Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39483137›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2024

Individualised cumulative cisplatin dose for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients based on induction chemotherapy response and tumour volume.

Jie-Yi Lin, Zi-Jian Lu, Su-Chen Li, Dong-Hua Luo, Ting Liu, Wan-Ru Zhang, Zhen-Chong Yang, Hao-Yuan Mo, Hai-Qiang Mai, Sai-Lan Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in medical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

10 authors.

Jie-Yi LinDepartment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun 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, P.R. China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-7410-2308
Zi-Jian LuDepartment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun 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, P.R. China.
Su-Chen LiDepartment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun 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, P.R. China.
Dong-Hua LuoDepartment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun 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, P.R. China.
Ting LiuBreast Disease Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, P.R. China.
Wan-Ru ZhangDepartment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun 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, P.R. China.
Zhen-Chong YangDepartment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun 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, P.R. China.
Hao-Yuan MoDepartment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun 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, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, P.R. China.
Hai-Qiang MaiDepartment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun 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, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, P.R. China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0214-203X
Sai-Lan LiuDepartment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun 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, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, P.R. China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4965-9526

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objectives: To evaluate the prognostic value of an integrated model consisting of tumour response to induction chemotherapy (IC) and gross tumour volume (GTV) after IC in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and elucidate optimal cumulative cisplatin dose (CCD) in concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for different subgroups. Design and methods: This retrospective study enrolled 896 patients with NPC diagnosed from 2010 to 2017 receiving IC plus radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). Cut-off points for GTV were combined with IC response to develop an integrated model. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for potential confounders. Survival outcomes and acute toxicity were compared between the different CCD groups. Results: Unsatisfactory IC response and large GTV after IC were correlated with poor survival outcomes; the AUC increased to 0.668 when these factors were incorporated. The integrated model classified patients into three groups. After PSM, radiotherapy alone and CCRT demonstrated similar efficacy in the low-risk group (complete response (CR)/partial response (PR) and GTV <68 cm Conclusion: The integrated model incorporating IC response and GTV after IC demonstrates satisfactory value in risk stratification and the potential to guide individualised decision-making in CCD selection. Balancing toxicity and efficacy, RT alone seems to be the optimal treatment for patients in low-risk groups and 200 mg/m

Indexed as

concurrent chemoradiotherapycumulative cisplatin dosegross tumour volumeinduction chemotherapynasopharyngeal carcinomatumour response

Identifiers

PMID39483137
PMCPMC11526242

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.