Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33598731›Full record

ReviewEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2021

Which treatment is better than concurrent chemoradiotherapy about survival for stage III or IV locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma? An updated Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Lucheng Fang, Licai Shi, Wen Wang, Tingting Hu, Xingwang Rao

Abstract readReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lucheng FangFirst Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Licai ShiFirst Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Wen WangFirst Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Tingting HuFirst Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Xingwang RaoFirst Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China. 11124682@cumt.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3859-0563
Wenzhou Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo speculate whether induction chemotherapy (IC) or adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) could obtain better survival benefit for stage III or IV locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC).

methodsOnly randomized controlled trials were incorporated. There were five treatments (CCRT, IC + CCRT, CCRT + AC, IC + RT and RT alone) recruited for analysis. Overall survival (OS), locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) with a hazard ratio (HR) were selected as endpoints. First of all, we performed a traditional meta-analysis and subsequently conducted network meta-analysis based on the Bayesian method.

resultsTotally, 15 studies, including 6182 patients, were incorporated for analysis. There was a statistically significant benefits in favor of IC + CCRT, compared with CCRT alone, for OS [HR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.63-0.89], LRFS [HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.56-0.86], and DMFS [HR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.54-0.78]. What's more, we did not observed any significant differences between CCRT + AC and CCRT alone for all the endpoints. Unsurprisingly, it was RT alone that demonstrate the poorest survival benefit. Strange to say, survival benefit, between IC + CCRT and IC + RT, or between IC + CCRT and CCRT + AC, did not significantly exist.

conclusionInduction chemotherapy IC + CCRT provided better survival benefit than CCRT alone. CCRT + AC failed to increase survival benefit significantly compared to CCRT alone. More research about comparing IC + CCRT with IC + RT or CCRT + AC are needed.

Indexed as

Nasopharyngeal NeoplasmsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBayes TheoremChemoradiotherapyHumansInduction ChemotherapyNasopharyngeal CarcinomaRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdjuvant chemotherapyConcurrent chemoradiotherapyInduction chemotherapyNasopharyngeal carcinomaNetwork meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID33598731
OpenAlexW3130881038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.