鼻咽癌患者与健康相关的生活质量改变:强度调节质子治疗和体积调节电弧治疗的倾向评分匹配比较

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Po-Jui Chen, Ching-Rong Lin, Sheng-Ping Hung, Ching-Hsin Lee, Po-Hung Chang, Shiang-Fu Huang, Chung-Jan Kang, Tuan-Jen Fang, Li-Ang Lee, Pei-Wen Wu, Kuang-Hsu Lien, Joseph Tung-Chieh Chang
{"title":"鼻咽癌患者与健康相关的生活质量改变:强度调节质子治疗和体积调节电弧治疗的倾向评分匹配比较","authors":"Po-Jui Chen, Ching-Rong Lin, Sheng-Ping Hung, Ching-Hsin Lee, Po-Hung Chang, Shiang-Fu Huang, Chung-Jan Kang, Tuan-Jen Fang, Li-Ang Lee, Pei-Wen Wu, Kuang-Hsu Lien, Joseph Tung-Chieh Chang","doi":"10.1093/jjco/hyaf115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the dosimetric advantages of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in treating patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), it remains unclear whether these advantages confer improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) compared to state-of-the-art photon-based techniques such as volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Patients with NPC eligible for definitive radiation therapy (RT) were invited to participate in the longitudinal observational study. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head & Neck Cancer (FACT-HN) questionnaire at multiple time points: before, during, and after treatment. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to align the IMPT group with the VMAT group. Longitudinal changes in HRQoL were then analyzed using generalized estimating equations (GEEs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 2008 to 2021, a total of 353 patients were enrolled in the study. After applying PSM at a 1:3 ratio, the final analysis included 213 patients in the VMAT group and 71 patients in the IMPT group. There were no significant differences were noted in the mean changes of FACT-HN scores from baseline between the IMPT and VMAT groups during treatment or throughout the follow-up periods as follows (IMPT vs. VMAT): -13.3 vs -14.4 (during RT), 2.2 vs. 1.0 (3 months post-RT), 5.4 vs. 8.5 (6 months post-RT), 10.8 vs. 10.1 (12 months post-RT), 10.2 vs. 10.5 (24 months post-RT), and 13.2 vs. 11.1 (36 months post-RT). Among all the subscales, only the emotional well-being (EWB) subscale demonstrated a significant difference at 36 months, favoring IMPT with scores of 2.7 versus 1.8 (p = 0.026). No significant differences were detected at other time points or within other subscales of interest.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study found no clinically significant differences in overall HRQoL, as measured by the FACT-HN questionnaire, between IMPT and VMAT in the treatment of NPC.</p>","PeriodicalId":14656,"journal":{"name":"Japanese journal of clinical oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Health-related quality of life changes in nasopharyngeal cancer patients: a propensity score-matched comparison of intensity-modulated proton therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy.\",\"authors\":\"Po-Jui Chen, Ching-Rong Lin, Sheng-Ping Hung, Ching-Hsin Lee, Po-Hung Chang, Shiang-Fu Huang, Chung-Jan Kang, Tuan-Jen Fang, Li-Ang Lee, Pei-Wen Wu, Kuang-Hsu Lien, Joseph Tung-Chieh Chang\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jjco/hyaf115\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the dosimetric advantages of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in treating patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), it remains unclear whether these advantages confer improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) compared to state-of-the-art photon-based techniques such as volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Patients with NPC eligible for definitive radiation therapy (RT) were invited to participate in the longitudinal observational study. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head & Neck Cancer (FACT-HN) questionnaire at multiple time points: before, during, and after treatment. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to align the IMPT group with the VMAT group. Longitudinal changes in HRQoL were then analyzed using generalized estimating equations (GEEs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 2008 to 2021, a total of 353 patients were enrolled in the study. After applying PSM at a 1:3 ratio, the final analysis included 213 patients in the VMAT group and 71 patients in the IMPT group. There were no significant differences were noted in the mean changes of FACT-HN scores from baseline between the IMPT and VMAT groups during treatment or throughout the follow-up periods as follows (IMPT vs. VMAT): -13.3 vs -14.4 (during RT), 2.2 vs. 1.0 (3 months post-RT), 5.4 vs. 8.5 (6 months post-RT), 10.8 vs. 10.1 (12 months post-RT), 10.2 vs. 10.5 (24 months post-RT), and 13.2 vs. 11.1 (36 months post-RT). Among all the subscales, only the emotional well-being (EWB) subscale demonstrated a significant difference at 36 months, favoring IMPT with scores of 2.7 versus 1.8 (p = 0.026). No significant differences were detected at other time points or within other subscales of interest.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study found no clinically significant differences in overall HRQoL, as measured by the FACT-HN questionnaire, between IMPT and VMAT in the treatment of NPC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14656,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Japanese journal of clinical oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Japanese journal of clinical oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyaf115\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Japanese journal of clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyaf115","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管调强质子治疗(IMPT)在治疗鼻咽癌(NPC)患者方面具有剂量学上的优势,但与最先进的基于光子的技术(如体积调制电弧治疗(VMAT))相比,这些优势是否能提高与健康相关的生活质量(HRQoL)仍不清楚。患者和方法:有资格接受最终放射治疗(RT)的鼻咽癌患者被邀请参加纵向观察研究。在治疗前、治疗中和治疗后的多个时间点,使用癌症治疗-头颈癌功能评估(FACT-HN)问卷对患者报告的结果进行评估。使用倾向评分匹配(PSM)将IMPT组与VMAT组进行比对。然后使用广义估计方程(GEEs)分析HRQoL的纵向变化。结果:2008年至2021年,共有353例患者入组研究。按1:3比例应用PSM后,VMAT组213例,IMPT组71例。在治疗期间或整个随访期间,IMPT组和VMAT组之间的FACT-HN评分从基线的平均变化无显著差异,如下(IMPT vs VMAT): -13.3 vs -14.4 (RT期间),2.2 vs. 1.0 (RT后3个月),5.4 vs. 8.5 (RT后6个月),10.8 vs. 10.1 (RT后12个月),10.2 vs. 10.5 (RT后24个月),13.2 vs. 11.1 (RT后36个月)。在所有量表中,只有情绪幸福感(EWB)量表在36个月时表现出显著差异,IMPT得分为2.7比1.8 (p = 0.026)。在其他时间点或其他感兴趣的子量表中未发现显著差异。结论:本研究发现,通过FACT-HN问卷测量,IMPT和VMAT治疗鼻咽癌的总体HRQoL无临床显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Health-related quality of life changes in nasopharyngeal cancer patients: a propensity score-matched comparison of intensity-modulated proton therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy.

Background: Despite the dosimetric advantages of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in treating patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), it remains unclear whether these advantages confer improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) compared to state-of-the-art photon-based techniques such as volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

Patients and methods: Patients with NPC eligible for definitive radiation therapy (RT) were invited to participate in the longitudinal observational study. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head & Neck Cancer (FACT-HN) questionnaire at multiple time points: before, during, and after treatment. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to align the IMPT group with the VMAT group. Longitudinal changes in HRQoL were then analyzed using generalized estimating equations (GEEs).

Results: From 2008 to 2021, a total of 353 patients were enrolled in the study. After applying PSM at a 1:3 ratio, the final analysis included 213 patients in the VMAT group and 71 patients in the IMPT group. There were no significant differences were noted in the mean changes of FACT-HN scores from baseline between the IMPT and VMAT groups during treatment or throughout the follow-up periods as follows (IMPT vs. VMAT): -13.3 vs -14.4 (during RT), 2.2 vs. 1.0 (3 months post-RT), 5.4 vs. 8.5 (6 months post-RT), 10.8 vs. 10.1 (12 months post-RT), 10.2 vs. 10.5 (24 months post-RT), and 13.2 vs. 11.1 (36 months post-RT). Among all the subscales, only the emotional well-being (EWB) subscale demonstrated a significant difference at 36 months, favoring IMPT with scores of 2.7 versus 1.8 (p = 0.026). No significant differences were detected at other time points or within other subscales of interest.

Conclusions: This study found no clinically significant differences in overall HRQoL, as measured by the FACT-HN questionnaire, between IMPT and VMAT in the treatment of NPC.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
177
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology is a multidisciplinary journal for clinical oncologists which strives to publish high quality manuscripts addressing medical oncology, clinical trials, radiology, surgery, basic research, and palliative care. The journal aims to contribute to the world"s scientific community with special attention to the area of clinical oncology and the Asian region. JJCO publishes various articles types including: ・Original Articles ・Case Reports ・Clinical Trial Notes ・Cancer Genetics Reports ・Epidemiology Notes ・Technical Notes ・Short Communications ・Letters to the Editors ・Solicited Reviews
×
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