内镜手术与调强放疗治疗局部晚期复发性鼻咽癌:一项多中心、病例匹配的比较。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery Pub Date : 2023-11-06 DOI:10.1186/s40463-023-00656-3
Yibin Liu, Nan Huang, Junxiao Gao, Bin He, Hongming Huang, Liangcai Wan, Qinming Cai, Zhenchao Zhu, Suizi Zhou, Jing Wang, Xiaohui Wang, Qianhui Qiu, Fei Han
{"title":"内镜手术与调强放疗治疗局部晚期复发性鼻咽癌:一项多中心、病例匹配的比较。","authors":"Yibin Liu, Nan Huang, Junxiao Gao, Bin He, Hongming Huang, Liangcai Wan, Qinming Cai, Zhenchao Zhu, Suizi Zhou, Jing Wang, Xiaohui Wang, Qianhui Qiu, Fei Han","doi":"10.1186/s40463-023-00656-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The management of locally advanced recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (rNPC) is challenging. The objective of our study was to compare salvage endoscopic nasopharyngectomy (ENPG) with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in clinical outcomes and complications of locally advanced rNPC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with histologically confirmed rNPC in rT<sub>3-4</sub>N<sub>0-3</sub>M<sub>0</sub> stages were retrospectively enrolled between January 2013 and December 2019 in this multicenter, case-matched study. The baseline clinicopathological characteristics of patients were balanced by propensity score matching between the ENPG and IMRT groups. ENPG was performed in patients with easily or potentially resectable tumors. The oncological outcomes as well as treatment-related complications were compared between two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 176 patients were enrolled and 106 patients were matched. The ENPG group (n = 53) and the IMRT group (n = 53) showed comparable outcomes in the 3-year overall survival rate (68.4% vs. 65.4%, P = 0.401), cancer-specific survival rate (80.9% vs. 74.4%, P = 0.076), locoregional failure-free survival rate (36.6% vs. 45.3%, P = 0.076), and progression-free survival rate (27.5% vs. 32.3%, P = 0.216). The incidence of severe treatment-related complications of patients in the ENPG group was lower than that in the IMRT group (37.7% vs. 67.9%, P = 0.002). The most common complications were post perioperative hemorrhage (13.2%) in ENPG group and temporal lobe necrosis (47.2%) in IMRT group, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Salvage ENPG exhibits comparable efficacy but less toxicities than IMRT in carefully screened patients with locally advanced rNPC, which may be a new choice of local treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":16615,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery","volume":"52 1","pages":"72"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10629026/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Endoscopic surgery versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy in locally advanced recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a multicenter, case-matched comparison.\",\"authors\":\"Yibin Liu, Nan Huang, Junxiao Gao, Bin He, Hongming Huang, Liangcai Wan, Qinming Cai, Zhenchao Zhu, Suizi Zhou, Jing Wang, Xiaohui Wang, Qianhui Qiu, Fei Han\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40463-023-00656-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The management of locally advanced recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (rNPC) is challenging. The objective of our study was to compare salvage endoscopic nasopharyngectomy (ENPG) with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in clinical outcomes and complications of locally advanced rNPC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with histologically confirmed rNPC in rT<sub>3-4</sub>N<sub>0-3</sub>M<sub>0</sub> stages were retrospectively enrolled between January 2013 and December 2019 in this multicenter, case-matched study. The baseline clinicopathological characteristics of patients were balanced by propensity score matching between the ENPG and IMRT groups. ENPG was performed in patients with easily or potentially resectable tumors. The oncological outcomes as well as treatment-related complications were compared between two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 176 patients were enrolled and 106 patients were matched. The ENPG group (n = 53) and the IMRT group (n = 53) showed comparable outcomes in the 3-year overall survival rate (68.4% vs. 65.4%, P = 0.401), cancer-specific survival rate (80.9% vs. 74.4%, P = 0.076), locoregional failure-free survival rate (36.6% vs. 45.3%, P = 0.076), and progression-free survival rate (27.5% vs. 32.3%, P = 0.216). The incidence of severe treatment-related complications of patients in the ENPG group was lower than that in the IMRT group (37.7% vs. 67.9%, P = 0.002). The most common complications were post perioperative hemorrhage (13.2%) in ENPG group and temporal lobe necrosis (47.2%) in IMRT group, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Salvage ENPG exhibits comparable efficacy but less toxicities than IMRT in carefully screened patients with locally advanced rNPC, which may be a new choice of local treatment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16615,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"72\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10629026/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40463-023-00656-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40463-023-00656-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:局部晚期复发性鼻咽癌(rNPC)的治疗具有挑战性。我们研究的目的是比较挽救性内镜下鼻咽切除术(ENPG)和调强放疗(IMRT)在局部晚期rNPC的临床结果和并发症方面的作用。ENPG组和IMRT组之间的倾向评分匹配平衡了患者的基线临床病理特征。ENPG是在容易或潜在可切除肿瘤的患者中进行的。比较两组的肿瘤结果以及治疗相关并发症。结果:共有176名患者入选,106名患者匹配。ENPG组(n = 53)和IMRT组(n = 53)在3年总生存率方面显示出可比较的结果(68.4%对65.4%,P = 0.401),癌症特异性存活率(80.9%对74.4%,P = 0.076),局部无故障生存率(36.6%对45.3%,P = 0.076)和无进展生存率(27.5%对32.3%,P = 0.216)。ENPG组患者严重治疗相关并发症的发生率低于IMRT组(37.7%对67.9%,P = 最常见的并发症是ENPG组围术期后出血(13.2%)和IMRT组颞叶坏死(47.2%)。结论:在仔细筛选的局部晚期rNPC患者中,抢救性ENPG的疗效与IMRT相当,但毒性较小,可能是一种新的局部治疗选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Endoscopic surgery versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy in locally advanced recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a multicenter, case-matched comparison.

Background: The management of locally advanced recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (rNPC) is challenging. The objective of our study was to compare salvage endoscopic nasopharyngectomy (ENPG) with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in clinical outcomes and complications of locally advanced rNPC.

Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed rNPC in rT3-4N0-3M0 stages were retrospectively enrolled between January 2013 and December 2019 in this multicenter, case-matched study. The baseline clinicopathological characteristics of patients were balanced by propensity score matching between the ENPG and IMRT groups. ENPG was performed in patients with easily or potentially resectable tumors. The oncological outcomes as well as treatment-related complications were compared between two groups.

Results: A total of 176 patients were enrolled and 106 patients were matched. The ENPG group (n = 53) and the IMRT group (n = 53) showed comparable outcomes in the 3-year overall survival rate (68.4% vs. 65.4%, P = 0.401), cancer-specific survival rate (80.9% vs. 74.4%, P = 0.076), locoregional failure-free survival rate (36.6% vs. 45.3%, P = 0.076), and progression-free survival rate (27.5% vs. 32.3%, P = 0.216). The incidence of severe treatment-related complications of patients in the ENPG group was lower than that in the IMRT group (37.7% vs. 67.9%, P = 0.002). The most common complications were post perioperative hemorrhage (13.2%) in ENPG group and temporal lobe necrosis (47.2%) in IMRT group, respectively.

Conclusion: Salvage ENPG exhibits comparable efficacy but less toxicities than IMRT in carefully screened patients with locally advanced rNPC, which may be a new choice of local treatment.

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
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.90%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery is an open access, peer-reviewed journal publishing on all aspects and sub-specialties of otolaryngology-head & neck surgery, including pediatric and geriatric otolaryngology, rhinology & anterior skull base surgery, otology/neurotology, facial plastic & reconstructive surgery, head & neck oncology, and maxillofacial rehabilitation, as well as a broad range of related topics.
期刊最新文献
A Descriptive Study of Quality of Life Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Transoral Robotic Surgery for Human Papillomavirus-Associated Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Central Vestibular Dysfunction in Head Injury. Does Managing Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis Improve Their Depression Score? Prospective Study. IGF-1 Mediated Neuroprotective Effects of Olfactory-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells on Auditory Hair Cells. Potential Application of Hydrops MR Imaging: A Systematic Review.
×
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