Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

We investigated the risk of acute and late toxicities of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) and radiotherapy alone in patients with nasopharynx carcinoma (NPC).

Methods

In this meta-analysis, we searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for eligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs). In addition to the incidence of specific toxicities, risk ratios (RRs) or odd ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained using fixed-effect or random-effects models.

Results

In total, 11 RCTs involving 2801 patients with NPC were included in this analysis. For grade ≥3 adverse events, patients who received CCRT treatment had a higher proportion of acute mucositis (39.9% vs. 30.5%, RR=1.30, 95%CI, 1.16–1.46) acute nausea and vomiting (RR=6.26, 95% CI: 2.01–19.45), and neutropenia (RR=30.86, 95% CI: 7.36 to 129.35). For late severe toxicities, CCRT treatment was significantly associated with higher incidence of hearing loss (116.56% vs. 411.43%, RR=1.461, 95%CI, 1.043–21.095). The incidence of acute nausea and vomiting was more frequent in patients receiving CCRT.

Conclusion

Compared with radiotherapy alone, CCRT increases the risk of severe acute toxicities (mucositis, nausea/vomiting, and neutropenia) and severe late toxicity (hearing loss) in patients with NPC. However, larger studies are needed to confirm this finding.

Keywords

Nasopharynx carcinoma concurrent chemoradiotherapy radiotherapy acute and late toxic reactions meta-analysis randomized clinical trial

Introduction

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a rare type of malignant carcinoma that has a specific geographical distribution and a high risk of distant metastases. In Southeast Asia, the annual incidence rate ranges from 0.15% to 0.5%.¹ Radiotherapy is the cornerstone of initial treatment due to the radio-sensitivity of NPC and its deep-seated location. However, although radiotherapy alone is an efficacious treatment option for early-stage NPC, the prognosis of patients with locally advanced NPC remains unsatisfactory.^2,3 Distant metastasis is the main cause of treatment failure in regionally advanced NPC.^4,5 Since the publication of the findings of the 0099 (INT-0099) trial,⁶ concurrent chemo-radiotherapy (CCRT) has been the standard therapy for locally advanced NPC,^7,8 and further clinical trials have demonstrated that the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate for patients receiving CCRT is 11.7% higher than that for patients receiving radiotherapy alone.⁹ Recurrence-free survival and metastasis-free survival have also been shown to be improved in patients with NPC receiving CCRT.¹⁰ In addition, several other studies and meta-analyses have confirmed that CCRT confers additional benefits compared with radiotherapy alone.^11,12

Equally important is the frequency and type of adverse events associated with combination treatment of concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Severe toxicities can impair treatment compliance, diminish patient quality of life, and even be life-threatening. During radiotherapy, up to 95% of patients with NPC showed various levels of dosage-dependent acute dermatitis, contributing to increased risk of infection and delayed treatment. Furthermore, the combined activity of anti-neoplastic drugs and radiographic exposure may induce injuries to the oral mucosa and apoptosis of oral epithelial cells approximately 6–15 days after treatment initiation.¹³ Although several studies have investigated the toxicities of CCRT and radiotherapy,^3,14–16 no study to date has compared these treatment modalities across almost all categories of acute and late severe (grade 3/4) adverse events in a large patient population.

The objective of the present meta-analysis, which includes almost all eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs), was to comprehensively compare the incidence and risk of acute and late severe toxicities between CCRT and radiotherapy alone in a large sample size and to provide clinical evidence for the need for increased attention to toxicities in patients with NPC.

Methods and materials

Identification of studies

This meta-analysis was implemented on the basis of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement.¹⁷ Relevant studies were identified by searching the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to a cut-off date of September 30, 2016, regardless of language or publication status. The search was conducted using the keywords “nasopharynx cancer or nasopharyngeal carcinoma or nasopharyngeal neoplasms”, “radiochemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy or chemoradiation or chemo-radiotherapy” and “toxicities or adverse event or side effect or adverse reaction or safety issue,” and was limited to human studies and clinical trials. The reference lists of relevant original and review articles were also manually searched to identify additional studies.

Study inclusion and exclusion criteria

Only RCTs in which CCRT was compared with radiotherapy alone in patients with NPC and in which detailed data on acute or late toxicities were reported were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Studies meeting the following additional standards were included: (1) endpoints regarding acute toxicities of CCRT and radiotherapy covering at least one of dysphagia, dermatitis, hearing loss, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, mucositis, and nausea and vomiting; (2) endpoints concerning late toxicities including at least one of xerostomia, dysphagia, mucositis, nasopharyngeal mucosal necrosis, otitis, hearing loss, brachial plexopathy, bone necrosis, temporal lobe necrosis, symptomatic brain damage, radiation-induced brain damage, radiation encephalopathy, endocrine dysfunction, visual toxicity, radiation-induced malignancy, secondary tumor, subcutaneous fibrosis, torrential bleeding, trismus, and spinal damage. Additionally, studies were excluded if they (1) were case reports, meeting abstracts, or editorial materials; or (2) were duplicated, incomplete, or outside of the range of the research topic.

Data extraction

Two reviewers independently extracted the data on study characteristics of CCRT and radiotherapy groups (e.g. sample size, ethnicity, and mean age of the study subjects), publication year, treatment arms, number of patients who suffered from acute or late toxicities, duration of follow up, and counts of acute and late toxicities. Where there was disagreement between the two reviewers, the opinion of a third reviewer was obtained.

Statistical analysis

The software R 3.3.1 (www.r-project.org) including the meta package was used for direct meta-analysis.¹⁸ First, a frequency table was generated to describe each toxicity item based on counts of toxic events or number of subjects with reported toxic events. The distinctions of dichotomous variables were statistically evaluated with the use of the risk ratio (RR) according to event frequency or odds ratio (OR) according to subject frequency with a two-tailed 95% confidence interval (CI).One fixed-effect model was established for consistent studies while a random-effects model was fitted for studies with heterogeneous results. Two-tailed P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Heterogeneity between the studies was evaluated by means of I² (if I²>50%)¹⁹ and the Q test of Cochran (if P<0.10).²⁰ Both indices assess the percentage of variability across studies that is attributable to heterogeneity rather than to chance.

Results

Search results and study characteristics

Eleven eligible RCTs^6,10,21–29 involving 2801 patients were included in the meta-analysis after excluding reviews, irrelevant studies, and duplicates. Figure 1 shows the details of the study selection process. Among the included studies, only two used intensity-modulated radiation therapy, while conventional irradiation was used in the remaining studies. The main characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1. Patients were recruited between 1989 and 2008, and the median follow-up period was 35 months–7.3 years. The mean age of patients in the CCRT group in all studies was 42–50 years, while patients in the radiotherapy group were aged 44.3–52 years. The CCRT group received treatment including cisplatin, cisplatin complexes, 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and carboplatin, although the administration duration and dosage varied among the included studies. The prescribed dose among patients in the radiotherapy group was generally in the range of 60–70 Gy. Publication bias was not assessed in this meta-analysis as there were as many as ten toxicity endpoints with varying sample sizes included. The selected studies all featured randomization to treatment arm, indicating that the data were likely to be robust (Table 2).

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow chart.

Table 1.

Characteristics of randomized clinical trials included in the meta-analysis.

First author/year [ref]	Inclusion period/ stage/ median follow-up	Group description/ patients, n	Mean age, years	Treatment 1	Treatment 2
Chen/2013²⁴	2002–2005/AJCC stage III–IVB/70 months	RT/158	46
Chen/2013²⁴	2002–2005/AJCC stage III–IVB/70 months	CRT/158	46
Huang/2012²⁵	2002–2005/Chinese 1992 staging system stage III or IV/7.3 years	IC+CCRT/201	42.7	RT: carboplatin (AUC = 6) on days 7, 28, and 49	IC: two cycles of floxuridine (FuDR) + carboplatin (FuDR, 750 mg/m², days 1–5; carboplatin, AUC = 6)RT: 36–40 Gy in the first course and 66–78 Gy to the primary tumor and 60–70 Gy to the neck in the second course. Conventional fractionated radiotherapy (2 Gy once daily, 5 times per week)
Huang/2012²⁵		IC+RT/199	43.3
Lee/2010²⁶	1999–2004/AJCC stage T1–4 N2–3 M0/5 years	CCRT/172RT/176	4647	CCRT: cisplatin (100 mg/m²) given intravenously every 3 weeks for three cycles starting with commencement of radiotherapy, followed by a combination of cisplatin (80 mg/m²) plus fluorouracil (1000 mg/m² per day by 96-hour infusion) every 4 weeks for three cycles	RT: ≥66 Gy (2 Gy/Fx/day, 5 Fx/week)
Chen/2007²⁸	2002–2005/AJCC stage T3–4 Nx M0 or Tx N2–3 M0/29 months	RT/158	46		RT: 68–70 Gy to the primary tumor, 60–62 Gy to involved areas of the neck, and 50 Gy to uninvolved areas
Chen/2007²⁸	2002–2005/AJCC stage T3–4 Nx M0 or Tx N2–3 M0/29 months	CRT/158	46	CCRT: cisplatin (40 mg/m² on day 1) for 7 weeks during the RT phase; combination of cisplatin (80 mg/m² intravenously) on day 1 and fluorouracil (800 mg/m² intravenously) on days 1–5 by 120-h infusion for 3 cycles
Zhang/2005¹⁰	2001–2003/AJCC stage T1–4 N0–3/24 months	RT/56	46.3		RT: five times a week at 2 Gy/day on Monday through Friday
Zhang/2005¹⁰	2001–2003/AJCC stage T1–4 N0–3/24 months	CCRT/59	45.7	CCRT: oxaliplatin 70 mg/m² weekly for six doses from the first day of RT	RT: five times a week at 2 Gy/day on Monday through Friday
Wee/2005²⁹	1997–2003/T3–4 Nx M0 or Tx N2–3 M0/3.2 years	RT/110	46		Standard-course RT: 70 Gy in 35 fractions (2 Gy per fraction)
Wee/2005²⁹	1997–2003/T3–4 Nx M0 or Tx N2–3 M0/3.2 years	CCRT/111	49	CCRT: cisplatin (25 mg/m² on days 1–4) on weeks 1, 4, and 7 of RTAC: cisplatin (20 mg/m² on days 1–4) and fluorouracil (1000 mg/m² on days 1–4) every 4 weeks (weeks 11, 15, and 19) for three cycles after completion of RT
Lin/2003³¹	1993–1999/AJCC stage T1–4 N0–3 overall III–IV (M0)/65 months	CCRT/141	45	CCRT: cisplatin 20 mg/m²/d in normal saline with fluorouracil (FU) 400 mg/m²/d as a 96-hour continuous infusion during weeks 1 and 5 of RT	RT: 70–74 Gy/7–8 weeks to the primary tumor and positive neck region and 50–60 Gy/5–6 weeks to the negative neck region
Lin/2003³¹		RT/143	48
Chan/2002³²	1994–1997/Ho’s N2 or N3 stage or N1 stage with nodal size ≥4 cm/2.71 years	RT/176	45.5		RT: 66 Gy in 33 fractions per 6.5 weeks
Chan/2002³²		CCRT/174	44	CCRT: cisplatin 40 mg/m² in 1 L of normal saline over 2 hours on a weekly basis during external radiotherapy, starting on the first day of radiotherapy	RT: 66 Gy in 33 fractions per 6.5 weeks
Al-Sarraf/1998⁶	1989–1995/stage III and IV/2.7 years	Control/69	52		RT: 1.8–2.0 Gy/day fractions, Monday to Friday for 35 to 39 fractions for a total dose of 70 Gy
Al-Sarraf/1998⁶	1989–1995/stage III and IV/2.7 years	CCRT/78	50	CCRT: cisplatin 100 mg/m² on days 1, 22, and 43 during radiotherapy; postradiotherapy, chemotherapy with cisplatin 80 mg/m² on day 1 and fluorouracil 1000 mg/m²/d on days 1–4 administered every 4 weeks for three courses
Wu/2013²³	2001–2003/AJCC stage T1–4 N0–3; WHO subtype II, or III NPC/114 months	Control/56	–		RT: The accumulated radiation doses to the primary tumor were 70–74 Gy. The accumulated doses were 60–64 Gy to the involved areas of the neck
Wu/2013²³		CCRT/59	–	CCRT: oxaliplatin 70 mg/m² delivered via intravenous infusion 1 h on day 1 every week
Lee/2011²⁷	1999–2004/T3–4 N0–1 M0/6.3 years	CF/42	49		RT: 2 Gy/Fx/day, 5 Fx/week
		AF/51	48		RT: 2 Gy/Fx/day, 6 Fx/week
		CF+C/52	47	CRT: cisplatin 100 mg/m² intravenously every 3 weeks for 3 cycles starting with the commencement of RT, followed by a combination of cisplatin 80/m² plus fluorouracil 1000 mg/m²/day by 96-h infusion every 4 weeks for 3 cycles	RT: 2 Gy/Fx/day, 5 Fx/week
		AF+C/44	50		RT: 2 Gy/Fx/day, 6 Fx/week

Table 2.

Risk for bias assessment in selected randomized controlled trials

Authors/year	Concealed randomization	Stopped early	Participants blinded	Health-care providers blinded	Data collectors blinded	Outcome assessors blinded
Chen/2013	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Huang/2012	Yes	No	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified
Lee/2010	Yes	No	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified
Chen/2007	Yes	No	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified	Yes
Zhang/2005	Not specified	No	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified
Wee/2005	Yes	No	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified
Lin/2003	Not specified	No	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified
Chan/2002	Yes	No	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified
Al-Sarraf/1998	Not specified	No	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified
Lee/2011	Not specified	No	No	No	Not specified	Not specified
Wu/2013	Not specified	No	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified

Incidence and risk of specific acute toxicities

For grade ≥3 toxicities, CCRT was significantly associated with higher incidence of mucositis (36.6% vs. 29%), nausea and vomiting (14.6% vs. 0.2%), and neutropenia (22.8% vs. 0.3%). According to subject frequency, all patients experienced any grade toxicities, and more patients experienced grade ≥3 nausea and vomiting in the CCRT group. In the radiotherapy alone group, no patient experienced grade ≥3 nausea and vomiting (Table 3).

Table 3.

Summary of acute toxicities (grade 3/4 and any grade)

	No. of studies	Treatment group				P value for ≥3 grade
		Concurrent chemoradiotherapy		Radiotherapy alone
		≥3 grade	Any grade	≥3 grade	Any grade
By event frequency
Mucositis^4,5,26,27	4	229/626 (36.6%)	–	182/627 (29.0%)	–	0.0047
Dysphagia²⁴	1	1/158 (0.6%)	–	0/158	–	>0.9999
Ear deafness²⁷	1	4/95 (4.2%)	–	0/94	–	0.1210
Liver and kidney dysfunction^26,27	2	4/277 (1.4%)	–	0/270	–	0.1238
Nausea and vomiting^24,26,27	3	62/425 (14.6%)	–	1/428 (0.2%)	–	<0.0001
Neutropenia^24,26	2	82/334 (22.8%)	–	1/334 (0.3%)	–	<0.0001
Peripheral neuropathy²⁷	1	0/95		1/94 (1.1%)	–	0.4974
Radioactive skin reaction^24,26,27	3	64/425 (15.1%)	–	50/428 (11.7%)	–	0.1473
By subject frequency
Mucositis^10,31	3	76/259 (29.3%)	259/259 (100.0%)	56/255 (22.0%)	255/255 (100.0%)	0.0289
Dysphagia¹⁰	2	0/118	118/118 (100.0%)	0/112	112/112 (100.0%)	-
Nausea and vomiting^31,32	2	27/315 (8.6%)	315/315 (100.0%)	0/319	319/319 (100.0%)	< 0.0001

As shown in Figure 2, CCRT significantly increased the risk of acute mucositis, whether assessed by event frequency (RR=1.26, 95% CI: 1.10–1.44, P<0.001) or subject frequency (RR=1.62, 95% CI: 1.05–2.50, P=0.029). Furthermore, CCRT significantly increased the risk of acute nausea/vomiting (RR=31.28, 95% CI: 7.70–127.06, P<0.001) and acute neutropenia (RR=55.85, 95% CI: 11.20–278.58, P<0.001) when compared with radiotherapy alone. No significant differences were observed between the groups in the risk of acute dermatitis and acute hepato-renal dysfunctions.

Figure 2.

Forest plot comparing acute toxicities between CCRT and radiotherapy alone according to event frequency of grade 3/4 mucositis (a); subject frequency of grade 3/4 mucositis (b); event frequency of grade 3/4 nausea and vomiting (c); and event frequency of grade 3/4 neutropenia (d). Size of the data square marker indicates the weight of each study in this analysis. The diamond represents the overall estimated effects in the model. CCRT: concurrent chemoradiotherapy; CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; RR: risk ratio.

Incidence and risk of specific late toxicities

For late grade ≥3 toxicities, the event frequency of hearing loss (20.6% vs. 13.5%), mucositis (45.4% vs. 31.0%), and neutropenia (13.5% vs. 0%) was significantly higher in the CCRT group (Table 4). Our meta-analysis showed that CCRT was significantly associated with elevated risk of late severe hearing loss (RR=1.52, 95% CI: 1.03–2.25, P=0.037) compared with radiotherapy (Figure 3). For grade ≥3 xerostomia, the incidence in the CCRT group and the radiotherapy alone group was 5.8% and 2.4%, respectively, and the difference between the groups was not significant.

Table 4.

Summary of late toxicities (grade 3/4 and any grade)

	No. of studies	Treatment group				P value for ≥3 grade
		Concurrent chemoradiotherapy		Radiotherapy alone
		≥3 grade	Any grade	≥3 grade	Any grade
By event frequency
Hearing loss^24,27	2	52/253 (20.6%)	–	34/252 (13.5%)	–	0.0438
Dysphagia^26,27	2	2/267 (0.7%)	–	0/270	–	0.2467
Mucositis^28,29	2	122/269 (45.4%)	–	83/268 (31.0%)	–	0.0006
Mucositis²⁶	1	4/172 (2.3%)		1/176 (0.5%)	–	0.2108
Otitis²⁶	1	37/172 (21.5%)	–	27/176 (15.3%)	–	0.1374
Peripheral neuropathy^25–27	3	7/425 (1.6%)	–	2/428 (0.5%)	–	0.1065
Cranial neuropathy^24,26,27	3	15/425 (3.5%)	–	15/428 (4.3%)	–	>0.9999
Brachial plexopathy^26,27	2	0/267	–	2/270 (0.7%)		0.4991
Bone necrosis^24,26	2	2/330 (18.2%)	–	0/334	–	0.2466
Temporal lobe Necrosis^24,27	1	6/253 (2.3%)	–	9/252 (3.5%)	–	0.4271
Fibrosis^24,26,27	3	19/425 (4.5%)	–	15/428 (35.0%)	–	0.4709
Symptomatic brain damage²⁴	1	1/158 (0.6%)	–	1/158 (0.6%)	–	>0.9999
Endocrine dysfunction^26,27	2	16/267 (59.9%)	–	13/270 (4.8%)	–	0.5460
Visual toxicity^24,27	2	3/253 (1.2%)	–	2/252 (0.8%)	–	>0.9999
Radiation-induced malignancy^24,26	2	0/330	–	1/334 (0.3%)	–	>0.9999
Spinal damage²⁴	1	0/158	–	0/158	–	–
Neutropenia²⁹	1	15/111 (13.5%)	–	0/110	–	<0.0001
Nausea and vomiting²⁹	1	1/111 (0.9%)	–	0/110	–	>0.9999
Brainstem damage²⁶	1	0/172	–	1/176 (0.6%)	–	>0.9999
Vascular occlusion²⁶	1	1/172 (0.6%)	–	0/176	–	0.4943
By subject frequency
Mucositis^[10]	1	0/59	59/59 (100.0%)	0/56	56/56 (100.0%)	–
Hearing loss⁶	1	9/78 (11.5%)	61/78 (78.2%)	3/69 (4.3%)	54/69 (78.3%)	0.1120
Nausea and vomiting⁶	1	14/78 (17.9%)	39/78 (50.0%)	5/69 (7.2%)	46/69 (66.7%)	0.0536
Total late toxicities¹⁰	1	17/59 (28.8%)	59/59 (100.0%)	11/56 (19.6%)	56/56 (100.0%)	0.2521

Figure 3.

Forest plot comparing late toxicities between CCRT and radiotherapy alone by event frequency of late grade 3/4 hearing loss. Size of the data square marker indicates the weight of each study in this analysis. The diamond represents the overall estimated effects in the model. CCRT: concurrent chemoradiotherapy; CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis that comprehensively compares the incidence and risk of severe acute and late toxicities associated with CCRT versus radiotherapy alone in a large population of patients with NPC. This meta-analysis included 11 RCTs, with 2801 patients in total, to compare the toxicities associated with these two treatment modalities. By evaluating the incidence of five subtypes of acute toxicity (mucositis, nausea and vomiting, neutropenia, dermatitis, and hepato-renal function) and four subtypes of late toxicity (cranial neuropathy, hearing loss, peripheral neuropathy, and fibrosis of the neck), we showed that CCRT was associated with more severe acute mucositis, acute nausea/vomiting, acute neutropenia, and late hearing loss than radiotherapy alone. Among the enrolled studies, the median follow-up varied from 35 months to 7.3 years, durations which were appropriate for the analysis of late toxicities. In the present study, toxicities were the primary endpoint, and data on acute, late, and severe toxicities associated with CCRT and radiotherapy were recorded and analyzed to produce a comprehensive analysis of the types and severity of toxicities associated with CCRT and radiotherapy.

For acute toxicities, including grade 3/4 acute toxicities, this meta-analysis showed that CCRT was associated with higher risk of acute mucositis and nausea compared with radiotherapy, consistent with previous reports.³² The duration and severity of mucositis caused by radiotherapy have been closely correlated with the integrated action of accumulated dose, radioactive source, irradiation volume of mucosa, dose intensity, and xerostomia.^31,32 Endothelial tissues and epithelium of connective tissues are damaged during radiotherapy, and the release of inflammatory factors such as prostaglandins, tumor necrosis factor, and interleukin-1 can aggravate tissue injury.³³ Somewhat distinct from radiotherapy, mucositis induced by chemotherapy is mainly attributable to the route of administration, dose intensity, duration of therapy, and chemotherapeutic drug used. Normal DNA synthesis can be affected by chemotherapy, and the repeated and continuous usage of low-dose cytotoxic agents can further exacerbate the risk of mucositis.³⁴ Therefore, CCRT appeared to promote the development of oral mucositis to a greater extent than radiotherapy alone. In clinical practice, anti-neoplastic drugs are typically administered 1 week after initiation of radiotherapy, leading to further injury to the oral mucous epithelium and associated formation of anabrosis.³⁵

For late toxicities, our meta-analysis showed that CCRT was significantly associated with late grade 3/4 hearing loss, consistent with previous reports.^15,36 The inclusion of studies that used discrepant chemotherapeutic regimens for treating patients with NPC might have affected the credibility of this association. Thus, the meta-analysis considered only the general outcomes of chemotherapy and the findings may therefore be inapplicable to specific medications. Any one of these chemotherapeutic studies may inevitably have over- or underestimated the association between CCRT and risk of late hearing loss.

Two of the included RCTs reported cases of bone necrosis when comparing CCRT with radiotherapy (1:0⁴ and 1:1⁷). No further evaluation of this finding was carried out because of the small number of RCTs included. Furthermore, a study by Lee et al.³⁷ in 2013 found that concurrent chemotherapy was not associated with a significant increase in the risk of bone necrosis. Future studies in larger populations are needed to further explore these observations.

This study was limited by a lack of heterogeneity as all included studies enrolled only subjects of Chinese Han ethnicity, meaning that it may be difficult to generalize the results to other populations. In addition, there might be potential mutations that could affect the efficacy of CCRT. For instance, it was reported that non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who carried epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations (e.g. exon 19 deletions and the L858R point mutation) could achieve better efficacy after treatment of gefitinib than those with normal EGFR genotypes.^38,39 As a result, further molecular studies should be explored to discover potential mutations that might influence NPC patients’ responses to different drugs.

There is increasing evidence that, compared with radiotherapy alone, CCRT may improve survival among patients with locally advanced NPC, and CCRT is thus commonly used in clinical practice. For patients at high risk of developing severe toxicities associated with CCRT such as mucositis, nausea and vomiting, and hearing loss should therefore be followed more closely when receiving CCRT.

Conclusions

The current study is the first meta-analysis to comprehensively and intensively analyze and compare acute and late toxicities between CCRT and radiotherapy alone. The findings indicate that CCRT is more likely to induce certain acute severe toxicities (e.g. acute mucositis and acute nausea and vomiting) and late severe toxicity (i.e. hearing loss) than radiotherapy. However, larger studies in more diverse populations are required to stratify patients with NPC by disease grade and specific mutations, and to subsequently compare the incidences of acute and late toxicities after treatment with CCRT or radiotherapy alone.

Footnotes

List of abbreviations

CCRT: concurrent chemoradiotherapy; CI: confidence interval; EGFR: epidermal growth factor receptor; NPC: nasopharynx carcinoma; NSCLC: non-small-cell lung cancer; OR: odd ratio; OS: overall survival; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis; RCT: randomized clinical trial; RR: risk ratio

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Professor Ming Ye from the radiotherapy department of Renji Hospital, affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University. We also thank May Dong, Iris Sun, Sam Zhong, and Cuiling Yin for their assistance.

Availability of data and material

The data extracted and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain data from any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. As the present study was a meta-analysis of published literatures, the study was exempt from Ethics Committee approval.

Funding

This study was funded by Shanghai Jiading District Science & Technology Commission (KWKYXM, 2014-KW-01) and the Seed Fund (Natural Science Class) of Shanghai University of Medicine & Health Sciences (no. HMSF-17-21-026).

References

Wee

Loong

, et al. Is nasopharyngeal cancer really a “Cantonese cancer”? Chin J Cancer 2010; 29: 517–526.

Tham

Hee

Yeo

, et al. Treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma using intensity-modulated radiotherapy-the national cancer centre singapore experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 75: 1481–1486.

Zhang

Zhao

Ghimire

, et al. The role of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in the treatment of locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma among endemic population: a meta-analysis of the phase III randomized trials. BMC Cancer 2010; 10: 558.

Lee

, et al. Management of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: current practice and future perspective. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 3356–3364.

Wong

Lee

, et al. Whole-field simultaneous integrated-boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 76: 138–145.

Al-Sarraf

LeBlanc

Giri

, et al. Chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy in patients with advanced nasopharyngeal cancer: phase III randomized Intergroup study 0099. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 1310–1317.

Yang

Liu

Guo

, et al. [Concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a meta-analysis]. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi 2008; 43: 218–223.

Langendijk

Leemans

Buter

, et al. The additional value of chemotherapy to radiotherapy in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a meta-analysis of the published literature. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 4604–4612.

Chan

Leung

Ngan

, et al. Overall survival after concurrent cisplatin-radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97: 536–539.

10.

Zhang

Zhao

Peng

, et al. Phase III study comparing standard radiotherapy with or without weekly oxaliplatin in treatment of locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: preliminary results. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 8461–8468.

11.

Baujat

Audry

Bourhis

, et al. Chemotherapy in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an individual patient data meta-analysis of eight randomized trials and 1753 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 64: 47–56.

12.

Saleh-Ebrahimi

Zwicker

Muenter

, et al. Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) combined with concurrent but not adjuvant chemotherapy in primary nasopharyngeal cancer - a retrospective single center analysis. Radiat Oncol 2013; 8: 20.

13.

Greenspan

Oral complications of cancer therapies. Management of salivary dysfunction. NCI Monogr 1990; 9: 159–161.

14.

Mao

Tang

, et al. Long-term outcomes of concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with IMRT: a retrospective study. Tumour Biol 2016; 37: 4429–4438.

15.

Ying

Kong

, et al. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy was associated with a higher severe late toxicity rate in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients compared with radiotherapy alone: a meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. Radiat Oncol 2015; 10: 70.

16.

Song

Wang

Tao

, et al. Survival benefit of induction chemotherapy in treatment for locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma–A time-to-event meta-analysis. Oral Oncol 2015; 51: 764–769.

17.

Liberati

Altman

Tetzlaff

, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009; 339: b2700.

18.

Schwarzer

Carpenter

Rücker

Meta-analysis with R (Use-R!). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2015.

19.

Peters

Sutton

Jones

, et al. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA 2006; 295: 676–680.

20.

Jackson

White

Riley

RD.

Quantifying the impact of between-study heterogeneity in multivariate meta-analyses.

Stat Med 2012; 31: 3805–3820.

21.

Huang

Peng

, et al. Long-term follow-up of a phase III study comparing radiotherapy with or without weekly oxaliplatin for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 2131–2136.

22.

Chen

Sun

Liang

, et al. Progress report of a randomized trial comparing long-term survival and late toxicity of concurrent chemoradiotherapy with adjuvant chemotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in patients with stage III to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma from endemic regions of China. Cancer 2013; 119: 2230–2238.

23.

Huang

Cao

Guo

, et al. A randomized trial of induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus induction chemotherapy plus radiotherapy for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Oral Oncol 2012; 48: 1038–1044.

24.

Lee

Tung

Chan

, et al. A randomized trial on addition of concurrent-adjuvant chemotherapy and/or accelerated fractionation for locally-advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Radiother Oncol 2011; 98: 15–22.

25.

Lee

Tung

Chua

, et al. Randomized trial of radiotherapy plus concurrent-adjuvant chemotherapy vs radiotherapy alone for regionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 1188–1198.

26.

Chen

Liu

Liang

, et al. Preliminary results of a prospective randomized trial comparing concurrent chemoradiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy with radiotherapy alone in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma in endemic regions of china. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 71: 1356–1364.

27.

Wee

Tan

Tai

, et al. Randomized trial of radiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union against cancer stage III and IV nasopharyngeal cancer of the endemic variety. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 6730–6738.

28.

Lin

Jan

Hsu

, et al. Phase III study of concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: positive effect on overall and progression-free survival. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 631–637.

29.

Chan

Teo

Ngan

, et al. Concurrent chemotherapy-radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: progression-free survival analysis of a phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 2038–2044.

30.

Zhang

Chen

, et al. Chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a systemic review and meta-analysis of 2138 patients. Journal of Cancer 2017; 8: 287–297.

31.

Franzen

Funegard

Ericson

, et al. Parotid gland function during and following radiotherapy of malignancies in the head and neck. A consecutive study of salivary flow and patient discomfort. Eur J Cancer 1992; 28: 457–462.

32.

Rugg

Saunders

Dische

Smoking and mucosal reactions to radiotherapy.

Br J Radiol 1990; 63: 554–556.

33.

Sonis

Lindquist

Van Vugt

, et al. Prevention of chemotherapy-induced ulcerative mucositis by transforming growth factor beta 3. Cancer Res 1994; 54: 1135–1138.

34.

Petrelli

Rustum

Bruckner

, et al. The Roswell Park Memorial Institute and Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group phase III experience with the modulation of 5-fluorouracil by leucovorin in metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma. Adv Exp Med Biol 1988; 244: 143–155.

35.

Sonis

ST.

Mucositis as a biological process: a new hypothesis for the development of chemotherapy-induced stomatotoxicity.

Oral Oncol 1998; 34: 39–43.

36.

Lee

AWM

Frcr

SYT

, et al. A multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial of concurrent chemoradiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in patients with regionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: 10‐year outcomes for efficacy and toxicity. Cancer 2017; 123: 4147–4157.

37.

Lee

Chan

, et al. Evolution of treatment for nasopharyngeal cancer – Success and setback in the intensity-modulated radiotherapy era. Radiother Oncol 2014; 110: 377–384.

38.

Neal

JW.

The SATURN trial: the value of maintenance erlotinib in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.

Future Oncol 2010; 6: 1827–1832.

39.

Roberts

Stinchcombe

Der

, et al. Personalized medicine in non-small-cell lung cancer: is KRAS a useful marker in selecting patients for epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted therapy? J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 4769–4777.

Toxicities of chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Introduction

Methods and materials

Identification of studies

Study inclusion and exclusion criteria

Data extraction

Statistical analysis

Results

Search results and study characteristics

Incidence and risk of specific acute toxicities

Incidence and risk of specific late toxicities

Discussion

Conclusions

Footnotes

List of abbreviations

Acknowledgements

Availability of data and material

Declaration of conflicting interests

Ethical approval

Funding

References