Induction Chemotherapy Followed by Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Versus Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy with or without Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Locoregionally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Meta-analysis of 1,096 Patients from 11 Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract

Compared with the control group, induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy was well tolerated but could not significantly improve prognosis in terms of overall survival, loco-regional failure-free survival or distant metastasis failure-free survival.

Survival benefit of induction chemotherapy in treatment for locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma – A time-to-event meta-analysis

“…Our results of PFS and D-FFS were all positive, not similar as Liang et al [31]. From the forest images, we found that Ma's study [8] in 2014 was the major impact factor of positive outcomes.…”

“…As we know, Liang's et al study [31] was the latest meta-analysis which focused on the effect and toxicity of IC + CRRT vs. CRRT with or without adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). They collected all RCTs until October 2012, used RRs of 3OS, 3PFS, 2L-FFS and 2-DMFS as statistical values, and noted that few improvements of 3OS, 3PFS, 2L-FFS and 2-DMFS in IC + CRRT.…”

Weekly cetuximab concurrent with IMRT aggravated radiation-induced oral mucositis in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Results of a randomized phase II study

“…The cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy regimen was identified as the standard treatment, whereas in meta-analyses induction chemotherapy had shown to enhance treatment efficacy as a result of reduced distant metastases [2][3][4][5].…”

Significant benefits of adding neoadjuvant chemotherapy before concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

“…Four meta-analyses directly [5–6] or indirectly [7–8] showed that NACT plus CCRT did not improved OS compared versus CCRT or CCRT with AC in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. However, the largest pair-wise comparison included only 4 trials with a total of 798 patients [6], so these meta-analyses were underpowered by a small sample size [5–8]. In addition, the primary endpoint of all these meta-analyses was OS [5–8].…”