ArticleCancer management and research2026
Efficacy and Safety of Nanoparticle Albumin-Bound Paclitaxel Compared to Docetaxel Plus Nedaplatin as Induction Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.
Article in Cancer management and research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to compare the long-term efficacy and safety of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel plus nedaplatin (NP) versus docetaxel plus nedaplatin (TP) as induction chemotherapy (IC) for locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA NPC). Methods: In this retrospective analysis, treatment-naïve patients with stage III-IVa NPC who received IC with either NP or TP regimen between December 2018 and January 2021 were enrolled. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance baseline characteristics, resulting in 70 matched pairs. Efficacy endpoints included overall survival (OS), locoregional relapse-free survival (LRFS), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were graded per CTCAE v5.0. Results: After a median follow-up of 68.6 months, the 5-year OS (89.98% vs 86.98%, P=0.610), LRFS (94.06% vs 96.69%, P=0.424), and DMFS (91.33% vs 85.61%, P=0.308) rates were comparable between the NP and TP groups. Multivariable analysis confirmed that the treatment regimen was not an independent prognostic factor. The toxicity profiles, however, differed significantly. The TP group had a higher incidence of any-grade neutropenia (68.6% vs 50.0%, P=0.047), while the NP group was associated with more frequent any-grade peripheral sensory neuropathy (57.1% vs 0.0%, P<0.001) and myalgia (45.7% vs 1.4%, P<0.001). The rates of severe (grade 3-4) hematological toxicities were similar between the groups. Conclusion: The NP regimen demonstrated comparable long-term survival outcomes to the TP regimen as IC for LA NPC, with a distinct toxicity profile. NP may serve as a valuable alternative, offering a favorable hematological toxicity profile and eliminating the need for corticosteroid premedication, albeit with a higher incidence of low-grade neurotoxicity and myalgia.
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.