ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2022
Does three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to concurrent chemoradiotherapy provide benefits for all childhood patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma?
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Concurrent chemoradiotherapy with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy in pediatric patients with stage III-IVa nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a real-world propensity score-matched cohort study.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdding neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) to concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the main strategy in treatment of children and adolescents with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (CA-LANPC). Yet, an optimal number of NAC cycles remains unknown. We aimed to optimize the NAC cycle and potentially contribute to clinical decision making for the individual treatment of CA-LANPC. PATIENTS AND
methodsUtilizing an NPC-specific database through an acknowledged big-data information system at our center, we identified 143 CA-LANPC treated with NAC followed by CCRT between September 2007 through April 2018. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was performed to categorize the patients and predict disease-free survival (DFS). The clinical benefits of NAC cycles (two cycles vs three cycles) were assessed in each risk group.
resultsIndependent factors derived from multivariable analysis to predict DFS were T stage (T1-3 vs T4) and plasma Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA (< 4000 vs ≥ 4000 copies/mL) for risk stratification. Consequently, 87 (61%) participants were classified as low-risk group (T1-3 with low or high EBV DNA, and T4 with low EBV DNA) and the other 56 patients (39%) were classified as a high-risk group (T4 with high EBV DNA) through RPA, and corresponding 5-year DFS rates of 91.9% and 71.2%, respectively (p = 0.001). Among the high-risk group, patients receiving three cycles of NAC had statistically significant improvement in 5-year DFS over those who received two cycles of NAC (86.7% vs 59.1%; p = 0.020), while the survival benefit of three cycles NAC for low-risk groups were not observed (94.7% vs 89.7%; p = 0.652).
conclusionsWe found three cycles of NAC with CCRT was a positive prognostic indicator for improved DFS for the high-risk group among CA-LANPC. However, whether low-risk patients could benefit from three cycles NAC needs further study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.