Xin-Bin Pan

Comparison of the efficacy between concurrent chemoradiotherapy with or without adjuvant chemotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy alone for stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Objective This study aimed to explore whether concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) with or without Adjuvant Chemotherapy (AC) could improved the survival in stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Methods Patients with stage II NPC treated with CCRT (n=80) or CCRT+AC (n=40) or IMRT alone (n=42) between January 2007 and September 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. The three patient groups were matched based on prognostic factors. All patients were treated with IMRT. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), locoregional relapse-free survival (LRRFS), and failure-free survival (FFS). The treatment-related acute toxicity reactions between the three groups were compared also. Results The three groups indicated similar outcomes: survival of the CCRT group, CCRT+AC group and RT alone group were (93.9%, 95.0%, 95.2%, P=0.937) for OS, (96.8%, 94.9%, 93.0%, P=0.756) for LRRFS, (91.1%, 97.5%, 100%, P=0.185) for DMFS and (84.9%, 92.5%, 93.0%, P=0.597) for FFS. Both the univariate and multivariate analysis indicated that older age predicted lower LRRFS and FFS. The CCRT and CCRT+AC groups showed more acute toxicity reactions, especially in bone marrow suppression, Liver dysfunction, gastrointestinal reactions (nausea/vomiting) and weight loss. Conclusion CCRT with/without AC could not improve the survival conditions of patients with stage II NPC, but remarkably increased treatment-associated acute toxic reactions when compared with IMRT alone.

IMRT combined with concurrent chemotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus IMRT combined with concurrent chemotherapy alone in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Purpose To evaluate the efficacy of IMRT combined with concurrent chemotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy compared with IMRT combined with concurrent chemotherapy alone in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Methods From January 2007 to December 2014, we collected 797 staged II-IVb [UICC = Union for International Cancer Control criteria (7th edition)] NPC patients for analysis. After 1:1 matching,we selected 261 cases as the CCRT group, another 261 patients as the CCRT+AC group. Using Kaplan-Meier to calculate the overall survival (OS), locoregional failure-free survival(LFFS), distant metastasis failure-free survival(DMFS). The log-rank test and Cox-proportional hazards model to evaluate the prognostic factors. Results After matching, there were 261 patients in each group. In CCRT+AC group, The 1-,2- and 3- year os rates were a little higher than in CCRT group(99.6% vs 97.9%,97.4% vs 96.2%,93.8% vs 86.9%, P = 0.150). There were no significant difference in 1-,2-,3- year OS, LFFS, DMFS between the two groups. In subgroup analysis, a little higher OS rate in CCRT+AC group for staged III, IV and T4(III:100% vs 100%, 97.6% vs 95.8%, 94.0% vs 84.0%; IV: 99.1% vs 95.4%, 96.3% vs 95.4%, 90.5% vs 79.4%, P = 0.047;T4:99.1% vs 95.2%, 97.1% vs 95.2%, 90.9% vs 78.2%, P = 0.055). No significant difference were observed in OS, LFFS,DMFS between the groups. Conclusion IMRT combined with concurrent chemotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy might improved 1-,2-,3- year of OS. Whether or not add adjuvant chemotherapy it had similar LFFS rate and DMFS rate in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Locally advanced NPC patients (III, IV and T4)might benefit from the adjuvant chemotherapy.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of breast conservation therapy followed by radiotherapy in four breast cancer subtypes

The different molecular subtypes of breast cancer are associated with distinct outcomes. We assessed the efficacy of breast conservation therapy (BCT) followed by radiotherapy for patients with different breast cancer subtypes. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies published prior to April 30, 2016 that assessed the efficacy of BCT followed by radiotherapy in breast cancer patients with different molecular subtypes. A meta-analysis of seven studies that included 3,798 luminal A, 770 luminal B, 344 human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her-2), and 767 triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients was performed. The pooled odds ratio [OR] for local relapse-free survival in luminal A compared to Her-2 patients was 0.1960 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.0440–0.8728, p = 0.0325) at 5 years and 0.2592 (95% CI: 0.1301–0.5167, p = 0.0001) at 10 years. The pooled OR for local-regional relapse-free survival in luminal A compared to TNBC patients was 0.1381 (95% CI: 0.0565–0.3374, p = 0.0000) at 5 years and 0.1221 (95% CI: 0.0182–0.8192, p = 0.0304) at 10 years. Thus, the rate of local-regional control is higher in luminal A patients than in Her-2 or TNBC patients.The different molecular subtypes of breast cancer are associated with distinct outcomes. We assessed the efficacy of breast conservation therapy (BCT) followed by radiotherapy for patients with different breast cancer subtypes. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies published prior to April 30, 2016 that assessed the efficacy of BCT followed by radiotherapy in breast cancer patients with different molecular subtypes. A meta-analysis of seven studies that included 3,798 luminal A, 770 luminal B, 344 human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her-2), and 767 triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients was performed. The pooled odds ratio [OR] for local relapse-free survival in luminal A compared to Her-2 patients was 0.1960 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.0440-0.8728, p = 0.0325) at 5 years and 0.2592 (95% CI: 0.1301-0.5167, p = 0.0001) at 10 years. The pooled OR for local-regional relapse-free survival in luminal A compared to TNBC patients was 0.1381 (95% CI: 0.0565-0.3374, p = 0.0000) at 5 years and 0.1221 (95% CI: 0.0182-0.8192, p = 0.0304) at 10 years. Thus, the rate of local-regional control is higher in luminal A patients than in Her-2 or TNBC patients.

Secondary malignancies after partial versus whole breast irradiation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Secondary malignancies are a common complication for patients receiving radiotherapy. Here, we compared rates of secondary malignancies after partial breast irradiation (PBI) and whole breast irradiation (WBI). The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify relevant randomized clinical trials comparing PBI with WBI in breast cancer patients treated with breast-conserving therapy. Four studies including 2,185 patients were selected. Compared to WBI, the pooled odds ratios (OR) for contralateral breast cancer were 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31–2.42; p = 0.78) after 5 years and 1.15 (95% CI 0.43-3.09; p = 0.78) after 10 years for PBI. The pooled ORs for secondary non-breast cancer were 0.91 (95% CI 0.49-1.67; p = 0.77) after 5 years and 1.20 (95% CI 0.39-3.66; p = 0.75) after 10 years for PBI compared to WBI. These results demonstrate that the risk of secondary malignancies is similar for PBI and WBI after breast-conserving radiotherapy.

Triple Negative Breast Cancer versus Non-Triple Negative Breast Cancer Treated with Breast Conservation Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of breast conservation surgery (BCS) followed by radiotherapy (RT) in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) versus non-TNBC. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception through March 31, 2014, using search terms related to TNBC, BCS, and RT. Studies comparing the efficacy of BCS followed by RT in TNBC versus non-TNBC were reviewed. Results: 5 studies including 2,922 non-TNBC and 510 TNBC cases were selected. The overall quality of included studies was deemed moderate to high. Compared with non-TNBC, the pooled relative risk of 5-year local relapse-free survival was 1.315 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.967-1.789; p = 0.008) for TNBC, and that of 5-year overall survival, regional relapse-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival was 1.929 (95% CI 1.392-2.674; p = 0.000), 3.052 (95% CI 1.629-5.715; p = 0.000), and 2.407 (95% CI 1.910-3.034; p = 0.000), respectively. Conclusion: The local control rate of TNBC treated with BCS plus RT is similar to that of non-TNBC.

Prognostic value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio in intensity modulated radiation therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Background Inflammatory response markers plays an important role in tumor progression. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate whether the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) could predict the prognosis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma(NPC). Materials and Methods 247 patients who underwent Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy( IMRT )were enrolled from January 2012 and December 2012. NLR, and PLR were calculated from peripheral blood cell counts taken at pre-treatment. Optimal cutoff values of NLR and PLR were determined on the basis of receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival(PFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and loco-regional recurrence-free survival ( LRFS) rates were compared according to NLR and PLR level respectively. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess the prognostic value of NLR and PLR. Results The 5-year estimated OS, PFS, LRFS and DFS were 87.2, 77.8, 96.9, and 86.2%, respectively. Our results shows that the NLR was significantly associated with T-stage (P < 0.05), N-stage (P < 0.05) and tumor stage(P < 0.05). PLR was significantly associated with T-stage (P < 0.05) and tumor stage(P < 0.05). NLR was an independent prognostic indicator for OS (HR: 3.259, P = 0.004), PFS (HR:7.093, P < 0.001), DMFS (HR: 6.576, P = 0.003), except for PLR. In subgroup analysis, adjuvant chemotherapy had no significantly improved survival for patients with high NLR. Conclusions NLR is a strong prognostic factor for NPC patients. NLR might not be a useful indicator for selection of treatment strategies for loco-regionally advanced NPC.

Prognostic Nomogram for Overall Survival in Extranodal Natural Killer/T-Cell Lymphoma Patients

Background: Extranodal natural killer/T‐cell lymphoma (ENKTL) is a rare lymphoid malignancy with diverse clinical features and prognoses. The aims of this study were to explore the pretreatment prognostic factors of ENKTL and develop a new individual prognostic model. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 81 ENKTL patients with newly diagnosed disease between June 2006 and August 2017 at the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Guangxi Medical University. Survival analysis was used to assess the prognostic value of various factors. A nomogram was developed to predict overall survival (OS) based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: The median survival time of the patients was 48 months, and the 5‐year OS rate was 47.5%. Cox regression analysis showed that the prognostic factors of OS for ENKTL patients included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, Ann Arbor stage, pretreatment albumin‐to‐globulin ratio, and platelet count. A prognostic nomogram was developed to predict the OS rate for ENKTL patients based on these factors. The calibration curve showed that the nomogram was able to predict OS accurately. The concordance index of the nomogram for OS prediction was 0.807. Conclusion: Our proposed nomogram based on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, Ann Arbor stage, albumin‐to‐globulin ratio, and platelet count provides an individualized risk estimate of OS in patients with ENKTL.

Comparison of the 7th edition of the International Union Against Cancer and the Chinese 2008 staging systems for nasopharyngeal carcinoma and recommendations for future updates: Liang et al.

To compare the 7th edition of the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) and the Chinese 2008 staging systems for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), and to provide evidence for further updates to these NPC staging systems.

Comparison of the efficacy between intensity-modulated radiotherapy and two-dimensional conventional radiotherapy in stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma

We compared treatment outcomes in patients with stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or two-dimensional conventional radiotherapy (2D-CRT). Stage II (2010 UICC/AJCC staging system) NPC patients treated with IMRT (n = 178) or 2D-CRT (n = 73) between January 2007 and December 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were matched using the propensity score-matching method. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were local relapse-free survival (LRFS), regional relapse-free survival (RRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Acute and late toxicity reactions to IMRT and 2D-CRT were also compared. In an unmatched cohort of 251 patients, no significant survival differences were found between those receiving IMRT and those receiving 2D-CRT (5-year OS, 95.67% vs 94.44%, P = 0.0556; LRFS, 97.34% vs 98.59%, P = 0.6656; RRFS, 99.26% vs 100%, P = 0.6785; DMFS, 96.5% vs 98.63%, P = 0.7910; DFS, 92.2% vs 97.24%, P = 0.8719). In the propensity-matched cohort of 146 patients, 5-year OS (97.06% vs 94.44%, P = 0.1325), LRFS (96.75% vs 98.59%, P = 0.8869), RRFS (100% vs 100%, P = 1.0000), DMFS (98.63% vs 98.63%, P = 0.4225), and DFS (95.37% vs 97.24%, P = 0.5634) were similar between patients treated with IMRT or 2D-CRT. However, IMRT correlated with fewer acute and late toxicity reactions. Thus although IMRT provides no survival advantage, it has a lower incidence of toxicity than 2D-CRT in stage II NPC patients.We compared treatment outcomes in patients with stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or two-dimensional conventional radiotherapy (2D-CRT). Stage II (2010 UICC/AJCC staging system) NPC patients treated with IMRT (n = 178) or 2D-CRT (n = 73) between January 2007 and December 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were matched using the propensity score-matching method. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were local relapse-free survival (LRFS), regional relapse-free survival (RRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Acute and late toxicity reactions to IMRT and 2D-CRT were also compared. In an unmatched cohort of 251 patients, no significant survival differences were found between those receiving IMRT and those receiving 2D-CRT (5-year OS, 95.67% vs 94.44%, P = 0.0556; LRFS, 97.34% vs 98.59%, P = 0.6656; RRFS, 99.26% vs 100%, P = 0.6785; DMFS, 96.5% vs 98.63%, P = 0.7910; DFS, 92.2% vs 97.24%, P = 0.8719). In the propensity-matched cohort of 146 patients, 5-year OS (97.06% vs 94.44%, P = 0.1325), LRFS (96.75% vs 98.59%, P = 0.8869), RRFS (100% vs 100%, P = 1.0000), DMFS (98.63% vs 98.63%, P = 0.4225), and DFS (95.37% vs 97.24%, P = 0.5634) were similar between patients treated with IMRT or 2D-CRT. However, IMRT correlated with fewer acute and late toxicity reactions. Thus although IMRT provides no survival advantage, it has a lower incidence of toxicity than 2D-CRT in stage II NPC patients.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy provides better quality of life than two-dimensional conventional radiotherapy for patients with stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Two-dimensional conventional radiotherapy (2D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) are effective for control of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). The purpose of this study was to compare the quality of life (QoL) of stage II NPC patients treated with 2D-CRT versus IMRT. We conducted a cross-sectional study of 106 patients with stage II NPC treated with 2D-CRT (n = 47) versus IMRT (n = 59) between June 2008 and June 2013. For all subjects, disease-free survival was more than 3 years. QoL was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) questions and the Head and Neck 35 (EORTC QLQ-H&N35) questions. Patients receiving IMRT with or without concurrent chemotherapy had better outcomes in head and neck related symptoms and general aspects of QoL than those receiving 2D-CRT with or without concurrent chemotherapy. Thus, IMRT improves the QoL of patients with stage II NPC as compared to 2D-CRT.