Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32013967›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2020

Comparing three induction chemotherapy regimens for patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma based on TNM stage and plasma Epstein-Barr virus DNA level.

Sai-Lan Liu, Xue-Song Sun, Hao-Jun Xie, Qiu-Yan Chen, Huan-Xin Lin, Hu Liang, Yu-Jing Liang, Xiao-Yun Li, Jin-Jie Yan, Chao Lin and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

18 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sai-Lan LiuCollaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Xue-Song SunCollaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Hao-Jun XieCollaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Qiu-Yan ChenCollaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Huan-Xin LinCollaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Hu LiangCollaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Yu-Jing LiangCollaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Xiao-Yun LiCollaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Jin-Jie YanCollaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Chao LinCollaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Zhen-Chong YangCollaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Shan-Shan GuoCollaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Li-Ting LiuCollaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Qing-Nan TangCollaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Yu-Yun DuCollaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Lin-Quan TangCollaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China. tanglq@sysucc.org.cn.
Ling GuoCollaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China. guoling@sysucc.org.cn.
Hai-Qiang MaiCollaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China. maihq@sysucc.org.cn.
Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CNKey Laboratory of Guangdong Province · CNSun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe compared the efficacy and toxicity of three IC regimens (TPF: taxanes, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil; TP: taxanes and cisplatin; and PF: cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil) followed by CCRT in locoregionally advanced NPC.

methodsThe retrospective study involved 1354 patients with newly diagnosed stage III-IVA NPC treated with IC and CCRT. The median follow-up time in our cohort was 50 months. Based on EBV DNA level, all the patients with stage IV were divided into low- (pre-EBV DNA < 1500 copies) and high-risk group (pre-EBV DNA ≥ 1500 copies). Progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), locoregional relapse free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis free survival (DMFS) and grade 3-4 toxicities were compared among different IC regimens. The survival rates were compared using log-rank test and a Cox proportional hazards model was used to perform multivariate analyses.

resultsA multivariate analysis revealed TPF to be more effective than TP. Among stage III patients, no significant difference in clinical outcome between the different IC regimens was showed, while TPF was associated with significantly better survival conditions in the stage IV patients. A further subgroup analysis revealed that only patients with pre-EBV DNA ≥ 1500 copies could benefit from the application of TPF among stage IV NPC. In terms of acute toxicities, PF was associated with fewer grade 3/4 acute toxicities.

conclusionsIn low-risk NPC patients, PF-based IC showed similar efficacy as TPF and TP but was associated with fewer grade 3/4 acute toxicities. In high-risk patients, however, the TPF regimen was superior to PF and TP, although grade 3/4 toxicities were more common with the TPF regimen.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsChildCisplatinDisease-Free SurvivalDNA, ViralEpstein-Barr Virus InfectionsFemaleFluorouracilHerpesvirus 4, HumanHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedCisplatinDNA, ViralFluorouracilTaxoidsInduction chemotherapyNasopharyngeal carcinomaPlasma Epstein–Barr virusPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID32013967
PMCPMC6998839
OpenAlexW3011355084

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.