| Title |
Concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the era of intensity-modulated radiotherapy: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Management and Research, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cmar.s160469 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yan He, Tao Guo, Hui Guan, Jingjing Wang, Yu Sun, Xingchen Peng |
| Abstract |
In this study, we attempted to compare the efficacy and toxicity of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) with radiotherapy alone (RT) for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LANPC) in the era of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) by meta-analysis. We searched databases, and all randomized controlled trials meeting the inclusion criteria were utilized for a meta-analysis with RevMan 5.3 based on the Cochrane methodology. Fifteen studies were found suitable based on the inclusion criteria. CCRT not only significantly improved the overall response rate (risk ratio [RR]=0.53, 95% CI 0.43-0.66) and the complete response rate (RR=0.60, 95% CI 0.51-0.71) but also contributed to longer overall survival. The incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events from CCRT group increased in hematologic toxicity (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.54-3.29), radiation-induced oral mucositis (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.14-2.35), and radiodermatitis (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.13-2.88). Compared with IMRT alone, CCRT provided survival benefit with acceptable toxicity in patients with LANPC. However, we need multicenter randomized controlled trials and long-term follow-up to evaluate the eventual efficacy and toxicity of concurrent chemotherapy plus IMRT. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 17% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 10 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 10 | 33% |
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 17 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,656,702
of 23,267,128 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Management and Research
#736
of 2,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,705
of 330,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Management and Research
#32
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,267,128 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,022 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
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 330,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.