+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy of the Additional Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy to Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Patients with Locoregionally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: a Bayesian Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Background: Due to the lack of studies, it remains unclear whether the additional neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) to concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is superior to CCRT alone for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). The main objective of this Bayesian network meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of NACT+CCRT as compared with CCRT alone.

          Methods: We comprehensively searched databases and extracted data from randomized controlled trials involving NPC patients who received NACT+CCRT, CCRT, NACT+radiotherapy (RT), or RT. Overall survival (OS) with hazard ratio (HR), and locoregional recurrence rate (LRR) and distant metastasis rate (DMR) with relative risks (RRs), were concerned.

          Results: Nine trials involving 1988 patients were analyzed. In the network meta-analysis, there was significant benefit of NACT+CCRT over CCRT for DMR (RR=0.54, 95% credible interval [CrI]=0.27-0.94). However, NACT+CCRT had a tendency to worsen locoregional control significantly as compared with CCRT (RR =1.71, 95%CrI =0.94-2.84), and no significant improvement in OS was found (HR =0.73, 95%CrI=0.40-1.23).

          Conclusions: NACT+CCRT is associated with reduced distant failure as compared with CCRT alone, and whether the additional NACT can improve survival for locoregionally advanced NPC should be further explored. Optimizing regimens and identifying patients at high risk of metastasis may enhance the efficacy of NACT+CCRT.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

          David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?

            It has been suggested that the quality of clinical trials should be assessed by blinded raters to limit the risk of introducing bias into meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and into the peer-review process. There is very little evidence in the literature to substantiate this. This study describes the development of an instrument to assess the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in pain research and its use to determine the effect of rater blinding on the assessments of quality. A multidisciplinary panel of six judges produced an initial version of the instrument. Fourteen raters from three different backgrounds assessed the quality of 36 research reports in pain research, selected from three different samples. Seven were allocated randomly to perform the assessments under blind conditions. The final version of the instrument included three items. These items were scored consistently by all the raters regardless of background and could discriminate between reports from the different samples. Blind assessments produced significantly lower and more consistent scores than open assessments. The implications of this finding for systematic reviews, meta-analytic research and the peer-review process are discussed.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit


                Author and article information

                1. Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
                2. Department of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
                Author notes
                ✉ Corresponding author: Jun Ma, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, People's Republic of China. Tel.:+86-20-87343469; Fax:+86-20-87343295; E-mail: majun2@

                † These authors contributed equally to this work.

                Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

                J Cancer
                J Cancer
                Journal of Cancer
                Ivyspring International Publisher (Sydney )
                17 July 2015
                : 6
                : 9
                : 883-892
                © 2015 Ivyspring International Publisher. Reproduction is permitted for personal, noncommercial use, provided that the article is in whole, unmodified, and properly cited. See for terms and conditions.
                Research Paper


                Comment on this article