4.7 Article

Chemotherapy in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: An individual patient data meta-analysis of eight randomized trials and 1753 patients

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.06.037

Keywords

nasopharyngeal carcinoma; randomized trial; chemotherapy; meta-analysis; individual patient data

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To study the effect of adding chemotherapy to radiotherapy (RT) on overall survival and event-free survival for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Methods and Materials: This meta-analysis used updated individual patient data from randomized trials comparing chemotherapy plus RT with RT alone in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The log-rank test, stratified by trial, was used for comparisons, and the hazard ratios of death and failure were calculated. Results: Eight trials with 1753 patients were included. One trial with a 2 X 2 design was counted twice in the analysis. The analysis included 11 comparisons using the data from 1975 patients. The median follow-up was 6 years. The pooled hazard ratio of death was 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.94; p = 0.006), corresponding to an absolute survival benefit of 6% at 5 years from the addition of chemotherapy (from 56% to 62%). The pooled hazard ratio of tumor failure or death was 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.86; p < 0.0001), corresponding to an absolute event-free survival benefit of 10% at 5 years from the addition of chemotherapy (from 42% to 52%). A significant interaction was observed between the timing of chemotherapy and overall survival (p = 0.005), explaining the heterogeneity observed in the treatment effect (p = 0.03), with the highest benefit resulting from concomitant chemotherapy. Conclusion: Chemotherapy led to a small, but significant, benefit for overall survival and event-free survival. This benefit was essentially observed when chemotherapy was administered concomitantly with RT. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available