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.
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.
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
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
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.