (LRFFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), progression-free survival (PFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by Kaplan- Meier method. Multivariate prognostic analysis was performed by Cox models. Results:The median follow-up time for surviving patients (303/343) was 91(range: 49-138) months. The 5-year OS, CSS, PFS, LRFFS, and DMFS rates in the CRT group were not superior to those of the RT group (93.7%: 93.9%, 93.7%: 93.9%, 89.0%: 87.7%, 93.8%: 92.8%, 93.8%: 91.2%, all P>0.05). No significant difference was found in treatment outcomes of patients with T 1N 1 or T 2N 1 NPC between two groups (all P>0.05). In multivariable analyses, only age was an independent prognostic factor for OS, PFS, CSS and DMFS, and negative correlation was found between them. No survival benefits were achieved in the CCRT, IC+ CCRT, CCRT+ AC and RT groups, and no significant differences were found in clinical efficacy among the three combined (all P>0.05). Conclusions:IMRT alone yields comparable clinical efficacy to CRT in treating patients with T 1-2N 1M 0 NPC. However, whether CT can be eliminated in the T 1-2N 1M 0 population still needs further confirmation by prospective, randomized and controlled clinical trials.
RESUMO
Objective@#To assess the interobserver variations in delineating the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR) using different contouring methods during intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), aiming to provide references for the quality control of multi-center clinical trials.@*Methods@#The PTV and OAR of CT image of 1 NPC patient manually delineated by 10 physicians from 8 different radiation centers were defined as the " manual contour group" , and the OAR auto-contoured using the ABAS software and modified by the physicians were defined as the " auto+ manual contour group" . The maximum/minimum ratio (MMR) of the PTV and OAR volumes, and the coefficient of variation (CV) for different delineated contours were comparatively evaluated.@*Results@#Large variation was observed in the PTV and OAR volumes in the manual contour group. The MMR and CV of the PTV were 1.72-3.41 and 0.16-0.39, with the most significant variation in the PTVnd (MMR=3.41 and CV=0.39 for the PTVnd-L). The MMR and CV of the manually contoured OAR were 1.30-7.89 and 0.07-0.67. The MMR of the temporal lobe, spinal cord, temporomandibular joint, optic nerve and pituitary gland exceeded 2.0. Compared with the manual contour group, the average contouring time in the auto+ manual group was shortened by 68% and the interobserver variation of the OAR volume was reduced with an MMR of 1.04-2.44 and CV of 0.01-0.37.@*Conclusions@#Large variation may occur in the PTV and OAR contours during IMRT plans for NPC delineated by different clinicians from multiple medical centers. Auto-contouring+ manually modification can reduce the interobserver variation of OAR delineation, whereas the variation in the delineation of small organs remains above 1.5 times. The consistency of the PTV and OAR delineation and the possible impact upon clinical outcomes should be reviewed and evaluated in multi-center clinical trials.
RESUMO
Objective To assess the interobserver variations in delineating the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR) using different contouring methods during intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC),aiming to provide references for the quality control of multi-center clinical trials.Methods The PTV and OAR of CT image of 1 NPC patient manually delineated by 10 physicians from 8 different radiation centers were defined as the "manual contour group",and the OAR auto-contoured using the ABAS software and modified by the physicians were defined as the "auto+manual contour group".The maximum/minimum ratio (MMR) of the PTV and OAR volumes,and the coefficient of variation (CV) for different delineated contours were comparatively evaluated.Results Large variation was observed in the PTV and OAR volumes in the manual contour group.The MMR and CV of the PTV were 1.72-3.41 and 0.16-0.39,with the most significant variation in the PTVnd (MMR=3.41 and CV =0.39 for the PTVnd-L).The MMR and CV of the manually contoured OAR were 1.30-7.89 and 0.07-0.67.The MMR of the temporal lobe,spinal cord,temporomandibular joint,optic nerve and pituitary gland exceeded 2.0.Compared with the manual contour group,the average contouring time in the auto+ manual group was shortened by 68％ and the interobserver variation of the OAR volume was reduced with an MMR of 1.04-2.44 and CV of 0.01-0.37.Conclusions Large variation may occur in the PTV and OAR contours during IMRT plans for NPC delineated by different clinicians from multiple medical centers.Auto-contouring+ manually modification can reduce the interobserver variation of OAR delineation,whereas the variation in the delineation of small organs remains above 1.5 times.The consistency of the PTV and OAR delineation and the possible impact upon clinical outcomes should be reviewed and evaluated in multi-center clinical trials.
RESUMO
Objective To comparatively analyze the acute adverse reactions of helical tomotherapy ( HT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy ( IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma ( NPC) . Methods A total of 100 NPC patients treated with radiotherapy were selected and divided into the HT group ( n=50) and IMRT group ( n=50) . All patients were treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. The prescription dose of radiotherapy was DT 68.2-73.8 Gy/30-34F. The severity of acute adverse reactions of skin, oral mucosa, salivary glands and esophagus was evaluated with the established RTOG criteria. The differences between two groups were evaluated by paired t-test. Results The dose of organs at risk ( OARs) in the HT group was significantly lower than that in the IMRT group ( P<0.05) , whereas the dose of target area of PTVnx, PTVnd ( left) and PTVnd ( right) did not significantly differ between two groups ( all P>0.05) . In the HT group, the incidence rate of grade 0-3 acute adverse reactions in the skin, oral mucosa, salivary glands and esophagus were ( 14%, 68%, 18%, 0%) , ( 10%, 54%, 36%, 0%) , ( 0%, 74%, 26%, 0%) and ( 10%, 60%, 28%, 2%) , respectively. In the IMRT group, the corresponding results were ( 0%, 52%, 48%, 0%) , ( 0%, 58%, 42%, 0%) , ( 0%, 28%, 72%, 0%) and ( 0, 40%, 60%, 0%) , respectively. The severity of acute adverse reactions of skin, salivary glands and esophagus in the HT group was slighter than those in the IMRT group ( all P<0.05) , the acute adverse reactions in the oral mucosa were similar between two groups ( P>0.05) . In the HT group, the onset time of acute adverse reactions in the skin was later than that in the IMRT group ( P<0.05) , and the onset time of other adverse reactions was similar between two groups ( all P>0.05) . Conclusions Both HT and IMRT can meet the requirements of the dose distribution in the target area for NPC, whereas HT is superior to IMRT in terms of the protection of OARs protection, the severity and onset time of acute adverse reactions.