ArticleBMC cancer2025
The impact of different cervical planning target volume designs on efficacy and toxicity in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a single-center retrospective study.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients, two radiation target delineation patterns are used for the cervical lymph node area. PURPOSE: This study compares the efficacy and toxicity of two radiation target volume delineation patterns for planning target volumes (PTVs) in NPC patients.
methodsThis retrospective analysis included 387 non-metastatic NPC patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy from January 2017 to December 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: the 2-PTV group with two dose gradients (50-54 Gy and 66-70 Gy) and the 3-PTV group with an additional 60-63 Gy dose.
resultsAfter a median follow-up of 51.2 months, the 3-year regional relapse-free survival (RRFS) showed no significant differences between the 3-PTV and 2-PTV groups (96.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 96.5%-96.8%] and 96.3% [95% CI: 96.2%-96.3%]). In the N3 subgroup, the 3-year RRFS was also comparable between the 3-PTV and 2-PTV groups (96.2% [95% CI: 76%-99%] vs. 95% [95% CI: 69%-99%], p = 0.727). Importantly, the 2-PTV group demonstrated significantly lower rates of grade 3/4 dermatitis (5.1% vs. 16.5%; HR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.82-0.94, p = 0.002) and xerostomia (49.6% vs. 67%; HR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.72-0.84, p = 0.002).
conclusionsThe 2-PTV regimen achieved equivalent survival outcomes while significantly reducing treatment-related toxicities compared to the 3-PTV approach. These results suggest that the 2-PTV strategy may offer a more favorable therapeutic profile for NPC patients, particularly in minimizing severe dermatitis and xerostomia.
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.