MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Chemoradiotherapy regimens for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.

2014· article· en· W2606272469 on OpenAlexaff
Marie Yan, Alexander Kumachev, Lillian L. Siu, Kelly Lien, Kelvin Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNasopharyngeal carcinomaInternal medicineRegimenOncologyChemoradiotherapyHazard ratioMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialRadiation therapyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6024 Background: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (CRT-A) is often the regimen of choice in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LANPC). Many alternative regimens have been reported in the literature; however, it is unknown how effective these regimens are compared to each other due to the lack of direct comparisons. Our aim was to perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine the relative survival benefits of these treatments in LANPC. Methods: We performed a systematic review following the Cochrane methodology, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different chemoradiotherapy regimens in LANPC. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were the primary outcomes of interest. Hazard ratios (HRs) were extracted using the Parmar method. Bayesian NMAs with random effects were conducted using WinBUGS to compare all regimens simultaneously and improve precision. Results: Twenty-four RCTs (5,492 patients) were included in this review. All together, these trials compared seven different regimens: radiotherapy (RT), concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT), neoadjuvant followed by CRT (N-CRT), CRT-A, RT-A, N-RT and N-RT-A. All regimens that contained CRT performed significantly better than RT. The combined HRs for CRT-A vs. CRT were 0.96 (95% credible regions: 0.69–1.31) for OS and 0.86 (0.55–1.39) for PFS. For N-CRT vs. CRT, the HRs were 1.01 (0.65–1.46) for OS and 0.65 (0.34–1.18) for PFS. When CRT-A was compared against N-CRT, the resulting HRs were 0.96 (0.64–1.46) for OS and 1.33 (0.67–2.87) for PFS. CRT, CRT-A and N-CRT all had similar probabilities of being the best regimen (23%, 34% and 28% respectively) among all seven regimens based on OS. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first NMA to study chemoradiotherapy regimens in LANPC. Contrary to common clinical practice, adjuvant chemotherapy does not appear to improve survival following CRT. The efficacies of CRT, CRT-A and N-CRT all appeared to be similar. Further studies are warranted to examine whether omitting additional chemotherapy phases can decrease side effects without adversely affecting survival.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.051
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.205
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207