ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2026
Should standard concurrent chemoradiotherapy remain the preferred treatment for elderly patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma?
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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElderly patients are underrepresented in clinical studies supporting platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) as the standard therapy (ST) for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC). Many such patients in real-world settings cannot tolerate CCRT and instead receive individualized therapy (IT). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ST versus IT in elderly NPC patients.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 393 elderly (≥ 65 years) LA-NPC patients from two centers in China between January 2013 and December 2020. Patients were categorized into ST (platinum-based CCRT with or without induction/adjuvant therapy) or IT (radiotherapy alone, or concurrent radiotherapy with non-chemotherapy agents, with or without induction/adjuvant therapy) groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) generated 141 patient pairs. Survival outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. Toxicities were compared with chi-square or Fisher's exact tests.
resultsIn the PSM cohort, no significant differences were observed between the ST and IT groups in overall survival, cancer-specific survival, progression-free survival, locoregional relapse-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival (all P > 0.05). Multivariable analysis confirmed that treatment group (ST vs. IT) was not a significant predictor for any survival endpoint. In exploratory stratified analysis, radiotherapy alone was associated with inferior OS, CSS, and PFS, whereas radiotherapy combined with systemic therapy showed survival outcomes similar to those of ST. Additionally, compared with the ST group, the IT group had significantly lower rates of grade 3 or higher hematologic toxicities, including leukopenia (8.5% vs. 23.4%; P = 0.001) and neutropenia (12.3% vs. 20.6%; P = 0.013).
conclusionStandard CCRT was not associated with improved survival outcomes compared with individualized therapy in elderly patients with LA-NPC, while individualized therapy showed a more favorable safety profile. Exploratory stratified analysis further suggested that radiotherapy combined with systemic therapy may represent a more promising individualized therapy option. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.