Oncotarget

Clinical Research Papers:

Effect of intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus two-dimensional conventional radiotherapy alone in nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Pu-Yun OuYang, Dingbo Shi, Rui Sun, Yu-Jia Zhu, Yao Xiao, Lu-Ning Zhang, Xu-Hui Zhang, Ze-Ying Chen, Xiao-Wen Lan, Jie Tang, Yuan-Hong Gao, Jun Ma, Wuguo Deng and Fang-Yun Xie _

PDF  |  HTML  |  How to cite  |  Order a Reprint

Oncotarget. 2016; 7:33408-33417. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.8573

Metrics: PDF 1262 views  |   HTML 1418 views  |   ?  


Abstract

Pu-Yun OuYang1,*, Dingbo Shi2,*, Rui Sun3,*, Yu-Jia Zhu1,*, Yao Xiao1, Lu-Ning Zhang1, Xu-Hui Zhang1, Ze-Ying Chen1, Xiao-Wen Lan1, Jie Tang1, Yuan-Hong Gao1, Jun Ma1, Wuguo Deng2,**, Fang-Yun Xie1,**

1Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

2Department of Experimental Research, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

3Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

*Co-first authors

**Co-senior authors

Correspondence to:

Fang-Yun Xie, e-mail: xiefy@sysucc.org.cn

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

Received: February 12, 2016    Accepted: March 27, 2016    Published: April 4, 2016

ABSTRACT

Background: Albeit intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is currently the recommended radiation technique in treating nasopharyngeal carcinoma, the effect of IMRT versus two-dimensional conventional radiotherapy (2DCRT) alone is still contradictory.

Results: In the original unmatched cohort of 1198 patients, IMRT obtained comparable 5-year overall survival (OS) (91.3% vs 87.1%, P = 0.120), locoregional relapse-free survival (LRFS) (92.3% vs 90.4%, P = 0.221) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) (92.9% vs 92.1%, P = 0.901) to 2DCRT. In the propensity-matched cohort of 604 patients, no significant survival differences were observed between the two arms (5-year OS 90.9% vs 90.5%, P = 0.655; LRFS 92.5% vs 92.4%, P = 0.866; DMFS 92.5% vs 92.9%, P = 0.384). In multivariate analysis, IMRT did not significantly lower the risk of death, locoregional relapse or distant metastasis, irrespective of tumor stage.

Methods: Overall, 1198 patients who underwent IMRT (316 patients) or 2DCRT (882 patients) without any chemotherapy was retrospectively analyzed. Patients in both arms were matched at equal ratio using propensity-score matching method. OS, LRFS and DMFS were assessed with Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test and Cox regression.

Conclusions: In this propensity-matched study, IMRT showed no survival advantage over 2DCRT alone in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.


Creative Commons License All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
PII: 8573