The treatment modalities and outcomes of recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study in the modern era

J. Chien, Chien-Yu Huang, Yu-Chang Hu, Kuo-Chen Chang, Kuo‐Ping Chang, B. Kang, Wen-Shan Liu
{"title":"The treatment modalities and outcomes of recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study in the modern era","authors":"J. Chien, Chien-Yu Huang, Yu-Chang Hu, Kuo-Chen Chang, Kuo‐Ping Chang, B. Kang, Wen-Shan Liu","doi":"10.21037/TRO.2019.07.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: While chemoradiotherapy being widely recognized as primary treatment for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), optimal salvage modalities for locoregionally recurrent NPC (LRrNPC) are still under debate. This study aimed to explore outcomes of different salvage modalities for LRrNPC. \n Methods: Non-metastatic LRrNPCs were retrospectively recruited. Clinical factors and salvage treatments were evaluated. The primary and secondary endpoint were locoregional-progression-free survival (LRPFS) and overall survival (OS), respectively. Outcomes were compared among re-irradiation (reRT), surgical resection (SR), combination therapy (SR + reRT), and systemic treatment only (STx). Results: From 2006–2017, 29 consecutive LRrNPCs were enrolled, including 37.9% rT1-2 and 62.1% rT3-4 diseases. Salvage treatments included 14 reRT, 6 SR, 6 SR + reRT, and 3 STx. All re-irradiations were intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and 83.3% SRs were done by endoscopic approach. After median follow-up of 36 months, the 3-year LRPFS was 56.5% and 3-year OS was 64.1%. When compared to STx, reRT and SR + reRT both showed superior LRPFS (re-RT, HR: 0.06, P=0.009; SR + reRT, HR: 0.07, P=0.021, adjusted for rT), while SR revealed no significant benefit. However, there was no significant difference in LRPFS among the three local treatment modalities. Severe complication rates were 51.7% for ≥grade 3 and 6.9% for grade 5. Conclusions: For LRrNPCs, locoregional treatments including reRT and SR + reRT might have additional local control benefit from systemic therapy. The risk of fatal toxicity decreased with increasing use of IMRT and endoscopic resection. Considering the limited case number and retrospective design, prospective trials are warranted to further evaluate the efficacy and safety.","PeriodicalId":93236,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic radiology and oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.21037/TRO.2019.07.02","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic radiology and oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/TRO.2019.07.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: While chemoradiotherapy being widely recognized as primary treatment for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), optimal salvage modalities for locoregionally recurrent NPC (LRrNPC) are still under debate. This study aimed to explore outcomes of different salvage modalities for LRrNPC. Methods: Non-metastatic LRrNPCs were retrospectively recruited. Clinical factors and salvage treatments were evaluated. The primary and secondary endpoint were locoregional-progression-free survival (LRPFS) and overall survival (OS), respectively. Outcomes were compared among re-irradiation (reRT), surgical resection (SR), combination therapy (SR + reRT), and systemic treatment only (STx). Results: From 2006–2017, 29 consecutive LRrNPCs were enrolled, including 37.9% rT1-2 and 62.1% rT3-4 diseases. Salvage treatments included 14 reRT, 6 SR, 6 SR + reRT, and 3 STx. All re-irradiations were intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and 83.3% SRs were done by endoscopic approach. After median follow-up of 36 months, the 3-year LRPFS was 56.5% and 3-year OS was 64.1%. When compared to STx, reRT and SR + reRT both showed superior LRPFS (re-RT, HR: 0.06, P=0.009; SR + reRT, HR: 0.07, P=0.021, adjusted for rT), while SR revealed no significant benefit. However, there was no significant difference in LRPFS among the three local treatment modalities. Severe complication rates were 51.7% for ≥grade 3 and 6.9% for grade 5. Conclusions: For LRrNPCs, locoregional treatments including reRT and SR + reRT might have additional local control benefit from systemic therapy. The risk of fatal toxicity decreased with increasing use of IMRT and endoscopic resection. Considering the limited case number and retrospective design, prospective trials are warranted to further evaluate the efficacy and safety.
复发性鼻咽癌的治疗方式和结果:现代回顾性队列研究
背景:尽管放化疗被广泛认为是鼻咽癌(NPC)的主要治疗方法,但局部复发性鼻咽癌(LRrNPC)的最佳挽救方式仍存在争议。本研究旨在探讨LRrNPC不同抢救方式的疗效。方法:回顾性招募非转移性LRrNPCs。评估了临床因素和挽救治疗。主要终点和次要终点分别为局部无进展生存期(LRPFS)和总生存期(OS)。比较再照射(reRT)、手术切除(SR)、联合治疗(SR+RRT)和仅全身治疗(STx)的疗效。结果:从2006年到2017年,共有29个LRrNPC入选,其中37.9%的rT1-2和62.1%的rT3-4疾病。抢救性治疗包括14次reRT、6次SR、6次SR+reRT和3次STx。所有再照射均为调强放疗(IMRT),83.3%的SR是通过内窥镜入路进行的。中位随访36个月后,3年LRPFS为56.5%,3年OS为64.1%。与STx相比,reRT和SR+RRT均显示出优越的LRPFS(re-RT,HR:0.06,P=0.009;SR+RRT,HR:0.07,P=0.021,经RT调整),而SR无显着益处。然而,三种局部治疗方式的LRPFS没有显著差异。严重并发症发生率≥3级为51.7%,5级为6.9%。结论:对于LRrNPCs,局部治疗,包括reRT和SR+reRT,可能会从系统治疗中获得额外的局部控制益处。随着IMRT和内镜切除术的使用增加,致命毒性的风险降低。考虑到有限的病例数和回顾性设计,有必要进行前瞻性试验,以进一步评估疗效和安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信