ArticleBMJ oncology2025
Real-world experience on efficacy and safety of different adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
Article in BMJ oncology, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of various adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) regimens for treating locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Methods and analysis: In this retrospective study, the patients received either intravenous AC regimens (cisplatin-fluorouracil (PF) or cisplatin-gemcitabine (GP)) or oral regimens (capecitabine or tegafur, gimeracil and oteracil potassium capsule (S-1)) following concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Results: A total of 229 patients were documented in the oral administration group (127 patients received capecitabine and 102 received S-1), whereas 241 patients were recorded in the intravenous group (164 patients received the PF regimen and 77 received the GP regimen). There was no significant difference in PFS between the intravenous and oral groups (n=154 each) after propensity score matching (3-year PFS rate: 76.3% vs 73.9%; HR, 0.803; 95% CI 0.523 to 1.233, p=0.316). However, based on the overall cohort, the GP regimen showed a superior 3-year PFS rate (89.1%) compared with PF (74.6%), capecitabine (76.0%) and S-1 (74.3%) regimen (p=0.005, 0.012 and 0.003, respectively), while multivariable analyses also demonstrated that the GP regimen (HR Conclusion: For patients treated with upfront CCRT, AC should be considered, and intravenous GP is preferred, although patients should be counselled about an increased risk of haematological toxicities. For patients treated with induction chemotherapy and CCRT, oral chemotherapy, either with capecitabine or S-1, was efficacious and tolerable.
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.