Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27008701›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2016

Survival analysis of patients with advanced-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma according to the Epstein-Barr virus status.

Hao Peng, Lei Chen, Yuan Zhang, Rui Guo, Wen-Fei Li, Yan-Ping Mao, Ling-Long Tan, Ying Sun, Fan Zhang, Li-Zhi Liu and 3 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncotarget, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hao PengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, People's Republic of China.
Lei ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, People's Republic of China.
Yuan ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, People's Republic of China.
Rui GuoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, People's Republic of China.
Wen-Fei LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, People's Republic of China.
Yan-Ping MaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, People's Republic of China.
Ling-Long TanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, People's Republic of China.
Ying SunDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, People's Republic of China.
Fan ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, People's Republic of China.
Li-Zhi LiuImaging Diagnosis and Interventional Center, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, People's Republic of China.
Li TianImaging Diagnosis and Interventional Center, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, People's Republic of China.
Ai-Hua LinDepartment of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, People's Republic of China.
Jun MaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, People's Republic of China.
Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CNSun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe main aim of this study is to analyze the prognostic differences in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients who are positive and negative for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV).

resultsOf the 1106 patients, 248 (22.4%) had undetectable pre-treatment plasma EBV DNA levels. The total distant metastasis rate for EBV-negative group vs. EBV-positive group were 3.6% (9/248) vs. 15.0% (128/858) (P < 0.001). The estimated 4-year disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and locoregional relapse-free survival (LRRFS) for EBV-negative group vs. EBV-positive group were 88.9% vs. 76.9% (P < 0.001), 93.6% vs. 85.9% (P = 0.001), 96.7% vs. 84.8% (P < 0.001) and 94.1% vs. 90.0% (P = 0.1), respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that the EBV status was an independent prognostic factor for DFS (HR, 1.813; 95% CI, 1.219-2.695; P = 0.003), OS (HR, 1.828; 95% CI, 1.075-3.107; P = 0.026) and DMFS (HR, 3.678; 95% CI, 1.859-7.277; P <0.001), and overall stage still remained the most important prognostic factor in patients with stage III-IVB NPC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data on 1106 patients with non-metastatic, histologically proven advanced-stage (III-IVB) NPC who underwent intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) were retrospectively reviewed. Patient survival between different EBV status groups were compared.

conclusionsEBV status was an independent prognostic factor for patients with stage III-IVB NPC. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) should be better treatment regimen for EBV-positive patients since distant metastasis was the main failure pattern, and CCRT may be enough for EBV-negative patients.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedCarcinomaChemoradiotherapyEpstein-Barr Virus InfectionsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHerpesvirus 4, HumanHumansMaleMiddle AgedNasopharyngeal CarcinomaNasopharyngeal NeoplasmsNeoadjuvant TherapyPrognosisadvanced stageEpstein-Barr virusintensity-modulated radiation therapynasopharyngeal carcinomaprognosis

Identifiers

PMID27008701
PMCPMC5029695
OpenAlexW2340406522

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.