Systemic therapies for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The majority of published studies in recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (RM-NPC) are single-arm trials. Reliable modelling of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes, therefore, is difficult. This study aim to analyse existent literature to estimate the relative efficacy of available systemic regimens in RM-NPC, as well as provide estimates of aggregate OS and PFS. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to March 2015. Clinical trials (in English only) investigating cytotoxic and molecularly targeted agents in adult patients with RM-NPC were included. All relevant studies were assessed for quality using Downs and Blacks (DB) checklist (maximum quality score of 27). Aggregate data analysis and Student's t-test were performed for all identified studies (model A). For studies that published analysable Kaplan-Meier curves, survival data were extracted and marginal proportional hazards models were constructed (model B). RESULTS: A total of 56 studies were identified and included in model A, 26 of which had analysable Kaplan-Meier curves and were included in model B. The 26 studies in model B had significantly higher mean DB scores than the remaining 30 (17.3 vs 13.7, P=0.002). For patients receiving first line chemotherapy, the estimated median OS was 15.7 months by model A (95% CI, 12.3-19.1), and 19.3 months by model B (95% CI, 17.6-21.1). For patients undergoing second line or higher therapies (2nd+), the estimated median OS was 11.5 months by model A (95% CI 10.1-12.9), and 12.5 months by model B (95% CI 11.9-13.4). PFS estimates for patients undergoing first-line chemotherapy by model A was 7.6 months (95% CI, 6.2-9.0), and 8.0 months by model B (95% CI, 7.6-8.8). For patients undergoing therapy in the 2nd+ setting, the estimated PFS by model A was 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.8-7.0), and 5.2 months by model B (95% CI, 4.7-5.6). CONCLUSIONS: We present the first aggregate estimates of OS and PFS for RM-NPC patients receiving first and second-line or higher treatment settings, which could inform the design of future clinical trials in this disease setting.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".