Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35647403›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

The Prognostic Role of Plasma Epstein-Barr Virus DNA Levels in the Middle of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy to Guide Cisplatin Dose Recommendation in Concurrent Chemoradiation Therapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Large Cohort Study.

Zhen-Chong Yang, Chao-Chao Du, Li-Ting Liu, Yu-Jing Liang, Lin-Quan Tang, Qiu-Yan Chen, Hai-Qiang Mai, Shan-Shan Guo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 49% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhen-Chong YangSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, China; and Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Chao-Chao DuSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, China; and Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Li-Ting LiuSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, China; and Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Yu-Jing LiangSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, China; and Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Lin-Quan TangSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, China; and Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Qiu-Yan ChenSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, China; and Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Hai-Qiang MaiSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, China; and Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Shan-Shan GuoSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, China; and Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Sun Yat-sen University · CNSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Our purpose was to investigate the prognostic role of plasma Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA levels in the middle of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Methods and Materials: In total, 1881 patients with stage III-IVa tumors were included. The overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the differences were compared using the log-rank test. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to analyze the diagnostic value of EBV DNA levels for tumor progression or death. Multivariate analyses using the Cox model were used to evaluate potential prognostic factors. Results: The positive predict value and negative predict value of plasma EBV DNA > 0 copies/mL in the middle of IMRT in predicting nasopharyngeal carcinoma progression was 37.4% and 85.5%, respectively. In patients with plasma EBV DNA level = 0 copies/mL, no significant differences in OS were observed between patients treated with 200 mg/m² cisplatin and those treated with >200 mg/m² cisplatin (5-year OS, 94.9% vs 94.4%; PFS, 81.5% vs 87.6%). However, those treated with >200 mg/m² cisplatin had higher PFS. In patients with plasma EBV DNA level > 0 copies/mL, patients treated with >200 mg/m² cisplatin displayed a favorable 5-year OS (84.6% vs 73.9%) and PFS (72.3% vs 54.8%) compared with those treated with 200 mg/m² cisplatin. Additionally, higher incidences of grade 3 and 4 adverse events were recorded in patients treated with >200 mg/m² cisplatin than in those treated with 200 mg/m² cisplatin. Conclusions: Plasma EBV DNA > 0 copies/mL in the middle of IMRT suggests that higher doses of chemotherapy should be used. For concurrent chemoradiation therapy, >200 mg/m² cisplatin is recommended for patients with plasma EBV DNA level > 0 copies/mL in the middle of IMRT but not for patients with plasma EBV DNA level = 0 copies/mL considering the similar OS rates.

Identifiers

PMID35647403
PMCPMC9133362
OpenAlexW4210444777

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.