Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28031050›Full record

ArticleChinese journal of cancer2016

Prognostic factors and failure patterns in non-metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma after intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

Yan-Ping Mao, Ling-Long Tang, Lei Chen, Ying Sun, Zhen-Yu Qi, Guan-Qun Zhou, Li-Zhi Liu, Li Li, Ai-Hua Lin, Jun Ma

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chinese journal of cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 106 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
106citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

106 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 191 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Return to work experience on structural constraints and gendered differences among nasopharyngeal carcinoma survivors: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

46 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yan-Ping MaoState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Ling-Long TangState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Lei ChenState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Ying SunState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Zhen-Yu QiState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Guan-Qun ZhouState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Li-Zhi LiuState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Li LiState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Ai-Hua LinDepartment of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Jun MaState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, P. R. China. majun@sysucc.org.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-0037-6257
Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prognostic values of staging parameters require continual re-assessment amid changes in diagnostic and therapeutic methods. This study aimed to identify the prognostic factors and failure patterns of non-metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) in the intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) era.

methodsWe reviewed the data from 749 patients with newly diagnosed, biopsy-proven, non-metastatic NPC in our cancer center (South China, an NPC endemic area) between January 2003 and December 2007. All patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before receiving IMRT. The actuarial survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and survival curves were compared using the log-rank test. Multivariate analyses with the Cox proportional hazards model were used to test for the independent prognostic factors by backward eliminating insignificant explanatory variables.

resultsThe 5-year occurrence rates of local failure, regional failure, locoregional failure, and distant failure were 5.4, 3.0, 7.4, and 17.4%, respectively. The 5-year survival rates were as follows: local relapse-free survival, 94.6%; nodal relapse-free survival, 97.0%; distant metastasis-free survival, 82.6%; disease-free survival, 75.1%; and overall survival, 82.0%. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that orbit involvement was the only significant prognostic factor for local failure (P = 0.011). Parapharyngeal tumor extension, retropharyngeal lymph node involvement, and the laterality, longest diameter, and Ho's location of the cervical lymph nodes were significant prognostic factors for both distant failure and disease failure (all P < 0.05). Intracranial extension had significant prognostic value for distant failure (P = 0.040).

conclusionsThe key failure pattern for NPC was distant metastasis in the IMRT era. With changes in diagnostic and therapeutic technologies as well as treatment modalities, the significant prognostic parameters for local control have also been altered substantially.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNasopharyngeal NeoplasmsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateTreatment FailureYoung AdultFailure patternIntensity-modulated radiotherapyNasopharyngeal carcinomaPrognosisTumor staging

Identifiers

PMID28031050
PMCPMC5192583
OpenAlexW2567143849

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.