Background: Chemotherapy with or without pelvic radiotherapy (RT) is included in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for metastatic anal cancer (MAC), despite limited clinical evidence for RT in this setting. In addition, increasing evidence shows that local therapies, including RT, may increase patient survival for some types of metastatic cancers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the patterns of care and association between definitive pelvic RT and overall survival (OS) for patients with MAC. Methods: The National Cancer Database was analyzed to evaluate OS of patients with newly diagnosed MAC treated with chemotherapy with or without pelvic RT. Those who did not undergo treatment, treated with surgery, or without baseline variables were excluded. OS was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, Cox proportional hazards models, and propensity score–matched analyses. Results: From 2004 through 2015, 437 patients received chemotherapy alone and 1,020 received pelvic chemoradiotherapy (CRT). At a median follow-up of 17.3 months, CRT was associated with improved OS on univariate (P<.001) and multivariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61–0.81; P<.001). Propensity score–matched analysis demonstrated superior median survival (21.3 vs 15.9 months) and 2-year OS rates (46% vs 34%) with CRT compared with chemotherapy alone (P<.001). Landmark analyses limited to long-term survivors of ≥1, ≥2, and ≥4 years showed improved OS with CRT in all subsets (all P<.05). CRT with therapeutic doses (≥45 Gy) was associated with longer median survival than palliative doses (<45 Gy) and chemotherapy alone (24.9 vs 10.9 vs 15.6 months, respectively; P<.001). The benefit of CRT was present among not only those with distant lymph node metastasis (HR, 0.63; P=.04) but also those with distant organ disease (HR, 0.74; P<.001). Conclusions: In this large hypothesis-generating analysis, patients with newly diagnosed MAC who received definitive pelvic RT with chemotherapy lived significantly longer than those who received chemotherapy alone. Prospective trials evaluating definitive local RT for MAC are warranted.
Yuefeng Wang, Xinhua Yu, Nan Zhao, Jiajing Wang, Chi Lin, Enrique W. Izaguirre, Michael Farmer, Gary Tian, Bradley Somer, Nilesh Dubal, David L. Schwartz, Matthew T. Ballo and Noam A. VanderWalde
Li-Ting Liu, Qiu-Yan Chen, Lin-Quan Tang, Shan-Shan Guo, Ling Guo, Hao-Yuan Mo, Yang Li, Qing-Nan Tang, Xue-Song Sun, Yu-Jing Liang, Chong Zhao, Xiang Guo, Chao-Nan Qian, Mu-Sheng Zeng, Jin-Xin Bei, Ming-Huang Hong, Jian-Yong Shao, Ying Sun, Jun Ma and Hai-Qiang Mai
Background: The goal of this study was to explore the value of adding neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) or adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) to concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) with different risks of treatment failure. Patients and Methods: A total of 2,263 eligible patients with stage III–IVb NPC treated with CCRT ± NACT or ACT were included in this retrospective study. Distant metastasis–free survival (DMFS), overall survival, and progression-free survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and differences were compared using the log-rank test. Results: Patients in the low-risk group (stage N0–1 disease and Epstein-Barr virus [EBV] DNA <4,000 copies/mL) who received NACT followed by CCRT achieved significantly better 5-year DMFS than those treated with CCRT alone (96.2% vs 91.3%; P= .008). Multivariate analyses also demonstrated that additional NACT was the only independent prognostic factor for DMFS (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22–0.80; P=.009). In both the intermediate-risk group (stage N0–1 disease and EBV DNA ≥4,000 copies/mL and stage N2–3 disease and EBV DNA <4,000 copies/mL) and the high-risk group (stage N2–3 disease and EBV DNA ≥4,000 copies/mL), comparison of NACT or ACT + CCRT versus CCRT alone indicated no significantly better survival for all end points. Conclusions: The addition of NACT to CCRT could reduce distant failure in patients with low risk of treatment failure.