Feasibility and efficiency of double-agent versus single-agent concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the mainstay of treatment for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients. It remains unclear whether double-agent CCRT (d-CCRT) is more effective than single-agent CCRT (s-CCRT). In this study, we compared the treatment efficiency and toxicity of d-CCRT with s-CCRT in NPC patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with stage II-IV NPC treated with d-CCRT or s-CCRT were retrospectively reviewed. The d-CCRT group patients were compared with s-CCRT group patients for overall survival (OS), locoregional relapse-free survival (LRRFS), disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and toxicity. Differences in baseline characteristics were adjusted using the pair-matching method. RESULTS: In this study, 933 patients who received CCRT for NPC between 2011 and 2014 were pair-matched at a 1:2 ratio (n = 311 for d-CCRT; n = 622 for s-CCRT). The d-CCRT treated patients showed no significant advantages in terms of 4-year OS (87.2% vs. 85.5%), DFS (84.1% vs. 79.5%), LRRFS (94.6% vs. 91.8%), DMFS (87.5% vs. 85.5%) compared with s-CCRT treated patients (P = 0.450, 0.106, 0.203, 0.366, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that CCRT regimen had no significant effects on survival. In the d-CCRT group, the incidence of grade 3-4 hematological toxicities was significantly higher. CONCLUSIONS: The d-CCRT regimen did not confer significant survival benefits compared with the s-CCRT regimen in the treatment of stage II-IV NPC patients. Furthermore, patients treated with the d-CCRT regimen experienced greater hematological toxicity.

Efficacy and safety of intensity-modulated radiotherapy alone versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy plus chemotherapy for treatment of intermediate-risk nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: This study directs to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) alone versus IMRT plus chemotherapy in intermediate-risk NPC (stage II and T3N0M0). METHODS: A total of 124 patients with stage II and T3N0M0 NPC were pair-matched (1:1 ratio) to form two groups: an IMRT-alone group and an IMRT/chemotherapy group. Survival outcomes (overall survival [OS], disease-free survival [DFS], locoregional relapse-free survival [LRRFS], distant metastasis-free survival [DMFS]) and treatment-related grade 3-4 acute toxicity events were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Survival outcomes for patients with stage II and T3N0M0 NPC were quiet comparable between patients treated with IMRT alone versus patients treated with IMRT/chemotherapy: 5-year OS was 91.9% vs. 90.3%, respectively (P = 0.727); DFS was 87.1% vs. 88.7%, respectively (P = 0.821); LRFFS was 96.8% vs. 95.2%, respectively (P = 0.646), and DMFS was 91.9% vs. 91.5%, respectively (P = 0.955). Grade 3 acute toxicities were significantly higher with IMRT/chemotherapy than with IMRT alone: mucositis, 15% vs. 5% (P = 0.004); leukopenia/neutropenia, 8% vs. 1% (P <  0.015); and nausea/vomiting, 22% vs. 3% (P <  0.001). CONCLUSION: For intermediate-risk (stage II and T3N0M0) NPC patients, the addition of chemotherapy to IMRT does not appear to provide any survival benefit. Moreover, grade 3 acute toxicities are also more common in patients receiving IMRT plus chemotherapy.