| Title |
A systematic comparison of treatment modalities for nasal extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma in early stages between concurrent chemoradiotherapy and sequential chemotherapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s136386 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ming Qian, Hengmin Tao, Wei Xu, Hongzhi Ji |
| Abstract |
Nasal extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma (nasal ENKTL), which is strongly associated with the Epstein-Barr virus infection, is a common disease in Asia and Latin America. We conducted a retrospective study to compare the overall survival (OS) following concurrent or sequential treatment with radiotherapy and chemotherapy in patients with early stage ENKTL. The records of 58 cases from between 2000 to 2010 were retrieved. Of these, 28 patients (15 males, with median age of 51 years) were treated with sequential chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy (SCRT) and 30 patients (17 males, with median age of 46 years) were treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). Subsequently, the OS, 5-year progression-free survival (PFS), 5-year locoregional-free survival (LRFS), and relevant toxicities were analyzed. There were no significant differences in the toxicities and complete response rate between the 2 groups (all P>0.05) during and immediately after treatment. Kaplan-Meier curve analysis demonstrated that there were significant differences between the CCRT and SCRT groups with regard to 5-year OS (72.9% vs 47.1%, P=0.029), 5-year PFS (68.8% vs 34.2%, P=0.030), and LRFS (78.9% vs 45.7%, P=0.026). We have demonstrated that in comparison with SCRT, CCRT significantly improves the survival outcome in patients with localized ENKTL, with acceptable toxicities. Further clinical trials are needed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 5 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 20% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 20% |
| Engineering | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#2,078
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#286,158
of 326,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#60
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.