化疗免疫治疗在鼻咽癌IVa期同步放化疗中的诱导作用。

Annals of medicine Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-21 DOI:10.1080/07853890.2025.2453091
Kun-Peng Wu, Qing-Qing Li, Xu-Qiang Luo, Xiao-Xi Wang, Yan-Zhen Lai, Dan Tian, Hong-Cheng Yang, Xue-Ling Wei, Lan-Ying Wang, Qiu-Ming Li, Dao Zhu, Si-Jie Chen, Yang-Si Li
{"title":"化疗免疫治疗在鼻咽癌IVa期同步放化疗中的诱导作用。","authors":"Kun-Peng Wu, Qing-Qing Li, Xu-Qiang Luo, Xiao-Xi Wang, Yan-Zhen Lai, Dan Tian, Hong-Cheng Yang, Xue-Ling Wei, Lan-Ying Wang, Qiu-Ming Li, Dao Zhu, Si-Jie Chen, Yang-Si Li","doi":"10.1080/07853890.2025.2453091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chemoimmunotherapy is the first-line therapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and is currently the main induction treatment option for patients with locoregionally advanced NPC. However, it remains unclear whether combining immunotherapy with standard induction chemotherapy enhances its efficacy. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, toxicity, and survival outcomes of induction chemoimmunotherapy in patients with locoregionally advanced NPC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study analyzed 50 patients with stage IVa NPC between January 2020 and December 2023 in our hospital. Among them, 23 received induction chemoimmunotherapy, and 27 received induction chemotherapy. All patients underwent standard platinum-based concurrent intensity-modulated radiation therapy. We compared tumor response and toxicity during induction treatment and concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The objective and complete response rates were significantly higher in the induction chemoimmunotherapy group compared to the induction chemotherapy group (95.7% vs 77.8%, and 39.1% vs 22.2%, respectively). All patients completed radical CCRT. Median follow-up was 24 months. Patients who received induction chemoimmunotherapy had longer event-free survival (EFS) compared to those who received induction chemotherapy (<i>p</i> = 0.029, Hazard Ratio and 95%confidence interval [CI]: 0.24 [0.07-0.85]). The 24-month EFS was higher in the induction chemoimmunotherapy group compared with the chemotherapy group (24-month EFS rates and 95%CI: 88.9% [95%CI: 68.3%-100%] vs 62.6% [95%CI: 43.1%-82.1%]). No significant differences in adverse events were observed between the two groups during induction treatment and CCRT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Adding immunotherapy to induction chemotherapy may be an effective and safe choice for treating patients with stage IVa NPC.</p>","PeriodicalId":93874,"journal":{"name":"Annals of medicine","volume":"57 1","pages":"2453091"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11753007/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chemoimmunotherapy as induction treatment in concurrent chemoradiotherapy for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma stage IVa.\",\"authors\":\"Kun-Peng Wu, Qing-Qing Li, Xu-Qiang Luo, Xiao-Xi Wang, Yan-Zhen Lai, Dan Tian, Hong-Cheng Yang, Xue-Ling Wei, Lan-Ying Wang, Qiu-Ming Li, Dao Zhu, Si-Jie Chen, Yang-Si Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07853890.2025.2453091\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chemoimmunotherapy is the first-line therapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and is currently the main induction treatment option for patients with locoregionally advanced NPC. However, it remains unclear whether combining immunotherapy with standard induction chemotherapy enhances its efficacy. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, toxicity, and survival outcomes of induction chemoimmunotherapy in patients with locoregionally advanced NPC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study analyzed 50 patients with stage IVa NPC between January 2020 and December 2023 in our hospital. Among them, 23 received induction chemoimmunotherapy, and 27 received induction chemotherapy. All patients underwent standard platinum-based concurrent intensity-modulated radiation therapy. We compared tumor response and toxicity during induction treatment and concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The objective and complete response rates were significantly higher in the induction chemoimmunotherapy group compared to the induction chemotherapy group (95.7% vs 77.8%, and 39.1% vs 22.2%, respectively). All patients completed radical CCRT. Median follow-up was 24 months. Patients who received induction chemoimmunotherapy had longer event-free survival (EFS) compared to those who received induction chemotherapy (<i>p</i> = 0.029, Hazard Ratio and 95%confidence interval [CI]: 0.24 [0.07-0.85]). The 24-month EFS was higher in the induction chemoimmunotherapy group compared with the chemotherapy group (24-month EFS rates and 95%CI: 88.9% [95%CI: 68.3%-100%] vs 62.6% [95%CI: 43.1%-82.1%]). No significant differences in adverse events were observed between the two groups during induction treatment and CCRT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Adding immunotherapy to induction chemotherapy may be an effective and safe choice for treating patients with stage IVa NPC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93874,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of medicine\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"2453091\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11753007/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2025.2453091\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2025.2453091","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:化疗免疫治疗是复发或转移性鼻咽癌(NPC)患者的一线治疗方案,也是目前局部区域晚期鼻咽癌患者的主要诱导治疗方案。然而,免疫治疗联合标准诱导化疗是否能提高其疗效尚不清楚。本研究旨在评估局部区域晚期鼻咽癌患者诱导化学免疫治疗的疗效、毒性和生存结果。方法:对2020年1月至2023年12月在我院收治的50例IVa期鼻咽癌患者进行分析。其中23例接受诱导化疗免疫治疗,27例接受诱导化疗。所有患者均接受了标准的以铂为基础的同步调强放疗。我们比较了两组在诱导治疗和同步放化疗(CCRT)期间的肿瘤反应和毒性。结果:诱导化疗免疫治疗组的客观有效率和完全有效率均显著高于诱导化疗组(95.7% vs 77.8%, 39.1% vs 22.2%)。所有患者均完成根治性CCRT。中位随访时间为24个月。与接受诱导化疗的患者相比,接受诱导化疗的患者无事件生存期(EFS)更长(p = 0.029,风险比和95%可信区间[CI]: 0.24[0.07-0.85])。诱导化学免疫治疗组24个月的EFS高于化疗组(24个月的EFS率和95%CI: 88.9% [95%CI: 68.3%-100%] vs 62.6% [95%CI: 43.1%-82.1%])。诱导治疗和CCRT期间两组不良事件发生率无显著差异。结论:在诱导化疗的基础上加用免疫治疗可能是治疗IVa期鼻咽癌患者安全有效的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Chemoimmunotherapy as induction treatment in concurrent chemoradiotherapy for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma stage IVa.

Background: Chemoimmunotherapy is the first-line therapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and is currently the main induction treatment option for patients with locoregionally advanced NPC. However, it remains unclear whether combining immunotherapy with standard induction chemotherapy enhances its efficacy. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, toxicity, and survival outcomes of induction chemoimmunotherapy in patients with locoregionally advanced NPC.

Methods: This study analyzed 50 patients with stage IVa NPC between January 2020 and December 2023 in our hospital. Among them, 23 received induction chemoimmunotherapy, and 27 received induction chemotherapy. All patients underwent standard platinum-based concurrent intensity-modulated radiation therapy. We compared tumor response and toxicity during induction treatment and concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) between the two groups.

Results: The objective and complete response rates were significantly higher in the induction chemoimmunotherapy group compared to the induction chemotherapy group (95.7% vs 77.8%, and 39.1% vs 22.2%, respectively). All patients completed radical CCRT. Median follow-up was 24 months. Patients who received induction chemoimmunotherapy had longer event-free survival (EFS) compared to those who received induction chemotherapy (p = 0.029, Hazard Ratio and 95%confidence interval [CI]: 0.24 [0.07-0.85]). The 24-month EFS was higher in the induction chemoimmunotherapy group compared with the chemotherapy group (24-month EFS rates and 95%CI: 88.9% [95%CI: 68.3%-100%] vs 62.6% [95%CI: 43.1%-82.1%]). No significant differences in adverse events were observed between the two groups during induction treatment and CCRT.

Conclusions: Adding immunotherapy to induction chemotherapy may be an effective and safe choice for treating patients with stage IVa 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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the efficacy and safety of polyglycolic acid-loading mitomycin nanoparticles in inhibiting the scar proliferation after glaucoma filtering surgery. Development and application of an uncapped mRNA platform. Overexpression of ST8Sia1 inhibits tumor progression by TGF-β1 signaling in rectal adenocarcinoma and promotes the tumoricidal effects of CD8+ T cells by granzyme B and perforin. Early combination of sotrovimab with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or remdesivir is associated with low rate of persisting SARS CoV-2 infection in immunocompromised outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19: a prospective single-centre study. Prognostic indicators and outcome in patients with acute liver failure, sepsis and with and without shock: a retrospective cohort study.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1