| Literature DB >> 32164051 |
Chao Lin1,2, Xue-Song Sun1,2, Sai-Lan Liu1,2, Xiao-Yun Li1,2, Nian Lu1,3, Xin-Ling Li1,3, Lin-Quan Tang1,2, Ling Guo1,2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The prognosis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients with parotid lymph node (PLN) metastasis remains unclear. This study was performed to investigate the prognostic significance and optimal staging category of PLN metastasis and develop a nomogram for estimating individual risk.Entities:
Keywords: Nasopharyngeal carcinoma; Nomogram; Overall survival; Parotid lymph node metastasis; Radiotherapy
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32164051 PMCID: PMC7373871 DOI: 10.4143/crt.2019.772
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Res Treat ISSN: 1598-2998 Impact factor: 4.679
Fig. 1.Flow chart for patient inclusion. NPC, nasopharyngeal carcinoma; SYSUCC, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center.
Patient characteristics in PLN(–) and PLN(+)
| Characteristic | Total | PLN(–) | PLN(+) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7,084 | 6,920 | 164 | ||
| ≤ 46 | 3,555 (50.2) | 3,471 (50.2) | 84 (51.2) | 0.813 |
| > 46 | 3,529 (49.8) | 3,449 (49.8) | 80 (48.8) | |
| Female | 1,843 (26.0) | 1,818 (26.3) | 25 (15.2) | 0.001 |
| Male | 5,241 (74.0) | 5,102 (73.7) | 139 (84.8) | |
| T1 | 597 (8.4) | 591 (8.5) | 6 (3.7) | < 0.001 |
| T2 | 1,502 (21.2) | 1,476 (21.3) | 26 (15.9) | |
| T3 | 3,390 (47.9) | 3,316 (47.9) | 74 (45.1) | |
| T4 | 1,595 (22.5) | 1,537 (22.2) | 58 (35.4) | |
| N0 | 1,315 (18.6) | 1,313 (19.0) | 2 (1.2) | < 0.001 |
| N1 | 2,535 (35.8) | 2,518 (36.4) | 17 (10.4) | |
| N2 | 2,601 (36.7) | 2,519 (36.4) | 82 (50.0) | |
| N3 | 633 (8.9) | 570 (8.2) | 63 (38.4) | |
| < 1,000 | 2,800 (40.2) | 2,776 (40.1) | 24 (14.6) | < 0.001 |
| 1,000-9,999 | 1,865 (26.1) | 1,821 (26.3) | 44 (26.8) | |
| 10,000-99,999 | 1,471 (21.0) | 1,404 (20.3) | 67 (40.9) | |
| 100,000-999,999 | 743 (9.9) | 721 (10.4) | 22 (13.4) | |
| ≥ 1,000,000 | 205 (2.8) | 198 (2.9) | 7 (4.3) | |
| Median (range) | 13 (3-61) | 12 (3-61) | 18 (7-41) | < 0.001 |
| 1,671 (23.6) | 1,581 (22.8) | 90 (54.9) | < 0.001 | |
| 1,992 (28.1) | 1,850 (26.7) | 142 (86.6) | < 0.001 | |
| 816 (11.5) | 741 (10.7) | 75 (45.7) | < 0.001 | |
| RT alone | 1,238 (17.5) | 1,233 (17.8) | 5 (3.0) | < 0.001 |
| CCRT | 2,438 (34.4) | 2,403 (34.7) | 35 (21.3) | |
| IC+RT | 1,459 (20.6) | 1,439 (20.8) | 20 (12.2) | |
| IC+CCRT | 1,745 (24.6) | 1,659 (24.0) | 86 (52.4) | |
| Others | 204 (2.9) | 186 (2.7) | 18 (11.0) |
Values are presented as number (%). Rare neck areas containing level Ia/b, level Vc, and level VI involvement. p-value was calculated using Pearson chi-square test or T test. PLN, parotid lymph node; EBV, Epstein-Barr virus; MAD, minimal axial diameter; LN, lymph node; ECS, extracapsular spread; RT, radiotherapy; CCRT, concurrent chemoradiotherapy; IC, induction chemotherapy.
According to the 8th edition of International Union Against Cancer/American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system,
Rare neck areas containing level Ia/b, level Vc, and level VI involvement.
Fig. 2.Kaplan-Meier survival curves of overall survival (OS) (A), progression-free survival (PFS) (B), locoregional relapsefree survival (LRFS) (C), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) (D) for comparing 164 patients with parotid lymph nodes (PLN) involvement and 6,920 patients without PLN involvement classified by N classification.
Patient characteristics in training cohort and validation cohort
| Characteristic | Training cohort (n=3,542) | Validation cohort (n=3,542) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| ≤ 46 | 1,801 (50.8) | 1,754 (49.5) | 0.274 |
| > 46 | 1,741 (49.2) | 1,788 (50.5) | |
| Female | 914 (25.8) | 929 (26.2) | 0.705 |
| Male | 2,628 (74.2) | 2,613 (73.8) | |
| T1 | 296 (8.4) | 301 (8.5) | 0.759 |
| T2 | 769 (21.7) | 733 (20.7) | |
| T3 | 1,689 (47.7) | 1,701 (48.0) | |
| T4 | 788 (22.2) | 807 (22.8) | |
| N0 | 666 (18.8) | 647 (18.3) | 0.959 |
| N1 | 1,258 (35.5) | 1,260 (35.6) | |
| N2 | 1,247 (35.2) | 1,272 (35.9) | |
| N3 | 289 (8.2) | 281 (7.9) | |
| PLN(+) | 82 (2.3) | 82 (2.3) | |
| < 1,000 | 1,409 (39.8) | 1,391 (39.3) | 0.129 |
| 1,000-9,999 | 952 (26.9) | 913 (25.8) | |
| 10,000-99,999 | 728 (20.6) | 743 (21.0) | |
| 100,000-999,999 | 368 (10.4) | 375 (10.6) | |
| ≥ 1,000,000 | 85 (2.4) | 120 (3.4) | |
| RT alone | 619 (17.5) | 619 (17.5) | 0.707 |
| CCRT | 1,223 (34.5) | 1,215 (34.3) | |
| IC+RT | 741 (20.9) | 718 (20.3) | |
| IC+CCRT | 851 (24.0) | 894 (25.2) | |
| Others | 108 (3.0) | 96 (2.7) |
Values are presented as number (%). Pearson chi-square test was used to calculate the p-value. PLN, parotid lymph node; EBV, Epstein-Barr virus; RT, radiotherapy; CCRT, concurrent chemoradiotherapy; IC, induction chemotherapy.
According to the 8th edition of International Union Against Cancer/American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system.
Multivariable analysis of prognostic factors for OS, PFS, LRFS, and DMFS in training cohort
| Characteristic | HR | 95% CI | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 1.736 | 1.510-1.996 | < 0.001 |
| Sex | 1.613 | 1.349-1.930 | < 0.001 |
| T category | |||
| T2 vs. T1 | 1.371 | 0.935-2.012 | 0.106 |
| T3 vs. T1 | 1.768 | 1.234-2.532 | 0.002 |
| T4 vs. T1 | 2.453 | 1.702-3.534 | < 0.001 |
| N category | |||
| N1 vs. N0 | 1.263 | 0.974-1.638 | 0.078 |
| N2 vs. N0 | 1.751 | 1.356-2.263 | < 0.001 |
| N3 vs. N0 | 2.623 | 1.948-3.531 | < 0.001 |
| PLN(+) vs. N0 | 3.951 | 2.807-5.561 | < 0.001 |
| EBV DNA level | |||
| 1,000-9,999 vs. < 1,000 | 1.417 | 1.121-1.792 | 0.004 |
| 10,000-99,999 vs. < 1,000 | 2.619 | 2.102-3.263 | < 0.001 |
| 100,000-999,999 vs. < 1,000 | 3.242 | 2.556-4.111 | < 0.001 |
| ≥ 1,000,000 vs. < 1,000 | 5.052 | 3.777-6.757 | < 0.001 |
| Age | 1.250 | 1.123-1.392 | < 0.001 |
| Sex | 1.378 | 1.205-1.575 | < 0.001 |
| T category | |||
| T2 vs. T1 | 1.602 | 1.176-2.183 | 0.003 |
| T3 vs. T1 | 1.909 | 1.424-2.558 | < 0.001 |
| T4 vs. T1 | 2.362 | 1.751-3.186 | < 0.001 |
| N category | |||
| N1 vs. N0 | 1.296 | 1.062-1.582 | 0.011 |
| N2 vs. N0 | 1.563 | 1.281-1.907 | < 0.001 |
| N3 vs. N0 | 1.985 | 1.564-2.520 | < 0.001 |
| PLN(+) vs. N0 | 4.225 | 3.224-5.538 | < 0.001 |
| EBV DNA level | |||
| 1,000-9,999 vs. < 1,000 | 1.392 | 1.168-1.661 | < 0.001 |
| 10,000-99,999 vs. < 1,000 | 2.570 | 2.174-3.037 | < 0.001 |
| 100,000-999,999 vs. < 1,000 | 3.225 | 2.681-3.880 | < 0.001 |
| ≥ 1,000,000 vs. < 1,000 | 5.303 | 4.191-6.710 | < 0.001 |
| Age | 1.059 | 0.884-1.268 | 0.537 |
| Sex | 1.243 | 0.998-1.548 | 0.052 |
| T category | |||
| T2 vs. T1 | 2.501 | 1.426-4.387 | 0.001 |
| T3 vs. T1 | 2.382 | 1.382-4.106 | 0.002 |
| T4 vs. T1 | 2.640 | 1.513-4.607 | 0.001 |
| N category | |||
| N1 vs. N0 | 1.145 | 0.848-1.546 | 0.377 |
| N2 vs. N0 | 1.090 | 0.801-1.484 | 0.583 |
| N3 vs. N0 | 0.912 | 0.595-1.399 | 0.674 |
| PLN (+) vs. N0 | 3.168 | 2.059-4.875 | < 0.001 |
| EBV DNA level | |||
| 1,000-9,999 vs. < 1,000 | 1.365 | 1.028-1.814 | 0.032 |
| 10,000-99,999 vs. < 1,000 | 2.355 | 1.794-3.092 | < 0.001 |
| 100,000-999,999 vs. < 1,000 | 3.358 | 2.497-4.518 | < 0.001 |
| ≥ 1,000,000 vs. < 1,000 | 3.250 | 2.075-5.091 | < 0.001 |
| Age | 1.193 | 1.046-1.361 | 0.008 |
| Sex | 1.506 | 1.271-1.784 | < 0.001 |
| T category | |||
| T2 vs. T1 | 1.195 | 0.827-1.727 | 0.343 |
| T3 vs. T1 | 1.638 | 1.163-2.307 | 0.005 |
| T4 vs. T1 | 1.899 | 1.337-2.697 | < 0.001 |
| N category | |||
| N1 vs. N0 | 1.599 | 1.208-2.116 | 0.001 |
| N2 vs. N0 | 2.062 | 1.562-2.723 | < 0.001 |
| N3 vs. N0 | 2.866 | 2.095-3.920 | < 0.001 |
| PLN (+) vs. N0 | 6.060 | 4.305-8.531 | < 0.001 |
| EBV DNA level | |||
| 1,000-9,999 vs. < 1,000 | 1.577 | 1.250-1.991 | < 0.001 |
| 10,000-99,999 vs. < 1,000 | 3.104 | 2.493-3.863 | < 0.001 |
| 100,000-999,999 vs. < 1,000 | 4.092 | 3.233-5.180 | < 0.001 |
| ≥ 1,000,000 vs. < 1,000 | 7.166 | 5.387-9.532 | < 0.001 |
A Cox proportional hazard model was used to conduct multivariate analyses. All variables were transformed into categorical variables. HRs were calculated for age (> 46 years vs. ≤ 46 years), sex (male vs. female), T category, N category, and EBV DNA level. OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; LRFS, locoregional relapse-free survival; DMFS, distant metastasis-free survival; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; EBV, Epstein-Barr virus; PLN, parotid lymph node.
Fig. 3.Prognostic nomogram for 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS) based on the training cohort. EBV DNA, Epstein-Barr virus DNA. As an example, locate the patient's sex and draw a line straight up to the “Points” axis to determine the associated score. Add the scores achieved for each covariate, and locate this sum on the “Total Points” axis. Draw a line straight down to determine the likelihood of 3- or 5-year OS. As a calculation parameter, “Linear Predictor” is not directly applied to the calculation of the survival rate.
Fig. 4.The calibration plots for predicting overall survival (OS) in training cohort at 3-year (A) and 5-year (B) OS and in validation cohort at 3-year (C) and 5-year (D) OS. Actual OS is plotted on the y-axis; nomogram-predicted probability of OS is plotted on the x-axis.