No abstract

Given the distinct biological characteristics and regional distribution of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) compared with other head and neck cancers, and uncertainties regarding therapeutic strategies, physicians require high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to provide transparent recommendations for NPC treatment. This study aimed to critically appraise the quality of NPC CPGs and assess the consistency of their recommendations. We identified CPGs that provided recommendations on the diagnosis and management of NPC published up to December 2015. Four investigators independently appraised CPG quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research& Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Key recommendations by CPGs were also evaluated. A total of 7 CPGs were eligible for this study: 5 produced by professional organizations or governmental agencies and 2 were developed based on expert consensus. Of the 6 AGREE II domains, the applicability domain scored consistently low across CPGs (range, 13.5%-30.2%); no CPG achieved a score of>50% in all 6 domains. The scope and purpose domain (≥73.6% for 4 CPGs) and editorial independence domain (≥75.0% for 6 CPGs) scored highest. Of the 23 AGREE II items, 9 scored less than half of the points available in all 7 CPGs. The recommendations by CPGs were consistent in general; heterogeneity mainly existed among recommended therapeutic strategies. Variation exists in NPC CPG development processes and recommendations. Increased efforts are required to make comprehensive resources available to guide healthcare providers and enhance delivery of high-quality, evidence-based care for NPC. International collaboration is necessary to enable the development of high-quality and regionally relevant CPGs for NPC.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of induction chemotherapy (IC) followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) over CCRT alone in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and chronic hepatitis B infection in the intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) era is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 249 patients with stage T1-2 N2-3 or T3-4 N1-3 NPC and chronic hepatitis B infection treated with IMRT were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to balance covariates; 140 patients were propensity-matched (1:1 basis). Survival outcomes in the IC + CCRT and CCRT groups were compared using the Kaplan–Meier method, log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: No significant survival differences were observed between IC + CCRT and CCRT (5-year overall survival, 88.3% vs. 82.2%; P = .484; disease-free survival, 73.9% vs. 75.2%; P = .643; distant metastasis-free survival, 84.1% vs. 85.1%; P = .781; and locoregional failure-free survival, 87.9% vs. 85.1%; P = .834). After adjusting for known prognostic factors in multivariate analysis, IC was not an independent prognostic factor for any outcome (all P > .05); subgroup analysis based on T category (T1-2/T3-4), N category (N0-1/N2-3), and overall stage (III/IV) confirmed these results. The incidence of hepatic function damage in the IC + CCRT and CCRT groups was not significantly different. CONCLUSION: IC + CCRT leads to comparable survival outcomes and hepatic function damage compared to CCRT alone in patients with locoregionally advanced NPC with chronic hepatitis B infection in the IMRT era. Further investigations are warranted.