RESUMEN
Nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) cases are often diagnosed in advanced stages. The complexity of clinical management for advanced-stage NPC requires thorough communication and shared decisions between medical professionals and allied teams. Incorporating a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) for newly diagnosed NPC patients was chosen to facilitate collaboration and communication between physicians. This retrospective study aimed to compare the quality of care, clinical responses and survival between NPC patients treated with and without MDTM. Data on clinical responses, assessment visits, date of progression and death with progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and hazard ratio (HR) were collected and analyzed with 95% confidence interval (CI) and significance set as P < .05. There were 87 of 178 NPC patients treated with MDTM. Revisions of diagnosis and stage occurred in 5.7% and 52.9% of cases during the MDTM. More clinical responses were achieved by patients treated with MDTM (69.0%vs 32.0%, P < .00). NPC patients who received MDTM treatment recommendation had a lower risk for progression (median PFS 59.89 months vs 12.68 months; HR 0.267, 95% CI: 0.17-0.40, P < .00) and mortality (median OS was not reached vs 13.44 months; HR 0.134, 95% CI: 0.08-0.24, P < .00) compared to patients without MDTM. Incorporating the MDTM approach into NPC management improves patients' clinical responses and survival.
RESUMEN
Background: The utilization of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) strategy is a beneficial approach in integrating the knowledge and proficiencies of various fields to produce thorough and advantageous cancer treatment plans for patients. Nevertheless, MDT has yet to be widely adopted in Indonesia. In this study, the authors examined an early form of MDT in Indonesia that does not involve dedicated meetings, referred as independent multidisciplinary work (IMW). The objective is to investigate the differences in survival rates of nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) patients who underwent treatment with and without IMW. Materials and methods: This study has a retrospective cohort design. Data were collected from the medical records of newly diagnosed stage 3 and 4 NPC patients between 2016 and 2018. The subjects were divided into two groups: the IMW group and the non-IMW group. The primary end point of the study is overall survival rate between the two groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, log-rank test, and cox proportional hazard analysis were used for statistical analysis. Results: This study included a total of 124 patients with NPC, 81 patients in the IMW group and 43 patients in the non-IMW group. At the end of the 36-month follow-up period, the median survival of the IMW group was not reached, while in the non-IMW, it was 12 months [95% confidence intervals (95% CI), 8.78-15.22], hazard ratio (HR): 0.47 (95% CI, 0.28-0.78; P<0.01). The 1-year survival rate was 66.7% in the IMW group versus 46.5% in the non-IMW group (HR=0.7, 95% CI 0.49-0.99; P=0.03); the 2-year survival rate was 40.7% in the IMW group versus 16.3% in the non-IMW group (HR=0.4, 95% CI 0.19-0.83; P<0.01). Daniel Rizky, Vina Yunarvika, and Yasjudan Rastrama Putra, these authors contributed equally to this work. In the multivariate analysis, the IMW approach, ECOG (The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) status, distant metastasis, and treatment approach were significantly associated with survival outcome. Conclusion: The use of IMW approach in the treatment of NPC was associated with a better survival outcome compared to non-IMW treatment.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the survival outcome and prognostic factors of patients with nasopharyngeal cancer accessing treatment in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. METHODS: Data on 759 patients with NPC diagnosed from 2007 to 2016 at Dr Sardjito General Hospital were included. Potential prognostic variables included sociodemographic, clinicopathology and treatment parameters. Multivariable analyses were implemented using semi-parametric Cox proportional hazards modelling and fully parametric survival analysis. RESULTS: The median time of observation was 14.39 months. In the whole cohort the median observed survival was 31.08 months. In the univariable analysis, age, education status, insurance type, BMI, ECOG index, stage and treatment strategy had an impact on overall survival (OS) (p values <0.01). Semi-parametric multivariable analyses with stage stratification showed that education status, ECOG index, and treatment modality were independent prognostic factors for OS (p values <0.05). In the fully parametric models age, education status, ECOG index, stage, and treatment modality were independent prognostic factors for OS (p values <0.05). For both multivariable analyses, all treatment strategies were associated with a reduced hazard (semi-parametric models, p values <0.05) and a better OS (parametric models, p values <0.05) compared with no treatment. Furthermore, compared with radiation alone or chemotherapy alone, a combination of chemotherapy and radiation either in a form of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), sequential chemotherapy and radiation, or induction chemotherapy followed by CCRT demonstrated a reduced hazard (hazard ratio/HR 0.226, 95% confidence interval/CI 0.089-0.363, and HR 0.390, 95%CI 0.260-0.519) and a better OS (time ratio/TR 3.108, 95%CI 1.274-4.942 and TR 2.531, 95%CI 1.829-3.233) (p values < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Median OS for the cohort was low compared to those reported in both endemic and non-endemic regions. By combining the findings of multivariable analyses, we showed that age, education status, ECOG index, stage and first treatment modality were independent predictors for the OS.
