Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28340596›Full record

ArticleChinese journal of cancer2017

Clinical treatment considerations in the intensity-modulated radiotherapy era for patients with N0-category nasopharyngeal carcinoma and enlarged neck lymph nodes.

Hao Peng, Lei Chen, Rui Guo, Yuan Zhang, Wen-Fei Li, Yan-Ping Mao, Ying Sun, Fan Zhang, Li-Zhi Liu, Li Tian and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chinese journal of cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Immunohistochemical Expression and Clinical Significance of WWP1 Protein in Nasopharyngeal Cancer.The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. New frontiers in proton therapy: applications in cancers.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2019
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Significant value ofChinese journal of cancer · 2017
    Article
  9. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hao PengState 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.
Rui GuoState 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.
Yuan ZhangState 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.
Wen-Fei 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.
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.
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.
Fan ZhangState 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 TianState 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.
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. majun2@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Sun Yat-sen University · CNSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) shows a high proportion of lymph node metastasis, and treatment guidelines have been developed for positive nodes. However, no irradiation guidelines have been proposed for patients with enlarged neck lymph nodes (ENLNs) that do not meet the radiological criteria of 10 mm in diameter for positive lymph nodes. This study aimed to determine the prognostic value and radiation dose for ENLNs in N0-category NPC patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).

methodsWe reviewed the medical data of 251 patients with non-metastatic, N0-category NPC treated with IMRT. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to calculate the cut-off value of the ENLN diameter for the prediction of disease failure. The biological equivalent dose (BED) for ENLNs was calculated. Patient survival was compared between the small and large ENLN groups. Independent prognostic factors were identified using the Cox proportional hazards model.

resultsThe estimated 4-year regional relapse-free survival rate was higher in patients with ENLNs ≥5.5 mm than in those with ENLNs <5.5 mm (100% vs. 98.8%, P = 0.049), whereas disease-free, overall, and distant metastasis-free survival rates were similar between the two groups. After adjusting for various factors, ENLN diameter was not identified as an independent prognostic factor (P > 0.05 for all survival rates). In the subgroup analysis, patients receiving BED ≥72 Gy had a similar prognosis as patients receiving BED <72 Gy in both the small and large ENLN groups. The multivariate analysis also confirmed that BED ≥72 Gy was not associated with significantly improved prognosis in patients with N0-category NPC.

conclusionsA BED of 72 Gy to ENLNs is considerably sufficient to provide a clinical benefit to patients with N0-category NPC. Prospective studies are warranted to validate the findings in the present study.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCarcinomaFemaleHumansLymph NodesMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNasopharyngeal CarcinomaNasopharyngeal NeoplasmsNeckPrognosisRadiation DosageTomography, X-Ray ComputedYoung AdultBiological equivalent doseEnlarged neck lymph nodeIntensity-modulated radiotherapyN0-categoryNasopharyngeal carcinomaPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID28340596
PMCPMC5364609
OpenAlexW2601400107

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.