The efficacy and safety of docetaxel, cisplatin and fluorouracil (TPF)-based induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a meta-analysis

• R. Zhou ^[1] ; J. Zhu ^[1] ; X. Chen ^[2] ; Y. Liu ^[1] ; Y. Wang ^[1] ; T. Zhang ^[1]
  1. [1] Chongqing Medical University

     Chongqing Medical University

     China

     
  2. [2] Chengdu First People’s Hospital, China
• Localización: Clinical & translational oncology, ISSN 1699-048X, Vol. 22, Nº. 3 (March), 2020, págs. 429-439
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Objectives In recent years, docetaxel, cisplatin and fluorouracil (TPF)-based induction chemotherapy (IC) has been widely applied in the treatment of locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC). However, it remains unclear whether TPF is the ideal IC regimen. Thus, we carried out a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of TPF-based IC plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) versus CCRT alone or double-drug-based IC plus CCRT for LA-NPC.

    Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception until December 2018. After rigorous screening of all relevant studies that reported the use of TPF-based IC followed by CCRT for patients with LA-NPC, eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were assessed for design and quality. Among them, three articles were classified as having a high risk of bias and were excluded from the meta-analysis. The outcomes, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), locoregional failure-free survival (LRFFS) and incidence of adverse events, were pooled with the use of hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR). Heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses were also carried out.

    Results Five trials involving 4223 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to CCRT alone, TPF-based IC plus CCRT significantly improved OS (HR 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35–0.84, P = 0.006), PFS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46–0.88, P = 0.006), LRFFS (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34–0.94, P = 0.03), and DMFS (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38–0.88, P = 0.01). Moreover, compared to double-drug-based IC plus CCRT, OS (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62–0.87, P = 0.0004), PFS (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66–0.88, P = 0.0001) and LRFFS (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61–0.92, P = 0.006) were also significantly improved by TPF-based IC plus CCRT. Notably, TPF-based IC plus CCRT mainly led to an increased risk of hematologic toxicities, such as leucopenia (OR = 3.20, 95% CI 2.13–4.81, P < 0.0001) and neutropenia (OR = 3.84, 95% CI 0.66–22.36, P = 0.13). However, these were uncomplicated and manageable with growth factor support.

    Conclusions Compared to CCRT alone or double-drug-based IC plus CCRT, TPF-based IC plus CCRT results in better survival outcomes with manageable toxicities. Thus, it is reasonable to recommend the addition of TPF-based IC to CCRT as an excellent choice for patients with LA-NPC.