Xiong Zou1, Rui You1, Huai Liu2, Yu-Xiang He3, Guo-Feng Xie4, Zhi-Hai Xie5, Ji-Bin Li6, Rou Jiang1, Li-Zhi Liu7, Li Li7, Meng-Xia Zhang1, You-Ping Liu1, Yi-Jun Hua1, Ling Guo1, Chao-Nan Qian1, Hai-Qiang Mai1, Dong-Ping Chen4, Ying Luo2, Liang-Fang Shen3, Ming-Huang Hong6, Ming-Yuan Chen8. 1. Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou 510060, PR China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, PR China. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Hunan Cancer Hospital, 283 Tongzipo Road, Changsha 410000, PR China. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha 410008, PR China. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Center of Guangzhou Medical University, 78 Hengzhigang, Guangzhou 510095, PR China. 5. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha 410008, PR China. 6. Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, PR China; Department of Clinical Trials Center, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou 510060, PR China; Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou 510060, PR China. 7. Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, PR China; Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou 510060, PR China. 8. Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou 510060, PR China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, PR China. Electronic address: chmingy@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To better manage patients with de novo metastatic NPC (mNPC) including easily identifying individuals' survival outcomes and accurately choosing the most suitable treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three independent cohorts of mNPC patients (a training set ofn = 462, an internal prospective validation set of n = 272 and an external prospective validation set of n = 243) were studied. The radiological characteristics of distant metastases, including number of metastatic locations, number of metastatic lesions and size of metastatic lesions, were carefully defined based on imaging data. These three factors and other potential prognostic factors were comprehensively analysed and were further integrated into new subdivisions of stage M1 using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: We successfully subdivided the M1 stage into three categories: M1a, oligo metastasis without liver involvement; M1b, multiple metastases without liver involvement; and M1c, liver involvement irrespective of metastatic lesions. The 3-year overall survival ranged from 54.5% to 72.8%, from 34.3% to 41.6% and from 22.6.0%-23.6% for M1a, M1b and M1c, respectively (P < 0.001). Systemic chemotherapy combined with radical loco-regional radiotherapy may benefit patients in M1a and M1b, not in M1c. Further aggressive treatment of metastatic lesions based on systemic chemotherapy and definitive loco-regional radiotherapy showed no survival benefit, even for patients in M1a (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The subdividing of M1 provided promising prognostic value and could aid clinicians in choosing the most suitable treatment for de novo mNPC patients.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: To better manage patients with de novo metastatic NPC (mNPC) including easily identifying individuals' survival outcomes and accurately choosing the most suitable treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three independent cohorts of mNPC patients (a training set of n = 462, an internal prospective validation set of n = 272 and an external prospective validation set of n = 243) were studied. The radiological characteristics of distant metastases, including number of metastatic locations, number of metastatic lesions and size of metastatic lesions, were carefully defined based on imaging data. These three factors and other potential prognostic factors were comprehensively analysed and were further integrated into new subdivisions of stage M1 using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: We successfully subdivided the M1 stage into three categories: M1a, oligo metastasis without liver involvement; M1b, multiple metastases without liver involvement; and M1c, liver involvement irrespective of metastatic lesions. The 3-year overall survival ranged from 54.5% to 72.8%, from 34.3% to 41.6% and from 22.6.0%-23.6% for M1a, M1b and M1c, respectively (P < 0.001). Systemic chemotherapy combined with radical loco-regional radiotherapy may benefit patients in M1a and M1b, not in M1c. Further aggressive treatment of metastatic lesions based on systemic chemotherapy and definitive loco-regional radiotherapy showed no survival benefit, even for patients in M1a (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The subdividing of M1 provided promising prognostic value and could aid clinicians in choosing the most suitable treatment for de novo mNPC patients.
Authors: Kenneth C W Wong; Edwin P Hui; Kwok-Wai Lo; Wai Kei Jacky Lam; David Johnson; Lili Li; Qian Tao; Kwan Chee Allen Chan; Ka-Fai To; Ann D King; Brigette B Y Ma; Anthony T C Chan Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 66.675