ArticleCancer medicine2023
Risk stratification and beneficiary selection among elderly nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients from concurrent chemoradiotherapy combined with induction chemotherapy.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observational
- Risk stratification and beneficiary selection among elderly nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients from concurrent chemoradiotherapy combined with induction chemotherapy.Cancer medicine · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the risk stratification among elderly Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients (≥60 years old) and select the beneficiaries from concurrent chemotherapy (CCRT) combined with induction chemotherapy (IC). MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 909 elderly non-metastatic NPC patients treated with cisplatin-based CCRT or IC + CCRT between January 2007 and December 2016 were included. Prognostic nomograms were generated according to clinical characteristics and serum biomarkers. The survival outcomes of patients treated with CCRT versus IC + CCRT were compared in three well-matched risk groups (high, medium, and low risk) after PSM analysis. Benefit of IC in people older or younger than 70 years and effect of different IC regimens and cycles on prognosis were analyzed.
resultsNomograms of overall survival (OS) (C-index: 0.64, 95% CI, 0.61-0.89) and disease special survival (DSS) (C-index: 0.65, 95% CI, 0.62-0.71) showed good prognostic accuracy. The nomogram for DSS included variables of age, gender, ACE, EBV DNA, N stage, and T stage. OS included variables of age, smoking history, ACE, ALB, EBV DNA, N stage, and T stage. The corresponding 5-year OS rates of high, medium and low risk groups were 87.4%, 82.2%, and 60.9%, respectively (p < 0.001), while the 5-year DSS rates were 92.2%, 84.3%, and 69.0%, respectively (p < 0.001). In the high risk group, IC + CCRT led to significantly higher 5-year OS and DSS rate compared with CCRT (5-year OS rate, 73.5% versus 51.8%, p = 0.006; 5-year DSS rate, 81.4% versus 61.3%, p = 0.002). While in the medium and low risk groups, OS and DSS were not significantly different (OS: p = 0.259, 0.186; DSS: p = 0.29, 0.094). Subgroup analysis showed in the high risk group, only people younger than 70 years old could benefit from IC. TPF and IC cycles of three could lead to the best survival results.
conclusionCompared with CCRT, OS, and DSS among high risk elderly patients were significantly improved by the addition of IC in patients younger than 70 years old. TPF and three IC cycles were recommended.
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.