ReviewCancers2024
Optimizing Hearing Outcomes in Nasopharyngeal Cancer Survivors in the Era of Modern Radiotherapy and Systemic Therapy.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparing the effectiveness of various cumulative doses of cisplatin in treating locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer during the period of intensity-modulated radiotherapy: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Hearing impairment following radiotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (Review).Molecular and clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Comment on: Impact of Cochlear Radiotherapy Dose on Hearing Loss in Carcinoma Oropharynx Treated by Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Using Simultaneous Integrated Boost Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (SIB -VMAT).Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) improves disease control and reduces treatment-related toxicity in patients with localized nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). However, due to the proximity of the auditory apparatus to the treatment volume and the frequent incorporation of cisplatin-based chemotherapy, treatment-related sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) remains a common debilitating complication among NPC survivors. The reported crude incidence of SNHL following IMRT for NPC varies widely at 1-46% due to differences in auditory assessment methods and thresholds, follow-up durations, chemotherapy usage, and patient compositions. International guidelines and radiation dosimetric studies have recommended constraining the cochlear mean dose to less than 44-50 Gy, but the risk of SNHL remains high despite adherence to these constraints. Potential strategies to improve hearing outcomes in NPC survivors include cautious de-escalation of radiotherapy dose and volume, individualization of cochlear constraints, optimization of radiotherapy planning techniques, and the use of substitutes or alternative schedules for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors to chemoradiotherapy did not impact ototoxicity. Prospective studies that employ both objective and patient-reported auditory outcomes are warranted to test the long-term benefits of various approaches. This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the incidence and radiation dose-toxicity relationship of SNHL in NPC survivors and to summarize potential strategies to optimize hearing outcomes in relation to nuances in radiotherapy planning and the selection of systemic therapy.
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.