ArticleBMC cancer2022
Optimizing the treatment mode for de novo metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma with bone-only metastasis.
Article in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Risk-adapted locoregional radiotherapy strategies based on a prognostic nomogram for de novo metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy without locoregional radiotherapy inFrontiers in immunology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo standard radiotherapy regimens have been established for the treatment of de novo metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (mNPC) with bone-only metastasis. The current study aimed to investigate the efficacy of palliative chemotherapy (PCT) plus locoregional radiotherapy (LRRT) with or without local radiotherapy (RT) for metastatic bone lesions in mNPC.
methodsWe retrospectively analysed 131 de novo patients with mNPC who had bone-only metastasis and received at least two cycles of PCT with LRRT. The difference in survival was evaluated by the log-rank test. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed by Cox regression.
resultsThe median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 33.0 months and 24.0 months, respectively. Patients with five or fewer metastatic bone lesions had significantly longer OS (72.0 months vs. 23.0 months, Hazard ratios (HR) = 0.45, p < 0.001) and PFS (48.0 months vs. 15.0 months, HR = 0.52, p = 0.004) than those who had more than five metastatic bone lesions. Patients who received four or more cycles of chemotherapy were associated with significantly longer OS (unreached vs. 19.0 months, HR = 0.27, p < 0.001) and PFS (66 months vs. 16.0 months, HR = 0.32, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis confirmed that fewer bone metastases (≤ 5) and more chemotherapy cycles (≥ 4) were favourable prognostic factors for OS. Subgroup analysis revealed that RT to metastatic bone lesions tended to prolong OS (83.0 months vs. 45.0 months) and PFS (60 months vs. 36.5 months) in patients with five or fewer metastatic bone lesions than in those without RT to metastatic bone lesions (p > 0.05). Patients who received a RT dose > 30 Gy had neither better OS (63.5 months vs. 32.0 months, p = 0.299) nor PFS (48.0 months vs. 28.0 months, p = 0.615) than those who received a RT dose ≤30 Gy.
conclusionsLocal RT to bone metastases may not significantly improve survival in patients with de novo mNPC with bone-only metastasis who have already received PCT plus LRRT. Receiving four or more cycles of chemotherapy can significantly prolong survival and is a favourable independent protective factor.
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.