Oncotarget

Clinical Research Papers:

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

Xin-Bin Pan, Kai-Hua Chen, Shi-Ting Huang, Yan-Ming Jiang, Jia-Lin Ma, Zhong-Guo Liang, Song Qu, Ling Li, Long Chen and Xiao-Dong Zhu _

PDF  |  HTML  |  How to cite

Oncotarget. 2017; 8:78096-78104. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.17481

Metrics: PDF 1222 views  |   HTML 1978 views  |   ?  


Abstract

Xin-Bin Pan1, Kai-Hua Chen1, Shi-Ting Huang1, Yan-Ming Jiang1, Jia-Lin Ma1, Zhong-Guo Liang1, Song Qu1, Ling Li1, Long Chen1 and Xiao-Dong Zhu1

1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, P.R. China

Correspondence to:

Xiao-Dong Zhu, email:

Keywords: nasopharyngeal carcinoma, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, two-dimensional conventional radiotherapy

Received: March 02, 2017 Accepted: April 12, 2017 Published: April 27, 2017

Abstract

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.


Creative Commons License All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
PII: 17481