ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Exploration of the value of concurrent chemotherapy for T2N1 nasopharyngeal carcinoma under intensity modulated radiotherapy mode.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Problem: In the era of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), the status of concurrent chemoradiotherapy(CCRT) for stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma(NPC), particularly for patients in T2N1 subtype, remains controversial nowadays. Aim: This study exclusively aims to explore the value of concurrent chemotherapy in the treatment of T2N1 NPC under IMRT mode. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 218 cases of T2N1 NPC patients treated at our hospital from January 2015 to December 2020, comprising 75 cases treated with IMRT and 143 cases treated with CCRT. The study compared therapeutic outcomes and side effects between the two groups. Results: The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), locoregional relapse-free survival (LRRFS) and,distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) estimated by the K-M method for the IMRT vs. CCRT groups were 86.1% vs. 85.1%,89.3% vs. 87.9%, 95.9% vs. 94.9%,and 90.2% vs. 89.1%, respectively, with no statistically significant differences (Log-rank Conclusions: This study provides a reference for clinical treatment decisions in T2N1 NPC. For the entire population of T2N1 NPC, the therapeutic effects of IMRT and CCRT are comparable, with increased acute toxicities in the latter. However, for patients with EBV-DNA copy level ≥1000 copies/ml, lymph node necrosis and extra-nodal extension, CCRT may be considered as appropriate. Particularly, patients with lymph node necrosis may be potential beneficiaries for CCRT.
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.