J Cancer 2018; 9(3):540-547. doi:10.7150/jca.22170

Research Paper

Optimal Treatment Modality for Locoregionally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Literature-Based Network Meta-Analysis

Bin-Bin Chen1*, Hao Peng1*, Ming-Zhu Liu1, Wei-Wei Xiao1, Jing-Jing Miao2, Chong Zhao2, Tai-Xiang Lu1, Ying Guo3, Fei Han1 Corresponding address

1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, People's Republic of China.
2. Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, People's Republic of China.
3. Department of Clinical Trial Center, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, People's Republic of China.
* Bin-Bin Chen and Hao Peng contributed equally to this work.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). See http://ivyspring.com/terms for full terms and conditions.
How to cite this article:
Chen BB, Peng H, Liu MZ, Xiao WW, Miao JJ, Zhao C, Lu TX, Guo Y, Han F. Optimal Treatment Modality for Locoregionally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Literature-Based Network Meta-Analysis. J Cancer 2018; 9(3):540-547. doi:10.7150/jca.22170. Available from http://www.jcancer.org/v09p0540.htm

Abstract

Background: The standard care for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC) has not been well-established: either induction chemotherapy (IC) plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) or CCRT followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) may be the best treatments. We conducted a network meta-analysis to identity the optimal treatment for LA-NPC.

Methods: We searched electronic databases to identify eligible clinical trials involving patients with NPC randomly allocated to CCRT, CCRT + AC, IC + CCRT, or RT alone. End-points included overall survival (OS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS). Hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted. Network meta-analysis was performed using the frequentist approach for multiple treatment comparisons.

Results: In total, 11 studies involving 3165 patients were identified. IC + CCRT resulted in significantly better OS (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.43-0.97) and DMFS (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31-0.73) than CCRT, without significantly increasing toxicities during CCRT. However, no significant differences were observed between IC + CCRT and CCRT + AC, or between CCRT and CCRT + AC for all the endpoints. As expected, RT alone was the least effective treatment. With regards to P-score, IC + CCRT ranked best for OS (95.3%) and DMFS (99.0%), while CCRT + AC ranked best for LRFS (79.1%); CCRT ranked third for all end-points.

Conclusions: IC + CCRT may be the most appropriate treatment for LA-NPC due to its significant OS and DMFS benefits, good compliance and acceptable toxicities.

Keywords: nasopharyngeal carcinoma, locoregionally advanced, concurrent chemoradiotherapy, induction chemotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, network meta-analysis.

Introduction

The unique head and neck malignancy nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is rare in most western countries but common in Southern China and Southeast Asia [1, 2]. As a result of anatomical constrains and high radiosensitivity, radiotherapy (RT) is the only curative treatment for non-metastatic NPC. Control of early-stage disease is usually excellent, while the prognosis of advanced disease remains unsatisfactory [3]. Therefore, improving the survival outcomes of locoregionally advanced NPC (LA-NPC) is a major clinical concern.

Treatment for advanced NPC has changed dramatically over the last two decades. Initially, RT alone was the sole radical therapy. Then, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) became the standard treatment after the Intergroup 0099 study demonstrated its positive effect on 3-year overall survival (OS) [4]. Subsequently, the value of AC was proven to be limited [5-7], and CCRT with or without AC was established as the standard of care. Induction chemotherapy (IC), given before radiotherapy, has been widely investigated and used over the last decade as it has better compliance rates and facilitates early eradication of micrometastases. Encouraging results from previous studies [8-10] demonstrated IC followed by CCRT could also be an effective treatment. Given these findings, it may be reasonable to change from concurrent-adjuvant to induction-concurrent chemoradiotherapy to reduce the incidence of toxicities. However, direct trials comparing IC plus CCRT with CCRT plus AC are still lacking. Most recently, a network meta-analysis of individualized data revealed CCRT plus AC provided the highest overall survival benefit while IC plus CCRT resulted in better distant control [11]. However, three recently published articles [8, 10, 12] assessing IC were not included. Therefore, it is necessary to re-conduct the network meta-analysis using up-to-date data to establish the best treatment modality for advanced NPC.

Materials and Methods

Literature search strategy and study selection

We searched the following electronic databases to identify all potentially eligible trials: PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, as well as the WangFang database and National Knowledge Infrastructure for Chinese literature. Detailed information on the literature search strategy and study criteria are presented in the Supplementary Methods. As a result of the selection criteria, the included studies mainly contained four treatment arms: IC plus CCRT, CCRT alone, CCRT plus AC, and RT alone.

Quality control and data extraction

To assess the quality of the included studies, we examined the randomization procedure, sample size estimation, adoption of blinding in study design, allocation concealment, whether intention-to-treat analysis was followed, loss to follow-up and dropout. The Jadad/Oxford quality scoring system was used to quantify study quality [13]. Three investigators (H.P, B.B.C and R.S) reviewed the published papers and extracted the data independently. Data on study design, study time, number of patients in each arm, staging information, randomization scheme, follow-up duration, treatment protocol, end-points and failure patterns were abstracted. Any discrepancies in quality assessment and data extraction were resolved by consensus.

Statistical analysis

The primary end-point was OS, defined as the duration from randomization to death from any cause. Other end-points included distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS). Survival data were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs). Traditional pairwise meta-analysis was initially conducted using Stata 13.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA). HRs and corresponding variance were used directly if reported in the original studies; otherwise, we extracted these data from the previous meta-analysis based on individualized data [14] using the method of Parmar et al. [15]. Heterogeneity across studies was examined using the χ2 test and I2 statistic. Statistically significant heterogeneity was defined as a χ2 P-value < 0.1 or an I2 statistic > 50%.

Network meta-analysis was performed with R software (version 3.3.3; R Foundation, Vienna, Austria) using the netmeta package [16, 17] and a frequentist approach [16]. Treatment effects were estimated by calculating HRs with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity or inconsistency between and within designs was assessed using the Q test, which was proposed to be a generalization of Cochran's test by Rücker et al. [16]. If no heterogeneity existed (P > 0.1), a fixed-effects model was used. In case of significant heterogeneity, use of a random-effects model and sensitivity analysis were considered. The P-score, proposed by Rücker and Schwarzer [18] as a frequentist analog to surface under the cumulative ranking curve [19, 20], was adopted to rank treatment arms. The P-score of the best treatment is 100%, and the worst, 0%. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities in different treatment arms were compared using the χ2 test. A two-sided P-value of < 0.05 was considered significant. More details of the network meta-analysis are presented in the Supplementary Methods.

Results

Included studies

Up to April 2017, we identified 23 potentially eligible studies in total (Supplementary Figure S1). The studies by Chen et al. [21] and Fountzilas et al. [22] involving stage II NPC were excluded. Since uracil + tegafur was used as the concurrent chemotherapy regimen, the study by Kwong et al. [23] was also excluded but would be included in the sensitivity analysis. We excluded the study by Lin et al. [24] as it did not meet the inclusion criterion of unpredictable treatment allocation. The studies by Tan et al. [12] reporting only one-side 95% CI, and that by Lee et al. [25] not providing HR for each comparison were excluded. We therefore excluded this study. Moreover, updates have been made to six studies: Chan et al. [26, 27], Lee et al. [28, 29], Lee et al. [30, 31], Chen et al. [32, 33], Chen et al. [6, 34] and Zhang et al. [35, 36]. Therefore, 11 studies [4, 8-10, 26, 29, 30, 33-35, 37] were eligible for this network meta-analysis. Notably, two treatment arms receiving accelerated-fraction radiotherapy in the study by Lee et al. [30, 31] were excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criterion of conventional-fraction radiotherapy. The baseline characteristics of the 11 studies are summarized in Table 1. In total, 3165 patients were randomly assigned: 513 received IC + CCRT, 840 received CCRT + AC, 998 received CCRT, and 814 received RT alone. HR and variance were obtained from two previous meta-analysis based on individualized data [11, 14] or directly from the original text. Quality assessment of all eligible studies is presented in Supplementary Table S1.

Direct meta-analysis

Supplementary Figure S2 presents the results of all direct meta-analysis. Notably, between-study effect size heterogeneity only existed in the comparison of CCRT vs. RT for DMFS (I2 = 55.9%), therefore a random-effects model was used. Compared to RT alone, CCRT + AC (OS: HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.74; DMFS: HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39-0.64) and CCRT (OS: HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.91; DMFS: HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.34-0.92) resulted in significantly better OS and DMFS. Moreover, CCRT + AC significantly reduced locoregional recurrence compared to RT alone (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.32-0.64). Compared to CCRT, IC + CCRT was associated with significantly improved OS (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.91), DMFS (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39-0.76) and LRFS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.40-1.00). No significant differences in OS, DMFS or LRFS were observed between CCRT + AC and CCRT alone.

Network meta-analysis

The network analysis of the four treatment arms (CCRT, CCRT + AC, IC + CCRT, and RT) is represented in Figure 1. The CCRT arm was established as the reference group. The results of multiple treatment meta-analysis are summarized in Table 2. Inconsistency or heterogeneity were not found either within or between studies for any end-point (P > 0.1). Therefore, a fixed-effects model was adopted. The forest plot of OS, DMFS and LRFS in the network meta-analysis with different reference groups is presented in Figure 2.

Compared to CCRT, IC + CCRT resulted in significantly better OS (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.43-0.97) and RT alone led to significantly poorer OS (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.05-1.65). However, no differences were observed between CCRT + AC and CCRT, and CCRT + AC and IC + CCRT (Supplementary Table S2). The corresponding P-scores for CCRT, CCRT + AC, IC + CCRT, and RT were 38.0%, 66.4%, 95.3%, and 0.3%, indicating IC + CCRT has a higher probability of being the best treatment in terms of OS.

With regards to DMFS, the HRs for CCRT + AC, IC + CCRT, and RT compared to CCRT were 0.80 (0.58-1.11), 0.47 (0.31-0.73), and 1.26 (0.95-1.68), respectively. No significant difference in DMFS was observed between CCRT + AC and IC + CCRT (Supplementary Table S3), and IC + CCRT achieved the highest P-score of 99.0% for DMFS. For LRFS, a significant difference was only observed between CCRT + AC and RT alone (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.17-2.06; Supplementary Table S4), and the P-scores for CCRT, CCRT + AC, IC + CCRT, and RT were 29.2%, 79.5%, 78.8%, and 12.6%. Therefore, IC + CCRT resulted in best OS and DMFS, and CCRT + AC, best LRFS.

Grade 3-4 acute toxicities

Due to data limitations, it was not possible to compare toxicities between the four treatment arms. Therefore, we only compared grade 3-4 acute toxicities during CCRT between the initial (CCRT and CCRT + AC treatments) and subsequent (IC + CCRT treatment) phases (Supplementary Table S5). Generally, patients in the subsequent phase experienced a lower rate of grade 3-4 skin (P < 0.001) and mucositis toxicities (P < 0.001) compared with those in the initial phase. Additionally, most toxicities were comparable between the two phases. Therefore, IC did not significantly increase severe toxicities during CCRT.

Sensitivity analysis

To test the stability of our results, we conducted sensitivity analysis after including the study by Kwong et al. [23]; and the results are described in the Supplementary Results. Notably, the conclusions remained valid after including this study. Moreover, IC + CCRT was even found to be superior to CCRT + AC for DMFS. Similarly, IC + CCRT still provided the highest OS and DMFS benefits, while CCRT + AC provided highest LRFS benefit.

Discussion

Based on all available information extracted from the included studies and two previous meta-analysis with individualized data, we conducted multiple comparisons between CCRT, CCRT + AC, IC + CCRT and RT alone to assess the optimal treatment modality for LA-NPC. IC + CCRT provided the largest OS and DMFS benefits while CCRT + AC provided the largest LRFS benefit. Sensitivity analysis after including the study by Kwong et al. [23] also obtained similar outcomes. Good consistency and heterogeneity were observed between the direct and network meta-analysis for all end-points, indicating these findings are robust.

 Table 1 

Summary of the 11 studies included in this network meta-analysis

StudyNo. of patientsStudy timeMedian follow-up
duration months)
Patient stageRadiotherapyInductionChemotherapy
ConcurrentAdjuvant
CCRT + AC vs. RT
Al-Sarraf et al. [5]193a1989-199532.4AJCC III-IV66-70 Gy at 1.8-2.0 Gy/f/day (5f/qw)NoneDDP 100 mg/m2 d1 q3w × 3DDP 80 mg/m2 d1 + Fu 1000 mg/m2/day d1-4 civ q3w × 4
Wee et al. [30]2211997-200338.4AJCC III-IV, T3-4Nx or TxN2-370 Gy/35f at 2 Gy/f/day (5f/qw) for 7 weeksNoneDDP 25 mg/m2/day for 4 days or 30/30/40 mg/m2/day for 3 days q3w × 3DDP 20 mg/m2/day for 4 days + Fu 1000 mg/m2/day d1-4 q3w × 3
Lee et al. [20,21]3481999-200470.8AJCC III-IV, any T, N2-3≥ 66 Gy at 2.0 Gy/f/day (5f/qw) + additional boosts to parapharyngeal space, primary or nodal sites when indicated not exceeding 20 GyNone100 mg/m2 d1 q3w × 3DDP 80 mg/m2 d1 + 1000 mg/m2/day d1-d4 civ q4w × 3
Lee et al. [22,23]931999-200475.6AJCC III-IV, T3-4N0-1≥ 66 Gy at 2.0 Gy/f/day (5f/qw) + additional boosts to parapharyngeal space, primary or nodal sites when indicated not exceeding 20 GyNone100 mg/m2 d1 q3w × 3DDP 80 mg/m2 d1 + 1000 mg/m2/day d1-d4 civ q4w × 3
Chen et al. [24,25]3162002-200570AJCC III-IV, T1-4, N0-3≥ 68 Gy at 2.0 Gy/f/day (5f/qw) for 7 weeks + additional boost in case of parapharyngeal extension, residual neck and/or nasopharyngeal tumorNone100 mg/m2 d1 q3w × 3DDP 80 mg/m2 d1 + Fu 800 mg/m2/day d1-5 civ q3w × 3
CCRT vs. RT
Chan et al. [18,19]3501994-199766Ho's N2-3 or N1 with nodal size ≥ 4cm66 Gy + additional boost in case of parapharyngeal extension, residual neck or nasopharyngeal tumorNoneDDP 40 mg/m2 d1 weekly for 8 weeksNone
Zhang et al. [27,28]1152001-2003114AJCC III-IV, any T, N2-370-74 Gy at 2 Gy/f/day (5f/qw) + additional boost in case of parapharyngeal extension, residual neck or nasopharyngeal tumorNoneOxaliplatin 70 mg/m2 d1 weekly for 6 weeksNone
IC + CCRT vs. CCRT
Hui et al. [10]652002-200451.6AJCC III-IVB, T1-4, N0-366 Gy/33f at 2 Gy/f/day (5f/qw) + additional boost of 20 Gy/10f to parapharyngealDocetaxel 75 mg/m2 d1 +
DDP 75 mg/m2 d1 q3w × 2
40 mg/m2 d1 qw × 8None
Sun et al. [11]4802011-201345AJCC III-IVB, except T3-4N0≥ 66 Gy at 2.00-2.35 Gy/f/day for 6-7 weeksDocetaxel 60 mg/m2 d1 + DDP 60 mg/m2 d1 + Fu 600 mg/m2/day d1-5 civ q3w × 3100 mg/m2 d1 q3w × 3None
Cao et al. [9]4762008-201550AJCC III-IVB, except T3N0-1≥ 66 Gy at 2.0-2.33 Gy/f/dayDDP 80 mg/m2 d1 + Fu 800 mg/m2/day d1-5 civ q3w × 380 mg/m2 d1 q3w × 3None
CCRT + AC vs. CCRT
Chen et al. [7,26]5082006-201068.4AJCC III-IVB except T3-4N0≥ 66 Gy at 2.0-2.27 Gy/f/day (5f/qw) for 6-7 weeksNoneDDP 40 mg/m2 d1 weekly for up to 7 weeksDDP 80 mg/m2 d1 + Fu 800 mg/m2/day d1-5 civ q4w × 3

Abbreviations: CCRT = concurrent chemoradiotherapy; IC = induction chemotherapy; AC = adjuvant chemotherapy; RT = radiotherapy; AJCC = American Joint Committee on cancer; f = fraction; DDP = cisplatin; Fu = fluorouracil; civ = continuous i.v.; q3w = every 3 weeks; q4w = every 4 weeks; AUC = area under concentration-time curve. 2D-RT = two-dimensional radiotherapy; IMRT = intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

a 193 patients were registered, but only 147 were analyzed.

 Table 2 

Summary of network meta-analysis for the three end-points

Treatment armOSDMFSLRFS
P value for overall heterogeneity/inconsistency0.440.840.52
P value for heterogeneity (within designs)0.370.760.45
P value for heterogeneity (between designs)0.630.760.59
CCRT
HR1.001.001.00
P-score (%)38.034.529.2
CCRT + AC
HR (95% CI)0.86 (0.66-1.12)0.80 (0.58-1.11)0.72 (0.46-1.13)
P-score (%)66.464.779.5
IC + CCRT
HR (95% CI)0.65 (0.43-0.97)0.47 (0.31-0.73)0.69 (0.40-1.19)
P-score (%)95.399.078.8
RT
HR (95% CI)1.32 (1.05-1.65)1.26 (0.95-1.68)1.12 (0.75-1.66)
P-score (%)0.31.812.6

Abbreviations: OS = overall survival; DMFS = distant metastasis-free survival; LRFS = locoregional recurrence-free survival; CCRT = concurrent chemoradiotherapy; AC = adjuvant chemotherapy; IC = induction chemotherapy; RT = radiotherapy. HR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence interval.

A fixed-effects model was used for overall survival, distant metastasis-free survival and locoregional recurrence-free survival.

 Figure 1 

Graphical presentation of the trial network for overall survival. The sizes of the blue nodes represent the number of patients in each treatment arm. The width of the lines between nodes is proportional to the number of comparisons. Only two treatment arms receiving conventional-fraction radiotherapy in the study by Lee et al. (2011) were included in this study. CCRT, concurrent chemoradiotherapy; IC, induction chemotherapy; AC, adjuvant chemotherapy; RT, radiotherapy.

J Cancer Image (Click on the image to enlarge.)

Compared to CCRT, CCRT + AC did not result in significantly better OS, DMFS or LRFS, indicating the value of adding AC to CCRT may be limited. Notably, the recommended AC regimen, cisplatin with fluorouracil (PF)-which was first proven in the Intergroup Study 0099-was used in all included studies [4]. However, a randomized phase III trial conducted in head and neck cancer showed this combined AC regimen did not improve survival outcomes compared with either single-agent regimen individually [38]. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer the adjuvant PF regimen is insufficiently effective in terms of preventing distant failure and improving survival in both head and neck cancers and NPC. The rates of compliance to three cycles of AC range from approximately 52-63% [4, 6, 28, 32, 37], and many patients also require dose reductions. Therefore, the actual benefits of AC are reduced by severe toxicities and poor compliance. Furthermore, the favorable survival outcomes of CCRT may also dilute the benefit of AC.

 Figure 2 

Forest plot of network meta-analysis for overall survival, distant metastasis-free survival and locoregional recurrence-free survival with different reference groups. CCRT, concurrent chemoradiotherapy; IC, induction chemotherapy; AC, adjuvant chemotherapy; RT, radiotherapy.

J Cancer Image (Click on the image to enlarge.)

In the last decade, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has revolutionized the management of NPC, and distant metastasis has become the predominant failure pattern for advanced disease [39, 40]. Consequently, IC has attracted much attention as it can eradicate micrometastases during early treatment and shrink tumor volume to improve radiation dose coverage. In this study, IC + CCRT achieved significantly better OS and DMFS than CCRT in both the direct and network meta-analyses, while LRFS was comparable between arms. This conclusion was different from the study by Ribassin-Majed et al. [41], and that is because the evidence for IC in our study was stronger since two trials [8, 10] regarding IC were included. Therefore, IC effectively improves survival outcomes, and does not significantly increase acute toxicities during CCRT. However, we can also learn two key points from previously negative studies [12, 22, 42, 43]. First, it is possible that only high-risk patients benefit from IC. In studies achieving positive results [8, 10, 44], patients with T3-4N0 or T3N1 were usually excluded, or only patients with stage IV disease were included. However, Tan et al. [12] and Fountzilas et al. [22] obtained negative results since low-risk patients (stage IIB or T3-4N0) were included. Secondly, it is critical to select an effective induction regimen, such as docetaxel plus cisplatin with fluorouracil (TPF), which has been proven to be superior to PF in head and neck cancer [45-47]. Moreover, gemcitabine with cisplatin (GP) has been proven superior to PF in recurrent or metastatic NPC [48]. Thus, selection of effective chemotherapy regimens for appropriate patients should be a priority. Pre-treatment plasma Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA has recently been confirmed to be an effective indicator of the response to IC [49, 50], although randomized trials are warranted.

CCRT is inadequate for high-risk patients with LA-NPC; additional induction or adjuvant chemotherapy is a reasonable approach [51]. Therefore, either CCRT + AC or IC + CCRT is potentially the most appropriate treatment. However, clinical trials directly comparing CCRT + AC with IC + CCRT are lacking. In this study, survival outcomes did not differ significantly between CCRT + AC and IC + CCRT for any end-point. However, after including the study by Kwong et al. [23], IC + CCRT was more effective than CCRT + AC for reducing distant metastasis. Therefore, our findings indicate IC + CCRT may be slightly superior to, or at least as efficacious as, CCRT + AC. Given its lower toxicities and better compliance, it is reasonable to recommend IC + CCRT as the preferred treatment for LA-NPC.

RT was poorer than CCRT, CCRT + AC and IC + CCRT and for all end-points. Therefore, RT alone should not be recommended whenever possible. However, while clinical treatment outcomes are indicated by the P-score of each treatment arm, if differences in effect size between treatments were small and non-significant, a treatment ranking probability would still have been generated without definitive statistical meaning. Compared to previous network meta-analyses [7, 52-54], the main strength of this work is inclusion of studies comparing IC + CCRT with CCRT alone [8, 10]. Though the NCCN guidelines consider only level III evidence is available for IC + CCRT at present, our findings provided stronger evidence in favor of this treatment.

The limitations of this study should be addressed: HRs and corresponding 95% CIs were mainly extracted from the original studies without access to individualized data, except for two studies [10, 34], which could produce reporting bias. Moreover, progression-free survival (PFS) could not be assessed as the definitions of PFS varied between studies. To minimize these limitations, we set strict inclusion criteria and three investigators independently reviewed and extracted data. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis confirmed the findings were valid.

Conclusion

In summary, this network meta-analysis demonstrates IC + CCRT is superior to CCRT provides highest OS and DMFS benefits while CCRT + AC provides highest LRFS benefit. Therefore, IC + CCRT may be the most appropriate treatment for LA-NPC. Our ongoing trial (NCT01872962) may be more informative.

Abbreviations

NPC: nasopharyngeal carcinoma; RT: radiotherapy; LA-NPC: locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma; CCRT: concurrent chemoradiotherapy; AC: adjuvant chemotherapy; OS: overall survival; IC: induction chemotherapy; DMFS: distant metastasis-free survival; LRFS: locoregional relapse-free survival; HRs: hazard ratios; CIs: confidence intervals; IMRT: intensity-modulated radiotherapy; PF: cisplatin with fluorouracil; TPF: docetaxel plus cisplatin with fluorouracil; GP: gemcitabine with cisplatin; EBV: Epstein-Barr virus; PFS: progression-free survival.

Supplementary Material

Attachment

Supplementary methods, figures and tables.

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thanked professor Jun Ma (Sun Yat-sen University cancer center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, People's Republic of China) for providing financial support.

Funding

The study received financial support from the National Science & Technology Pillar Program during the Twelfth Five-year Plan Period [2014BAI09B10]; the Science and Technology Project of Guangzhou City, China [14570006]; the Planned Science and Technology Project of Guangdong Province [2013B020400004]; and the Health & Medical Collaborative Innovation Project of Guangzhou City, China [201400000001].

Author contributions

H.P, B.B.C and L.L.T contributed to study design and conception. H.P, B.B.C and R.S searched the electronic database and extracted data independently. H.P, X.L, R.G, Y.Z, Y.P.M and A.H.L analyzed and interpreted the data. H.P and B.B.C contributed to manuscript editing. R.S, G.Q.Z and W.H.H contributed to quality control and review of the data and manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version of the submitted manuscript.

Competing Interests

The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.

References

1. Wei WI, Sham JS. Sham, Nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Lancet. 2005;365:2041-54

2. Zhang LF, Li YH, Xie SH. et al. Incidence trend of nasopharyngeal carcinoma from 1987 to 2011 in Sihui County, Guangdong Province, South China: an age-period-cohort analysis. Chin J Cancer. 2015;34:350-7

3. Yi JL, Gao L, Huang XD. et al. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated by radical radiotherapy alone: Ten-year experience of a single institution. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:161-8

4. Al-Sarraf M, LeBlanc M, Giri PG. et al. Chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy in patients with advanced nasopharyngeal cancer: phase III randomized Intergroup study 0099. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:1310-7

5. Baujat B, Audry H, Bourhis J. et al. Chemotherapy in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an individual patient data meta-analysis of eight randomized trials and 1753 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64:47-56

6. Chen L, Hu CS, Chen XZ. et al. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:163-71

7. Chen YP, Wang ZX, Chen L. et al. A Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone and radiotherapy alone in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:205-11

8. Cao SM, Yang Q, Guo L. et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A phase III multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer. 2017;75:14-23

9. Hui EP, Ma BB, Leung SF. et al. Randomized phase II trial of concurrent cisplatin-radiotherapy with or without neoadjuvant docetaxel and cisplatin in advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:242-9

10. Sun Y, Li WF, Chen NY. et al. Induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a phase 3, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:1509-1520

11. Ribassin-Majed L, Marguet S, Lee AW. et al. What Is the Best Treatment of Locally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma? An Individual Patient Data Network Meta-Analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2016 p. JCO2016674119

12. Tan T, Lim WT, Fong KW. et al. Concurrent chemo-radiation with or without induction gemcitabine, Carboplatin, and Paclitaxel: a randomized, phase 2/3 trial in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;91:952-60

13. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D. et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1-12

14. Blanchard P, Lee A, Marguet S. et al. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an update of the MAC-NPC meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:645-55

15. Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Stewart, Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med. 1998;17:2815-34

16. Rucker G. Network meta-analysis, electrical networks and graph theory. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3:312-24

17. Rucker G, Schwarzer G, Krahn U. et al. Netmeta: Network meta-analysis using frequentistmethods.http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/netmeta/index.html.

18. Rucker G, Schwarzer G. Schwarzer, Ranking treatments in frequentist network meta-analysis works without resampling methods. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:58

19. Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D. et al. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One. 2013;8:e76654

20. Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Ioannidis, Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:163-71

21. Chen QY, Wen YF, Guo L. et al. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy vs radiotherapy alone in stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma: phase III randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1761-70

22. Fountzilas G, Ciuleanu E, Bobos M. et al. Induction chemotherapy followed by concomitant radiotherapy and weekly cisplatin versus the same concomitant chemoradiotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a randomized phase II study conducted by the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG) with biomarker evaluation. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:427-35

23. Kwong DL, Sham JS, Au GK. et al. Concurrent and adjuvant chemotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a factorial study. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2643-53

24. Lin JC, Jan JS, Hsu CY. et al. Phase III study of concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: positive effect on overall and progression-free survival. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:631-7

25. Lee AW, Ngan RK, Tung SY. et al. Preliminary results of trial NPC-0501 evaluating the therapeutic gain by changing from concurrent-adjuvant to induction-concurrent chemoradiotherapy, changing from fluorouracil to capecitabine, and changing from conventional to accelerated radiotherapy fractionation in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer. 2015;121:1328-38

26. Chan AT, Leung SF, Ngan RK. et al. Overall survival after concurrent cisplatin-radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:536-9

27. Chan AT, Teo PM, Ngan RK. et al. Concurrent chemotherapy-radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: progression-free survival analysis of a phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:2038-44

28. Lee AW, Lau WH, Tung SY. et al. Preliminary results of a randomized study on therapeutic gain by concurrent chemotherapy for regionally-advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: NPC-9901 Trial by the Hong Kong Nasopharyngeal Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:6966-75

29. Lee AW, Tung SY, Chua DT. et al. Randomized trial of radiotherapy plus concurrent-adjuvant chemotherapy vs radiotherapy alone for regionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:1188-98

30. Lee AW, Tung SY, Chan AT. et al. A randomized trial on addition of concurrent-adjuvant chemotherapy and/or accelerated fractionation for locally-advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Radiother Oncol. 2011;98:15-22

31. Lee AW, Tung SY, Chan AT. et al. Preliminary results of a randomized study (NPC-9902 Trial) on therapeutic gain by concurrent chemotherapy and/or accelerated fractionation for locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;66:142-51

32. Chen Y, Liu MZ, Liang SB. et al. Preliminary results of a prospective randomized trial comparing concurrent chemoradiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy with radiotherapy alone in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma in endemic regions of china. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71:1356-64

33. Chen Y, Sun Y, Liang SB. et al. Progress report of a randomized trial comparing long-term survival and late toxicity of concurrent chemoradiotherapy with adjuvant chemotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in patients with stage III to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma from endemic regions of China. Cancer. 2013;119:2230-8

34. Chen L, Hu CS, Chen XZ. et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Long-term results of a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer. 2017;75:150-158

35. Wu X, Huang PY, Peng PJ. et al. Long-term follow-up of a phase III study comparing radiotherapy with or without weekly oxaliplatin for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:2131-6

36. Zhang L, Zhao C, Peng PJ. et al. Phase III study comparing standard radiotherapy with or without weekly oxaliplatin in treatment of locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: preliminary results. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8461-8

37. Wee J, Tan EH, Tai BC. et al. Randomized trial of radiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union against cancer stage III and IV nasopharyngeal cancer of the endemic variety. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:6730-8

38. Jacobs C, Lyman G, Velez-Garcia E. et al. A phase III randomized study comparing cisplatin and fluorouracil as single agents and in combination for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10:257-63

39. Kam MK, Teo PM, Chau RM. et al. Treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma with intensity-modulated radiotherapy: the Hong Kong experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60:1440-50

40. Sun X, Su S, Chen C. et al. Long-term outcomes of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for 868 patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an analysis of survival and treatment toxicities. Radiother Oncol. 2014;110:398-403

41. Ribassin-Majed L, Marguet S, Lee AWM. et al. What Is the Best Treatment of Locally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma? An Individual Patient Data Network Meta-Analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:498-505

42. Hareyama M, Sakata K, Shirato H. et al. A prospective, randomized trial comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with radiotherapy alone in patients with advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer. 2002;94:2217-23

43. Ma J, Mai HQ, Hong MH. et al. Results of a prospective randomized trial comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus radiotherapy with radiotherapy alone in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:1350-7

44. International Nasopharynx Cancer Study G, Trial VI. Preliminary results of a randomized trial comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (cisplatin, epirubicin, bleomycin) plus radiotherapy vs. radiotherapy alone in stage IV(> or = N2, M0) undifferentiated nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a positive effect on progression-free survival. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996;35:463-9

45. Pointreau Y, Garaud P, Chapet S. et al. Randomized trial of induction chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil with or without docetaxel for larynx preservation. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:498-506

46. Posner MR, Hershock DM, Blajman CR. et al. Cisplatin and fluorouracil alone or with docetaxel in head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1705-15

47. Vermorken JB, Remenar E, van Herpen C. et al. Cisplatin, fluorouracil, and docetaxel in unresectable head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1695-704

48. Zhang L, Huang Y, Hong S. et al. Gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin in recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2016;388:1883-1892

49. Du XJ, Tang LL, Chen L. et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Defining high-risk patients who may benefit before concurrent chemotherapy combined with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Sci Rep. 2015;5:16664

50. Peng H, Chen L, Li WF. et al. Prognostic Value of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Locoregionally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma with Low Pre-treatment Epstein-Barr Virus DNA: a Propensity-matched Analysis. J Cancer. 2016;7:1465-71

51. Lin JC, Liang WM, Jan JS. et al. Another way to estimate outcome of advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma-is concurrent chemoradiotherapy adequate?. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60:156-64

52. Chen YP, Guo R, Liu N. et al. Efficacy of the Additional Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy to Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Patients with Locoregionally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: a Bayesian Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Cancer. 2015;6:883-92

53. Yan M, Kumachev A, Siu LL. et al. Chemoradiotherapy regimens for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A Bayesian network meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:1570-9

54. Yu H, Gu D, He X. et al. The role of induction and adjuvant chemotherapy in combination with concurrent chemoradiotherapy for nasopharyngeal cancer: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials. Onco Targets Ther. 2016;9:159-70

Author contact

Corresponding address Corresponding author: Fei Han, Professor, M.D., State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, People's Republic of China. Telephone: +86-20-8734-3543; Fax: +86-20-8734-3372; E-mail: hanfeisysucccom


Received 2017-7-31
Accepted 2017-10-3
Published 2018-1-1