Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31513364›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2019

Combining pretreatment plasma Epstein-Barr virus DNA level and cervical node necrosis improves prognostic stratification in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A cohort study.

Yu-Yun Du, Dong-Hua Luo, Xue-Song Sun, Lin-Quan Tang, Hai-Qiang Mai, Qiu-Yan Chen, Jing-Hua Zhong, Dong-Mei Mai, Wan-Ru Zhang, Wen-Hui Chen and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Yu-Yun DuSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Dong-Hua LuoSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Xue-Song SunSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Lin-Quan TangSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.ORCID 0000-0002-9613-7305
Hai-Qiang MaiSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.ORCID 0000-0003-0214-203X
Qiu-Yan ChenSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Jing-Hua ZhongDepartment of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, P. R. China.
Dong-Mei MaiSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Wan-Ru ZhangSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Wen-Hui ChenSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Hao-Yuan MoSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.ORCID 0000-0003-4007-7718
Sun Yat-sen University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University · CN

Funding

Cultivation Foundation 16ykpy28Fundamental Research FundsHealth & Medical Collaborative Innovation Project of Guangzhou City 201400000001National Key R&D Program of China 2017YFC0908500National Key R&D Program of China 2017YFC1309003National Natural Science Foundation of China 81425018National Natural Science Foundation of China 81602371National Natural Science Foundation of China 81672868National Science & Technology Pillar Program during the Twelfth Five-year Plan Period 2014BAI09B10Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province 2017A030312003Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province 2018A0303131004Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province for Distinguished Young Scholar 2018B030306001Pearl River S&T Nova Program of Guangzhou 201806010135PhD Start-up Fund of Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China 2016A030310221Sci-Tech Project Foundation of Guangdong Province 2014A020212103Sci-Tech Project Foundation of Guangzhou City 201707020039Sun Yat-sen University Clinical Research 5010 Program, the Special Support Plan of Guangdong Province 2014TX01R145
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of combining pretreatment Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA level and cervical node necrosis (CNN) for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) receiving intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). A total of 607 incident nonmetastatic NPC patients treated with IMRT ± chemotherapy were reviewed. Patients were divided into four groups based on EBV DNA level and CNN status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank test were applied to compare survival outcomes and the Cox proportional model was used to identify independent prognostic factors. Pretreatment EBV DNA level and CNN status were independent prognostic factors. Patients in the low-level EBV DNA group or non-CNN group had significantly better 5-year PFS. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that CNN was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.927, 95% CI: 1.129-3.290, P = .016), PFS (HR = 1.492, 95% CI: 1.005-2.214, P = .047), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) (HR = 1.661, 95% CI: 1.044-2.644, P = .032), but not locoregional relapse-free survival. EBV DNA levels correlated significantly with CNN with a correlation coefficient of .324 (P < .001). Compared with low-level EBV DNA and non-CNN grouping, high-level EBV DNA and CNN grouping had poor PFS. The combined classification was an independent prognostic factor for OS (P < .001), PFS (P = .001), and DMFS (P = .018). Pretreatment plasma EBV DNA level and CNN status both closely correlated with prognosis of NPC patients in the IMRT era. Combined EBV DNA level and CNN status improves risk stratification and prognostic value.

Indexed as

Lymphatic MetastasisNasopharyngeal CarcinomaNasopharyngeal NeoplasmsAdolescentAdultAgedAntineoplastic AgentsChemoradiotherapyChemotherapy, AdjuvantCisplatinCohort StudiesDNA, ViralFemaleHerpesvirus 4, HumanHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateAntineoplastic AgentsCisplatinDNA, Viralcervical node necrosiscohortEBVnasopharyngeal carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID31513364
PMCPMC6853822
OpenAlexW2972709063

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.