Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma with intracranial extension in the era of intensity-modulated radiotherapy: case–control study using propensity score matching method

  • Head and Neck
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of the study was to evaluate long-term survival outcomes and toxicity of T4 classification nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) with intracranial extension (IE group) or without intracranial extension (non-IE group) after intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) using the propensity score matching method. After generating propensity scores given the covariates of age, sex, N classification, and concurrent chemotherapy, 132 patients in each group were matched. The 5-year local failure-free survival rate and the 5-year overall survival rate in the IE group were lower than the patients in the non-IE group (74.6 vs. 88.9 %, p = .008; 51.1 vs. 71.9 %, p = .005). Grade 2 hypothyroidism was more common in the IE group (13.2 vs. 3.4 %, p = .029). For patients with T4 classification NPC after IMRT, patients with intracranial extension need more attention to the thyroid gland function and are more likely to experience local failure and death than patients without intracranial extension.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Peng G, Wang T, Yang KY et al (2012) A prospective, randomized study comparing outcomes and toxicities of intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. conventional two-dimensional radiotherapy for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Radiother Oncol 104:286–293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pow EH, Kwong DL, McMillan AS et al (2006) Xerostomia and quality of life after intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. conventional radiotherapy for early stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma: initial report on a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 66:981–991

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kam MK, Leung SF, Zee B et al (2007) Prospective randomized study of intensity modulated radiotherapy on salivary gland function in early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. J Clin Oncol 25:4873–4879

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chau RM, Teo PM, Kam MK et al (2007) Dosimetric comparison between 2-dimensional radiation therapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy in treatment of advanced T-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma: to treat less or more in the planning organ at-risk volume of the brainstem and spinal cord. Med Dosim 32:263–270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cao CN, Luo JW, Gao L et al (2013) Clinical outcomes and patterns of failure after intensity-modulated radiotherapy for T4 nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Oral Oncol 49(2):175–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1985) Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat 39:33–38

    Google Scholar 

  7. D’Agostino RB Jr (1998) Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 17:2265–2281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen L, Liu LZ, Chen M et al (2012) Prognostic value of subclassification using MRI in the t4 classification nasopharyngeal carcinoma intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 84(1):196–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ng WT, Lee MC, Hung WM et al (2011) Clinical outcomes and patterns of failure after intensity-modulated radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 79:420–428

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hung TM, Chen CC, Lin CY et al (2014) Prognostic value of prepontine cistern invasion in nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated by intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Oral Oncol 50(3):228–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee AW, Ng WT, Chan LL et al (2014) Evolution of treatment for nasopharyngeal cancer–success and setback in the intensity-modulated radiotherapy era. Radiother Oncol 110(3):377–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Liu LZ, Liang SB, Li L et al (2009) Prognostic impact of magnetic resonance imaging- detected cranial nerve involvement in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer 115:1995–2003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cheng SH, Tsai SY, Yen KL et al (2005) Prognostic significance of parapharyngeal space venous plexus and marrow involvement: potential landmarks of dissemination for stage I–III nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1:456–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wu YH, Wang HM, Chen HH et al (2010) Hypothyroidism after radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 76:1133–1139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lin Z, Wang X, Xie W et al (2013) Evaluation of clinical hypothyroidism risk due to irradiation of thyroid and pituitary glands in radiotherapy of nasopharyngeal cancer patients. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 57(6):713–718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Huang S, Wang X, Hu C et al (2013) Hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid dysfunction induced by intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for adult patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Med Oncol 30(4):710

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jing-wei Luo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cao, Cn., Luo, Jw., Gao, L. et al. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma with intracranial extension in the era of intensity-modulated radiotherapy: case–control study using propensity score matching method. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273, 2209–2215 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3749-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3749-8

Keywords

Navigation