Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35454830›Full record

ArticleCancers2022

An Exploratory Study of Refining TNM-8 M1 Categories and Prognostic Subgroups Using Plasma EBV DNA for Previously Untreated De Novo Metastatic Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.

Sik-Kwan Chan, Brian O'Sullivan, Shao Hui Huang, Tin-Ching Chau, Ka-On Lam, Sum-Yin Chan, Chi-Chung Tong, Varut Vardhanabhuti, Dora Lai-Wan Kwong, Chor-Yi Ng and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

15 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Sik-Kwan ChanDepartment of Clinical Oncology, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0821-6397
Brian O'SullivanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5G 2C1, Canada.
Shao Hui HuangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5G 2C1, Canada.
Tin-Ching ChauDepartment of Clinical Oncology, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Ka-On LamDepartment of Clinical Oncology, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Sum-Yin ChanDepartment of Clinical Oncology, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Chi-Chung TongDepartment of Clinical Oncology, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Varut VardhanabhutiDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6677-3194
Dora Lai-Wan KwongDepartment of Clinical Oncology, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Chor-Yi NgDepartment of Clinical Oncology, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
To-Wai LeungDepartment of Clinical Oncology, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Mai-Yee LukDepartment of Clinical Oncology, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Anne Wing-Mui LeeDepartment of Clinical Oncology, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2972-0231
Horace Cheuk-Wai ChoiSchool of Public Health, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Victor Ho-Fun LeeDepartment of Clinical Oncology, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6283-978X
University of Hong Kong · HKUniversity of Hong Kong - Shenzhen Hospital · CNUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

SK Yee Medical Foundation 213208
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: NPC patients with de novo distant metastasis appears to be a heterogeneous group who demonstrate a wide range of survival, as suggested by growing evidence. Nevertheless, the current 8th edition of TNM staging (TNM-8) grouping all these patients into the M1 category is not able to identify their survival differences. We sought to identify any anatomic and non-anatomic subgroups in this study. (2) Methods: Sixty-nine patients with treatment-naive de novo M1 NPC (training cohort) were prospectively recruited from 2007 to 2018. We performed univariable and multivariable analyses (UVA and MVA) to explore anatomic distant metastasis factors, which were significantly prognostic of overall survival (OS). Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) with the incorporation of significant factors from MVA was then performed to derive a new set of RPA stage groups with OS segregation (Set 1 Anatomic-RPA stage groups); another run of MVA was performed with the addition of pre-treatment plasma EBV DNA. A second-round RPA with significant prognostic factors of OS identified in this round of MVA was performed again to derive another set of stage groups (Set 2 Prognostic-RPA stage groups). Both sets were then validated externally with an independent validation cohort of 67 patients with distant relapses of their initially non-metastatic NPC (rM1) after radical treatment. The performance of models in survival segregation was evaluated by the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and concordance index (C-index) under 1000 bootstrapping samples for the validation cohort; (3) Results: The 3-year OS and median follow-up in the training cohort were 36.0% and 17.8 months, respectively. Co-existence of liver-bone metastases was the only significant prognostic factor of OS in the first round UVA and MVA. Set 1 RPA based on anatomic factors that subdivide the M1 category into two groups: M1a (absence of co-existing liver-bone metastases; median OS 28.1 months) and M1b (co-existing liver-bone metastases; median OS 19.2 months, p = 0.023). When pre-treatment plasma EBV DNA was also added, it became the only significant prognostic factor in UVA (p = 0.001) and MVA (p = 0.015), while co-existing liver-bone metastases was only significant in UVA. Set 2 RPA with the incorporation of pre-treatment plasma EBV DNA yielded good segregation (M1a: EBV DNA ≤ 2500 copies/mL and M1b: EBV DNA > 2500 copies/mL; median OS 44.2 and 19.7 months, respectively, p < 0.001). Set 2 Prognostic-RPA groups (AIC: 228.1 [95% CI: 194.8−251.8] is superior to Set 1 Anatomic-RPA groups (AIC: 278.5 [254.6−301.2]) in the OS prediction (p < 0.001). Set 2 RPA groups (C-index 0.59 [95% CI: 0.54−0.67]) also performed better prediction agreement in the validation cohort (vs. Set 1: C-index 0.47 [95% CI: 0.41−0.53]) (p < 0.001); (4) Conclusions: Our Anatomic-RPA stage groups yielded good segregation for de novo M1 NPC, and prognostication was further improved by incorporating plasma EBV DNA. These new RPA stage groups for M1 NPC can be applied to countries/regions regardless of whether reliable and sensitive plasma EBV DNA assays are available or not.

Indexed as

M1 categoriesmetastaticnasopharyngeal carcinomaplasma EBV DNArecursive partitioning analysisTNM

Identifiers

PMID35454830
PMCPMC9031957
OpenAlexW4223508141

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.