Determination of optimum number of cycles of induction chemotherapy for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a single-center retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Induction chemotherapy (IC) followed by concurrent chemo-radiotherapy (CCRT) is the current standard of care for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC) patients. However, there is still no consensus on the optimum number of IC cycles. In this study, we aimed to assess the efficacy and toxicities of two or more cycles of IC for LA-NPC patients. METHODS: Data of LA-NPC patients consecutively treated with IC followed by concurrent chemo-radiotherapy (CCRT) in our institute from 2017 to 2022 were retrospectively retrieved and analyzed. Survival outcomes of patients who received two IC cycles were compared with those who received more than two IC cycles. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis were then performed to determine factors that could be independent predictors of survival. Chi-square test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare treatment associated acute toxicities between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 125 patients were recruited in this study. There were 89 patients who received 2 cycles (IC = 2) of IC and 36 received more than 2 cycles (IC > 2) of IC. The median follow-up time was 26 months [IQR 16-38]. The 3-year overall survival rate was not statistically significant between the two groups (95.50% vs. 86.11%, P = 0.501). Similarly, loco-regional recurrence free survival and progression free survival were not significant (97.75% vs. 97.22%, P = 0.694; and 88.76% vs. 83.33%, P = 0.129), but distant metastasis free survival was significant (88.76% vs. 86.11%, P = 0.049). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that IC regimen was an independent prognostic factor. CONCLUSIONS: Two cycles of IC is effective and more than two does not add any additional benefit to the survival outcomes of LA-NPC patients.

Adapting acute malnutrition treatment protocols in emergency contexts: a qualitative study of national decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Each year, an estimated 17 million children suffer from severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and 33 million from moderate acute malnutrition (MAM), with many of the most severe cases found in extremely food insecure contexts or conflict situations. Current global outpatient treatment protocols for uncomplicated SAM and MAM, adapted by most countries for use at national level, call for SAM and MAM to be managed separately, however global-level stakeholders have recently begun evaluating simplified and/or combined protocols managing acute malnutrition. METHODS: This study analyzes national policy discussions and decision-making around outpatient acute malnutrition treatment for uncomplicated cases in emergency situations in Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, and South Sudan. Data collection (March-July 2018) included semi-structured in-depth interviews with 50 respondents (N = 11-15 per country) from government, funding agencies, and implementing partners, as well as 11 global and regional stakeholders. We also conducted a document analysis (N = 10-15 per country and at global level) to situate debates and evaluate current policy. Data were analyzed iteratively using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: We find that while combined/simplified protocols for outpatient management of uncomplicated cases of acute malnutrition are being used in emergency situations in all four countries, there is widespread confusion about protocol terminology and content, stemming from a lack of coherence at the global level. As a result, national-level stakeholders express diverse, if overlapping, rationales for modifying current protocols, which vary given the intensity and scope of the emergency. Without specific global-level guidance, combined/simplified protocols are often used on an ad hoc basis, although the processes for triggering them were at least nominally controlled at the national level. Decisions about when and where to enact "exceptional" modifications to country protocols were often based on inconsistent determinations of what constitutes an "emergency." Respondents said more evidence is needed on both clinical and operational aspects of these protocols, and they awaited clear guidance from global norm-setting agencies. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, global-level stakeholders should urgently improve coordination and communication around existing protocols. Standardized guidance based on the available evidence is required to clarify best practices for combined management of SAM and MAM, particularly in emergency contexts (which should be defined) and in situations of limited resources. Given the complexity of governance arrangements in conflict situations, both guidance and updates on research must be disseminated in a rational, systematic, and digestible way to the multiplicity of field actors.

Combined protocol for severe and moderate acute malnutrition in emergencies: Stakeholders perspectives in four countries.

Each year, acute malnutrition affects an estimated 52 million children under 5 years of age. Current global treatment protocols divide treatment of severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and moderate acute malnutrition (MAM) despite malnutrition being a spectrum disease. A proposed Combined Protocol provides for (a) treatment of MAM and SAM at the same location; (b) diagnosis using middle-upper-arm circumference (MUAC) and oedema only; (c) treatment using a single product, ready-to-use-therapeutic food (RUTF), and (d) a simplified dosage schedule for RUTF. This study examines stakeholders' knowledge of and opinions on the Combined Protocol in Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, and South Sudan. Data collection included a document review followed by in-depth interviews with 50 respondents from government, implementing partners, and multilateral agencies, plus 11 global and regional stakeholders. Data were analysed iteratively using thematic content analysis. We find that acute malnutrition protocols in these countries have not been substantially modified to include components of the Combined Protocol, although aspects were accepted for use in emergencies. Respondents generally agreed that MAM and SAM treatment should be provided in the same location, however they said MUAC and oedema-only diagnosis, although more field-ready than other diagnostic measures, did not necessarily catch all malnourished children and may not be appropriate for "tall and slim" morphologies. Similarly, using only RUTF presented inherent logistical advantages, but respondents worried about pipeline issues. Respondents did not express strong opinions about simplified dosage schedules. Stakeholders interviewed indicated more evidence is needed on the operational implications and effectiveness of the Combined Protocol in different contexts.