| Literature DB >> 34838075 |
Chuanben Chen1, Ting Xu1, Xiufang Qiu1, Shihan Xie2, Ziqing You2, Yixin Hu2, Yinghong Zheng2, Zewei Liang2, Chaoxiong Huang1, Taojun Chen1, Li Li1, Jing Liu1, Zhaodong Fei3,4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To identify the subset of patients with de novo nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) for whom [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) should be recommended, and to determine whether PET/CT is a cost-effective decision for precise M staging in endemic areas.Entities:
Keywords: Cost-effectiveness analysis; Economic evaluation; Metastasis; Nasopharyngeal carcinoma; [18F] Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34838075 PMCID: PMC8627094 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-021-01954-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Baseline characteristics of 4469 NPC patients at primary diagnosis
| Characteristic | Total | PET/CT group | CWU group |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Male | 3269 (73.15) | 871 (74.38) | 2398 (72.71) |
| Female | 1200 (26.85) | 300 (25.62) | 900 (27.29) |
| Age | |||
| ≥ 50 | 2122 (47.48) | 535 (45.69) | 1587 (48.12) |
| < 50 | 2347 (52.52) | 636 (54.31) | 1711 (51.88) |
| T stage | |||
| T1 | 820 (18.35) | 227 (19.39) | 593 (17.98) |
| T2 | 793 (17.74) | 212 (18.10) | 581 (17.62) |
| T3 | 1627 (36.41) | 468 (39.97) | 1159 (35.14) |
| T4 | 1229 (27.50) | 264 (22.54) | 965 (29.26) |
| N stage | |||
| N0 | 375 (8.39) | 95 (8.11) | 280 (8.49) |
| N1 | 1593 (35.65) | 351 (29.97) | 1242 (37.66) |
| N2 | 1569 (35.11) | 425 (36.29) | 1144 (34.69) |
| N3 | 932 (20.85) | 300 (25.62) | 632 (19.16) |
| M stage | |||
| M0 | 4225 (94.54) | 1084 (92.57) | 3141 (95.24) |
| M1 | 244 (5.46) | 87 (7.43) | 157 (4.76) |
| Plasma EBV DNA | |||
| Low* | 3553 (79.50) | 859 (73.36) | 2694 (81.69) |
| High** | 916 (20.50) | 312 (26.64) | 604 (18.31) |
EBV, Epstein-Barr virus
*Low EBV DNA level of < 14,650 copies/ml
**High EBV DNA level of ≥ 14,650 copies/ml
Univariate analysis of the risk factors related to distant metastasis in de novo NPC patients
| DM positive | DM negative | OR (95%CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.000 | |||
| Male | 206 (84.43) | 3063 (72.50) | 1 | – |
| Female | 38 (15.57) | 1162 (27.50) | 0.486 (0.342–0.692) | – |
| Age | 0.062 | |||
| ≤ 50 | 130 (53.28) | 1992 (47.15) | 1 | – |
| > 50 | 114 (46.72) | 2233 (52.85) | 1.278 (0.987–1.656) | – |
| T stage | 0.000 | |||
| T1 | 25 (10.25) | 795 (18.82) | 1 | 0.000 |
| T2 | 28 (11.48) | 765 (18.11) | 1.164 (0.673–2.014) | 0.587 |
| T3 | 81 (33.20) | 1546 (36.59) | 1.666 (1.055–2.630) | 0.028 |
| T4 | 110 (45.08) | 1119 (26.48) | 3.126 (2.006–4.872) | 0.000 |
| N stage | 0.000 | |||
| N0 | 6 (2.46) | 369 (8.73) | 1 | 0.000 |
| N1 | 25 (10.25) | 1568 (37.11) | 0.981 (0.399–2.407) | 0.966 |
| N2 | 94 (38.52) | 1475 (34.91) | 3.919 (1.704–0.017) | 0.001 |
| N3 | 119 (48.77) | 813 (19.24) | 9.002 (3.928–20.629) | 0.000 |
| Plasma EBV DNA | 0.000 | |||
| Low* | 127 (52.05) | 3426 (81.09) | 1 | – |
| High** | 117 (47.95) | 799 (18.91) | 3.950 (3.038–5.137) | – |
| Group | 0.001 | |||
| CWU | 157 (64.34) | 3141 (74.34) | 1 | – |
| PET | 87 (35.66) | 1084 (25.66) | 1.606 (1.225–2.1.5) | – |
DM, distant metastasis
*Low EBV DNA level of < 14,650 copies/ml
**High EBV DNA level of ≥ 14,650 copies/ml
Fig. 1Multiple logistic regression analysis of the risk factors related to distant metastasis in the whole cohort of de novo NPC patients
Fig. 216 subgroup situations by the combinations of 4 risk factors and its distant metastasis rates
Fig. 3a Distant metastasis incidence in recommended group versus unrecommended group. b Distant metastasis incidence of PET/CT group versus CWU group in recommended patients and unrecommended patients, respectively
Fig. 4Multiple logistic regression analysis of the risk factors related to distant metastasis in the recommended group of de novo NPC patients