BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcome and toxicities in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treated by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) with/without adding cetuximab.MethodsA total of 62 patients treated with CCRT plus cetuximab were matched with 124 patients treated with CCRT alone by age, sex, pathological type, T category, N category, disease stage, radiotherapy (RT) technique, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA levels, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank test. Treatment toxicities were clarified and compared between two groups.ResultsA total of 186 well-balanced stage II to IV NPC patients were retrospectively analyzed (median follow-up, 76 months). Compared to CCRT alone, adding cetuximab resulted in more grade 3 to 4 radiation mucositis (51.6% vs. 23.4%; P < 0.001). No differences were found between the CCRT + cetuximab group and the CCRT group in 5-year OS (89.7% vs. 90.7%, P = 0.386), 3-year PFS (83.9% vs. 88.7%, P = 0.115), the 3-year LRFS (95.0% vs. 96.7%, P = 0.695), and the 3-year DMFS (88.4% vs 91.9%, P = 0.068). Advanced disease stage was the independent prognostic factor predicting poorer OS and PFS.ConclusionAdding cetuximab to CCRT did not significantly improve benefits in survival in stage II to IV NPC and exacerbated acute mucositis and acneiform rash. Further investigations are warranted.

BackgroundThe effects of induction chemotherapy (IC) followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in high-risk (stage III-IVb with EBV DNA≥4000 copies/ml) nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients are unclear.MethodsA total of 325 high-risk NPC patients treated with IC+CCRT or CCRT alone who were treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) between March 2007 and March 2013 were included. For each patient in the IC+CCRT group, a matched pair in the CCRT group was matching for: gender, age, T stage, N stage, clinical stage and WHO (World Health Organization) type. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and locoregional relapse-free survival (LRFS).ResultsThere were no significant differences in OS, PFS, DMFS, and LRFS between the IC+CCRT (148 patients) and CCRT (177 patients) groups. After matching, 103 paired patients were analyzed, and there were no differences between the IC+CCRT and CCRT groups regarding clinical outcomes. Based on the subgroup analysis of 156 very-high-risk patients (stage N2-3 with EBV DNA ≥4000 copies/ml), the 5-year OS of the IC+CCRT and CCRT groups was 84.3% and 67.5% (P =0.033), respectively. Based on our multivariate analysis, the treatment group was significantly associated with OS (P=0.034; HR0.451, 95%CI 0.216-0.941).ConclusionsIC+CCRT did not improve the clinical outcomes of high-risk NPC patients compared to CCRT alone. However, in very-high-risk patients, IC+CCRT treatment led to increased OS compared to patients received CCRT treatment alone.

No abstract