Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41772627›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2026

Comparative effectiveness of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy versus tomotherapy in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study.

Zihan Chen, Zongwei Huang, Sunqin Cai, Ying Li, Yuye Lin, Hanyu Zhang, Xinyi Hong, Jue Wang, Hengyu Guo, Youliang Weng and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Zihan Chen *Clinical Oncology School of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Cancer Hospital (Fujian Branch of Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center), Fuzhou, Fujian, 350014, China.
Zongwei Huang *Clinical Oncology School of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Cancer Hospital (Fujian Branch of Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center), Fuzhou, Fujian, 350014, China.
Sunqin Cai *Department of Radiation Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Quanzhou, China.
Ying LiClinical Oncology School of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Cancer Hospital (Fujian Branch of Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center), Fuzhou, Fujian, 350014, China.
Yuye LinClinical Oncology School of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Cancer Hospital (Fujian Branch of Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center), Fuzhou, Fujian, 350014, China.
Hanyu ZhangClinical Oncology School of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Cancer Hospital (Fujian Branch of Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center), Fuzhou, Fujian, 350014, China.
Xinyi HongClinical Oncology School of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Cancer Hospital (Fujian Branch of Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center), Fuzhou, Fujian, 350014, China.
Jue WangClinical Oncology School of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Cancer Hospital (Fujian Branch of Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center), Fuzhou, Fujian, 350014, China.
Hengyu GuoClinical Oncology School of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Cancer Hospital (Fujian Branch of Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center), Fuzhou, Fujian, 350014, China.
Youliang WengClinical Oncology School of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Cancer Hospital (Fujian Branch of Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center), Fuzhou, Fujian, 350014, China. wyl7788@sina.com.
Sufang QiuClinical Oncology School of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Cancer Hospital (Fujian Branch of Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center), Fuzhou, Fujian, 350014, China. sufangqiu@fjmu.edu.cn.

Funding

Fujian Clinical Research Center for Radiation and Therapy of Digestive, Respiratory and Genitourinary Malignancies (2021Y2014)Fujian Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer Radiotherapy and Immunotherapy 2020Y2012he National Clinical Key Specialty Construction Program 2021High-level Talent Training Program of Fujian Cancer Hospital (2022YNG07)Major Scientific Research Program for Young and Middle-aged Health Professionals of Fujian Province, China (Grant No.2021ZQNZD010)National Natural Science Foundation of China (82072986)Science and Technology Pilot Program of Fujian Province, China (2021Y0053)the grants of Science and Technology Program of Fujian Province, China 2018Y2003the Qihang Funds of Fujian Medical University (2023QH2050, 2022QH2048)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) remains a major healthcare burden in endemic regions, and locally advanced disease demands optimal radiotherapy for curative intent. Although both Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and tomotherapy (TOMO) are both advanced conformal radiotherapy techniques, their comparative efficacy in locally advanced NPC has not been fully clarified by large-scale studies that adequately control for selection bias. This study compared the therapeutic efficacy and safety of VMAT versus TOMO in patients with locally advanced NPC.

methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of 1,974 patients with histologically confirmed locally advanced NPC treated at our institution between January 2016 and December 2019. Patients received either VMAT (n = 1,720) or TOMO (n = 254) combined with systemic therapy per institutional protocols. To reduce selection bias, propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted at a 1:1 ratio using nearest-neighbor matching without replacement, with a 0.2 standard deviation caliper to balance baseline characteristics between groups. Primary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). The secondary endpoints were treatment response rates and treatment-related adverse events.

resultsAfter PSM, 979 patients were included in the final analysis (728 VMAT and 251 TOMO). Standardized mean differences (SMDs) for all baseline variables were < 0.1, confirming adequate balance between groups. With a median follow-up of 42 months, no significant differences in the 3-year survival rates were observed between the VMAT and TOMO groups: OS (85.2% vs. 87.1%, P = 0.645), PFS (78.9% vs. 81.2%,P = 0.391), LRFS (91.3% vs. 93.1%, P = 0.505), and DMFS (85.7% vs. 87.4%, P = 0.383). Both techniques achieved high overall response rates (ORR) (96.7% vs. 97.6%, p = 0.418). For safety, xerostomia occurred significantly less frequently in the TOMO group (33.86% vs. 46.84%, p < 0.001), consistent with its superior ability to spare parotid glands, while other adverse events showed no significant intergroup differences.

conclusionsVMAT and TOMO yield comparable therapeutic efficacies in patients with locally advanced NPC. Both advanced radiotherapy techniques are effective options in multimodality care. The choice between them should be based on institutional capacity and patient-specific factors, including quality-of-life needs and target volume anatomy, rather than anticipated survival benefits.

Indexed as

Nasopharyngeal CarcinomaNasopharyngeal NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisPropensity ScoreRadiotherapy DosageRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateYoung AdultIntensity-modulated radiation therapyNasopharyngeal carcinomaPropensity score matchingSurvival analysisTomotherapy

Identifiers

PMID41772627
PMCPMC13059179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.