Are People With Blood Group O More Susceptible to Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma and Have Worse Survival Rates? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a common malignant tumour in Southeast Asia, especially in southern China. ABO blood groups have been proven to play an important role in many cancers. However, it is still controversial whether the ABO blood group has a definite relationship to susceptibility to NPC and the prognosis of NPC patients. This meta-analysis was performed to elucidate the correlation between ABO blood group and NPC to provide more data for clinical practice. METHODS: A systematic search was performed of the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, Web of Science, EMBASE, and PubMed databases up to December 31, 2020. Stata 11.0 statistical software was used for this meta-analysis. RESULTS: According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 6 studies including 6938 patients with NPC were selected. Blood group O was relevant to Chinese NPC patients, and patients with blood group O had a significantly lower incidence of NPC, while blood group A had no correlation with susceptibility to NPC. There was no difference in the 3-year overall survival (OS), locoregional relapse-free survival (LRRFS) or distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates between patients with blood group O and those with non-O blood groups; worse 5-year OS, LRRFS and DMFS rates were found in patients with blood group O, whereas blood group A was not related to prognosis. CONCLUSION: Blood group O in Chinese patients with NPC seems to be a protective factor for morbidity. However, once patients with blood group O are diagnosed with NPC, this blood group often indicates unfavourable OS, LRRFS and DMFS rates. It is recommended that more attention should be paid to the influence of blood group factor on patients in the treatment of NPC.

Survival Comparision of Three-dimensional Radiotherapy Alone vs. Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare the survival of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients who received chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or radiotherapy (RT) alone. METHODS: A total of 753 well-matched patients were enrolled. A total of 299 patients were treated with CRT, and 454 patients were treated with RT alone. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed with the R project. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate survival rates, and the log-rank test was used to assess differences in survival. RESULTS: The response rate was 99.0% with CRT and 98.3% with RT alone (p = 0.651). The 1-, 3-, 5- and 10 year overall survival (OS) rates were as follows: 72.2, 40.1, 30.7 and 13.9% with CRT, 68.1, 35.2%, 23.3 and 12.5% with RT alone (p = 0.033); 73.4, 40.1, 31.0 and 16.1% with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT); and 68.1, 35.2, 23.3 and 12.5% with RT alone (p = 0.028). There was no significant difference in OS between the CCRT group and the sequential chemoradiotherapy (SCRT) group (p = 0.527). Consolidation chemotherapy (CCT) after CCRT led to a significant increase in the OS rate compared with no CCT after CCRT (p = 0.003). Compared with the OS of patients who received 1∼2 cycles of CCT, the OS of patients who received 3∼4 cycles of CCT was significantly improved (p = 0.011). Acute toxic effects were more severe in the CRT, but no significant differences in late reactions. CRT exhibited more appetite loss and fatigue symptoms than RT alone, and dysphagia of CRT relief more obviously. The CRT group had a significantly lower rate of local control failure than the RT alone group (p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with ESCC, CRT led to a significantly improved OS compared to RT alone, and this trend was more obvious with CCRT. CCT after CCRT prolonged OS, especially in patients who received at least 2 cycles of CCT. CRT can reduce the deaths due to local control failure compared to RT alone.

Implementation of Constant Dose Rate and Constant Angular Spacing Intensity-modulated Arc Therapy for Cervical Cancer by Using a Conventional Linear Accelerator.

BACKGROUND: Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can only be implemented on the new generation linacs such as the Varian Trilogy® and Elekta Synergy®. This prevents most existing linacs from delivering VMAT. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using a conventional linear accelerator delivering constant dose rate and constant angular spacing intensity-modulated arc therapy (CDR-CAS-IMAT) for treating cervical cancer. METHODS: Twenty patients with cervical cancer previously treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using Varian Clinical 23EX were retreated using CDR-CAS-IMAT. The planning target volume (PTV) was set as 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. Plans were evaluated based on the ability to meet the dose volume histogram. The homogeneity index (HI), target volume conformity index (CI), the dose to organs at risk, radiation delivery time, and monitor units (MUs) were also compared. The paired t-test was used to analyze the two data sets. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 19.0 software. RESULTS: Compared to the IMRT group, the CDR-CAS-IMAT group showed better PTV CI (0.85 ± 0.03 vs. 0.81 ± 0.03, P = 0.001), clinical target volume CI (0.46 ± 0.05 vs. 0.43 ± 0.05, P = 0.001), HI (0.09 ± 0.02 vs. 0.11 ± 0.02, P = 0.005) and D95 (5196.33 ± 28.24 cGy vs. 5162.63 ± 31.12 cGy, P = 0.000), and cord D2 (3743.8 ± 118.7 cGy vs. 3806.2 ± 98.7 cGy, P = 0.017) and rectum V40 (41.9 ± 6.1% vs. 44.2 ± 4.8%, P = 0.026). Treatment time (422.7 ± 46.7 s vs. 84.6 ± 7.8 s, P = 0.000) and the total plan Mus (927.4 ± 79.1 vs. 787.5 ± 78.5, P = 0.000) decreased by a factor of 0.8 and 0.15, respectively. The IMRT group plans were superior to the CDR-CAS-IMAT group plans considering decreasing bladder V50 (17.4 ± 4.5% vs. 16.6 ± 4.2%, P = 0.049), bowel V30 (39.6 ± 6.5% vs. 36.6 ± 7.5%, P = 0.008), and low-dose irradiation volume; there were no significant differences in other statistical indexes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cervical cancer treated with CDR-CAS-IMAT using Varian Clinical 23EX can get equivalent or superior dose distribution compared to those treated with IMRT. CDR-CAS-IMAT has a less treatment time and MU, which can reduce the uncertainty factor and patient discomfort in treatment.