1 Introduction
Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), a unique cancer located in the head and neck region, is endemic in Singapore, Malaysia, and Southern China, with an incidence of 15 to 50 cases per 100,000 people.[1] [2,3] [4,5] [6] [7] [8]
The results from previous studies indicated that IC plus RT did not provide any survival benefit when compared with RT alone.[9–12] [13–15] [16] [17] P = .012). In addition, we performed a phase II study to compare the efficacy and toxicities of TPF versus TP IC regimen before CCRT for locoregionally advanced NPC and showed that the TP-based IC regimen is associated with similar efficacy and less toxicity than the TPF regimen.[18]
The combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GP) has been proven to have synergistic cytotoxic effects in vitro.[19] [20] [21] [22] [23]
Based on the above studies, all the 3 IC regimens yet survival benefits in patients with locoregionally advanced NPC. However, comparison of treatment outcomes and toxicities of these 3 IC regimens have never been reported in any previous studies. Here, we report the results of 2 randomized phase II studies and compare the efficacy and safety of 3 different IC regimens before CCRT as the first-line treatment strategy for patients with locoregional advanced NPC.
2 Methods
2.1 Patients and pretreatment
The patients enrolled in this study were hospitalized from January 2012 to January 2014 in the department of radiation oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital. The eligible patients met the following criteria: histologically confirmed NPC; aged 18 to 70 years; stage III/IVA-B NPC at diagnosis [American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system, 7th edition]; adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function; and without previous anticancer treatment.
The exclusion criteria were that the patients had to be 70 years or older; had received RT, chemotherapy, or surgery for tumors; had distant metastases before treatment; had pregnancy; had a history of other malignancy; or had severe comorbidities.
The prospective randomized study was approved by the medical ethics committee in Zhejiang Cancer Hospital. All the patients signed written informed consent before participating in this research. All treatment protocols in this study were performed in accordance with the NCCN guidelines. All analyses were conducted in compliance with the approved study protocol.
All the patients underwent pretreatment evaluation, including complete medical history, physical examination, hematology and biochemistry profiles, chest radiographs, sonography of the abdomen, bone scan, magnetic response imaging of the nasopharynx, and nasopharyngoscopy. All the patients were staged according to the 2010 AJCC staging system. Tumor histology was classified according to the World Health Organization classification.
3 Treatment schemes
3.1 Radiation therapy
All the patients underwent radical IMRT with simultaneous integrated boost technique using 6 MV photons for 2 to 3 weeks after IC. All the patients were immobilized in the supine position using the head, neck, and shoulder thermoplastic masks. Computed tomography scans with intravenous contrast were performed for treatment planning using 2.5 mm slices from the head to 2 cm below the sternoclavicular joints.
The delineation of target volumes of NPC during the treatment with IMRT was as described previously.[24–27]
The planning target volume (PTV) was constructed automatically based on each volume with an additional 3 mm margin in 3 dimensions to account for the set-up variability. All the PTVs including PGTVnx, PTVnx, PTV1, and PTV2 were not delineated outside of the skin surface. Critical normal structures, including the brainstem, spinal cord, parotid glands, optic nerves, chiasm, lens, eyeballs, temporal lobes, temporomandibular joints, mandible, and hypophysis, were contoured and set as organs at risk (OARs) during the optimization.
The prescribed radiation dose was 70 or 72 Gy to PGTVnx, 66 to 70 Gy to PGTVnd, 62 to 66 Gy to PTVnx, 60 to 63 Gy to PTV1, and 51 to 54 Gy to PTV2 delivered in 30 or 33 fractions. For IMRT, radiation was delivered once daily, 5 fractions per week, over 6 to 6.5 weeks. The dose to OARs was limited using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0225 protocol.
3.2 Chemotherapy regimens
All the eligible patients were administered 1 to 3 cycles of platinum-based IC at intervals of 3 weeks. The triple IC regimens included the TPF (docetaxel 60 mg/m2 /day on day 1, cisplatin 25 mg/m2 /day on days 1–3, and 5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m2 /day on days 1–3), TP (docetaxel 60 mg/m2 /day on day 1, cisplatin 25 mg/m2 /day on days 1–3), and GP regimens (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 /day on days 1 and 8, cisplatin 25 mg/m2 /day on days 1–3).
Moreover, patients with NPC in this study underwent ≥1 cycle of CC with cisplatin (80 mg/m2 ) divided over 3 days, and 150 patients received 2 to 3 courses of AC with the PF regimen (cisplatin 25 mg/m2 /day on days 1–3 and 5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m2 /day on days 1–3) for 3 weeks after RT.
3.3 Patient evaluation and follow-ups
The assessment of tumor response was performed thrice after the completion of IC, at the end of IMRT, and 3 months after radiation, which was based on the MRI and nasopharyngeal fiberscope findings according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Systemic chemotherapy adverse effects were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI CTCAE, version 3.0), whereas RT-induced toxicities were scored according to the Acute and Late Radiation Morbidity Scoring Criteria of the RTOG.
All the subjects underwent weekly examinations for treatment response and toxicities during the radiation therapy. The patients were followed-up every 3 months in the first 2 years, every 6 months from the third to the fifth year, and then annually. Each follow-up included careful examination of the nasopharynx and neck nodes by an experienced doctor; MRI scan of the nasopharynx, nasopharyngeal fiberscope, chest computed tomography, and ultrasound of the abdomen were performed 3 months after the completion of RT and every 6 to 12 months thereafter. Additional examinations were performed when it was indicated to evaluate local relapse or distant metastasis.
3.4 Statistical analysis
The end points of this study included the local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), regional recurrence-free survival (RRFS), DMFS, PFS, OS, and acute toxicities from IC and CCRT. The OS was calculated from the date of patient enrollment into the trail to the date of death or the last follow-up. The LRFS, RRFS, DMFS, and PFS were calculated from the date of patient enrollment into the trail to the date of local relapse, regional relapse, distant metastasis occurrence, and the diagnosed evidence of disease progression or the last follow-up, respectively. After relapse or metastasis, patients were administered salvage therapy as determined by their physicians.
The Chi-square test or Fisher exact test was used for comparing the patients’ characteristics, treatment adherence, tumor response, and patterns of failure among the 3 arms. The analysis of variance was used for comparing continuous variables. Survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the curves were compared using the log-rank tests. The multivariate analysis was performed using the Cox regression models for identifying significant prognostic factors. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each prognostic factor. IBM SPSS Statistics version 19.0 was used for all data analysis. A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant.
4 Results
4.1 Patients’ characteristics and therapeutic compliance
From January 2012 to January 2014, a total of 206 eligible patients with locoregionally advanced NPC were enrolled. Fifty-seven patients were randomly assigned to the TPF arm, 75 patients to the TP arm, and 74 patients to the GP arm. Basic demographics of the patients and tumor characteristics are summarized in Table 1 . The characteristics of the patients and tumor factors were well balanced among the 3 arms.
Table 1: Basic characteristics of 206 locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients in the 3 arms.
All the patients completed a full course of radical IMRT protocol and received at least 1 cycle of IC. Among these patients, 175 (85.0%) patients received CC, and 150 patients (72.8%) received AC. Treatment compliance among the 3 arms is listed in Table 2 .
Table 2: Therapeutic compliances among 206 patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the 3 arms.
4.2 Disease response
Regarding the tumor response of IC, 18 patients (31.6%) had complete remission (CR), 37 patients (64.9%) had partial remission (PR), and 2 patients (3.5%) had stable disease (SD) with the nasopharyngeal tumor confirmed in the TPF arm, whereas CR, PR, and SD in the TP and GP arms were achieved in 23 (30.7%), 49 (65.3%), and 3 (4.0%) patients and 19 (25.6%), 52 (70.3%), and 3 (4.1%) patients, respectively. For cervical metastatic lymph nodes, CR, PR, and SD rates among the 3 arms (TPF, TP, and GP) were 36.8% (21/57), 61.4% (35/57), and 1.8% (1/57); 38.7% (29/75), 58.7% (44/75), and 2.6% (2/75); and 41.1% (30/73), 56.2% (41/73), and 2.7% (2/73), respectively. At the end of IMRT, the CR rates of nasopharyngeal tumor and neck metastatic lymph nodes in the 3 arms (TPF, TP, and GP) were 91.2%, 94.7%, and 97.3% and 92.0%, 93.3%, and 98.6%, respectively. No statistically significant differences in the disease response to the treatments were found among the 3 arms (Table 3 ).
Table 3: Tumor response to the treatment among the 3 arms.
4.3 Survival outcomes
The median follow-up duration was 47 months (range, 10–60 months). The estimated 3-year LRFS, RRFS, DMFS, PFS, and OS rates in all the patients with locoregionally advanced NPC were 95.4%, 96.2%, 85.3%, 86.3%, and 91.7%, respectively (Fig. 1 ).
Figure 1: Kaplan-Meier estimates of the survival in 206 patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. A, Local relapse-free survival; (B) regional relapse-free survival; (C) distance metastasis-free survival; (D) progression-free survival; and (E) overall survival.
There were no statistically significant differences in the LRFS, RRFS, DMFS, PFS, and OS among the TPF, TP, and GP arms (3-year LRFS: 96.4% vs 91.7% vs 98.6%, respectively, P = .474, Fig. 2 A; 3-year RRFS: 100% vs 95.9% vs 100%, respectively, P = .179, Fig. 2 B; 3-year DMFS: 87.7% vs 91.9% vs 89.0%, respectively, P = .541, Fig. 2 C; 3-year PFS: 86.0% vs 85.2% vs 87.6%, respectively, P = .892, Fig. 2 D; 3-year OS: 94.7% vs 92% vs 89.2%, respectively, P = .167, Fig. 2 E). And no statistically significant survival differences were observed between any 2 arms (Table 4 ).
Figure 2: Kaplan-Meier estimates of the survival outcomes in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients among the 3 arms. A, Local relapse-free survival; (B) regional relapse-free survival; (C) distance metastasis-free survival; (D) progression-free survival; and (E) overall survival. IC = induction chemotherapy, TP = docetaxel and cisplatin, TPF = docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5- fluorouracil.
Table 4: Comparison of the survival outcomes between any 2 arms.
4.4 Analysis of treatment failure
Overall, 37 (18.0%) of 206 patients experienced treatment failure, 8 (3.9%) experienced locoregional relapse, 9 (4.4%) experienced locoregional relapse and distant metastasis, and 20 (9.7%) experienced distant metastasis alone. Among these patients, 1 in the TPF arm, 5 in the TP arm, and 2 in the GP arm developed locoregional relapse; 2 in the TPF arm, 4 in the TP arm, and 3 in the GP arm developed locoregional relapse and distant metastases; 6 in the TPF arm, 4 in the TP arm, and 10 in the GP arm developed distant relapse. The patterns of treatment failure in patients with locoregionally advanced NPC are summarized in Table 5 . The median time to failure for the TPF, TP, and GP arms were 19 (range, 8–39 months), 15 (range, 6–55 months), and 18 months (range, 8–45 months), respectively.
Table 5: Patterns of treatment failure.
4.5 Prognostic factors
The common potential prognostic factors included the patient age (<50 vs ≥50 years), patient sex (male vs female), T category (T1–3 vs T4), N-category (N0–1 vs N2–3), clinical stage (III vs IV), comorbidities (no vs yes), and IC regimen (TPF vs TP vs GP). We identified the factors that influenced the survival outcome and evaluated the prognostic role of these factors using the univariate and multivariate analyses. The univariate analysis showed that the 3-year PFS and OS of patients with stage III NPC were superior than those of patients with stage IVA–B NPC (3-year PFS: 93.4% vs 72.0%, P < .001; OS: 97.1% vs 81.4%, P < .001), and T1–3 resulted in the longer PFS and OS (Table 6 ). The multivariate analysis demonstrated that T category was an independent predictor of the DMFS (P = .018), PFS (P = .006), and OS (P = .001). However, the IC regimen was not an independent prognostic factor for any survival outcomes (Table 7 ).
Table 6: Univariate analysis of the prognostic factors of the survival outcomes of 206 nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients.
Table 7: Summary of the multivariate analyses of the prognostic factors in 206 nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients.
4.6 Safety and toxicity
The hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities were the most observed complications during the treatment. Grade 3/4 toxicities from the IC and CCRT regimen among the 3 arms are listed in Table 8 . During the period of IC regimen, 57.8% (33/57) of the patients in the TPF arm, 18.7% (14/75) in the TP arm, and 21.6% (16/74) in the GP arm experienced grade 3/4 leucopenia (P < .001). Grade 3/4 neutropenia was reported in 42 (75.7%) patients in the TPF arm, 17 (22.7%) in the TP arm, and 31 (41.9%) in the GP arm (P < .001). Thrombocytopenia with grade 3/4 toxicity was observed in one patient (1.8%) in the TPF arm, zero (0%) in the TP arm, and 14 (18.9%) in the GP arm (P < .001). The differences in other toxicities among the 3 arms were not statistically significant.
Table 8: Grade 3/4 acute toxicities from induction chemotherapy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy regimens among the 3 arms.
5 Discussion
Our results indicated that the differences in the LRFS, RRFS, DMFS, PFS, and OS among the 3 arms were not statistically significant. In addition, the incidence of leucopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia was lower in the TP arm than in the TPF and GP arms. Therefore, TP-based IC had similar efficacy when compared with TPF-based IC and GP-based IC, although TP-based IC had a lower incidence of toxicities.
Among the 3 arms (TPF, TP, and GP), the 3-year LRFS, RRFS, DMFS, PFS, and OS rates were 96.4%, 91.7%, and 98.6%; 100%, 95.9%, and 100%; 87.7%, 91.9%, and 89.0%; 86.0%, 85.2%, and 87.6%; and 94.7%, 92.0%, and 89.2%, respectively, and there were no statistically significant differences. We identified the potential prognostic factors, namely, the patient age, sex, T category, N category, clinical stage, comorbidities, and IC regimen. We found that age was an independent prognostic factor of the LRFS, and T category was an independent predictor of the DMFS, PFS, and OS.
Since TAX 323 and 324 studies had established TPF as the standard for IC to improve the survival outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer,[13,14] [16] [28] toxicity profile in patients with locoregionally advanced NPC.[29] [17] P = .0112).[17] [30] [20] [31] [32] [33]
Based on the above studies, the 3 IC regimens have shown excellent survival outcomes as first-line therapy for locoregionally advanced NPC; however, no trials comparing the efficacy and safety of TPF, TP, and GP have been reported. Therefore, we conducted a randomized study for comparing the efficacy and tolerability of additional TPF versus TP versus GP to CC and IMRT in patients with locoregional advanced NPC.
The hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities were most observed in patients with NPC during the period of treatment. The incidences of grade ≥3 leucopenia and neutropenia from TP were significantly lower than those from TPF and GP (18.7% vs 57.8% vs 21.6%, P < .001 and 22.7% vs 73.7% vs 41.9%, P < .001, respectively). The incidences of hematologic toxicities from TPF in our study were similar to those in the previous studies (range, 55%–83%).[13,14,28,34] P < .001). Owing to this reason, compliance of more than 2 cycles of IC was significantly lower in the GP arm than in the other 2 arms (P < .001).
Although the survival outcomes in patients with locoregionally advanced NPC were similar for the 3 arms before CCRT, the TP-based IC regimen showed low grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities than the other 2 regimens. The limitation of this study includes the small sample size and short follow-up periods. Therefore, further randomized, controlled, multicenter phase III clinical trials are needed for assessing the complete efficacy and toxicity of the TP-based IC regimen.
In conclusion, this study suggests that the TP-based IC regimen before IMRT plus CC could yield similar disease response, LRFS, RRFS, DMFS, PFS, and OS compared with the TPF- and GP-based IC regimens in patients with locoregionally advanced NPC; however, TP-based IC regimen had a lower toxicity profile. The results of this study need to be confirmed using long-term, large-scale clinical trials.
Author contributions
Conceptualization: Zhenfu Fu.
Data curation: Jiang Chuner.
Formal analysis: Jiang Yangming.
Funding acquisition: Fangzheng Wang, Sun Quanquan, Liu Tongxin.
Investigation: Wang Lei, Yan Fengqin, Ye Zhimin, Sun Quanquan, Liu Tongxin.
Project administration: Ye Zhimin, Lei Wang, Fengqin Yan, Zhimin Ye, Quanquan Sun, Liu Tongxin.
Supervision: Fu Zhenfu.
Writing – original draft: Fangzheng Wang, Jiang Chuner.
Writing – review & editing: Jiang Yangming, Fu Zhenfu.
References
[1]. Tang LL, Chen WQ, Xue WQ, et al. Global trends in incidence and mortality of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Lett 2016;374:22–30.
[2]. Zhang B, Mo Z, Du W, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus 2D-RT or 3D-RT for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oral Oncol 2015;51:1041–6.
[3]. Lee N, Harris J, Garden AS, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group phase II trail 0225. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3684–90.
[4]. Lee AW, Ng WT, Chan LK, et al. The strength/weakness of the AJCC/UICC staging system (7th edition) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma and suggestions for future improvement. Oral Oncol 2012;48:1007–13.
[5]. Chen L, Mao YP, Xie FY, et al. The seventh edition of the UICC/AJCC staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma is prognostically useful for patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy from an endemic area in China. Radiother Oncol 2012;104:331–7.
[6]. Mao YP, Xie FY, Liu LZ, et al. Re-evaluation of 6th edition of AJCC staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma and proposed improvement based on magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;73:1326–34.
[7]. Chen L, Hu CS, Chen XZ, et al. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:163–71.
[8]. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines. Available at:
http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physicians_gls/f_guidelines.asp . Accessed: July 9, 2015.
[9]. Cvitkovic E, Eschwege F, Rahal M, et al. International Nasopharynx Cancer Study Group VUMCA I trial. Preliminary results of a randomized trial comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (cisplatin, epirubicin, bleomycin) plus radiotherapy vs. radiotherapy alone in stage IV(> or=N2, M0) undifferentiated nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a positive effect on progression-free survival. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996;35:463–9.
[10]. Chua DT, Sham JS, Choy D, et al. Preliminary report of the Asian-Oceanian Clinical Oncology Association randomized trial comparing cisplatin and epirubicin followed by radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in the treatment of patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Asian-Oceanian Clinical Oncology Association Nasopharynx Cancer Study Group. Cancer 1998;83:2270–83.
[11]. Ma J, Mai HQ, Hong MH, et al. Results of a prospective randomized trial comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus radiotherapy with radiotherapy alone in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:1350–7.
[12]. Hareyama M, Sakata K, Shirato H, et al. A prospective, randomized trial comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with radiotherapy alone in patients with advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer 2002;94:2217–23.
[13]. Vermorken JB, Remenar E, Van Herpen C, et al. Cisplatin, fluorouracil, and docetaxel in unresectable head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;357:1695–704.
[14]. Posner MR, Hershock DM, Blajman CR, et al. Cisplatin and fluorouracil alone or with docetaxel in head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;357:1705–15.
[15]. Pointreau Y, Garaud P, Chapet S, et al. Randomized trial of induction chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil with or without docetaxel for larynx preservation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:498–506.
[16]. Sun Y, Li WF, Chen NY, et al. Induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotheray alone in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a phase 3, multicentre, randomized controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2016;12:1509–20.
[17]. Hui EP, Ma BB, Leung SF, et al. Randomized phase II trial of concurrent cisplatin-radiotherapy with or without neoadjuvant docetaxel and cisplatin in advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:242–9.
[18]. Wang F, Jiang C, Wang L, et al. Addition of 5-fluorouracil to first-line induction chemotherapy with docetaxel and cisplatin before concurrent chemoradiotherapy does not improve survival in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Oncotarget 2017;8:91150–61.
[19]. Bergman AM, Ruiz van Haperen VW, Veerman G, et al. Synergistic interaction between cisplatin and gemcitabine in vitro. Clin Cancer Res 1996;2:521–30.
[20]. Zhang L, Huang Y, Hong SD, et al. Gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin in recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2016;388:1883–92.
[21]. Zheng W, Qiu SF, Huang LL, et al. Is gemcitabine and cisplatin induction chemotherapy superior in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma? Pak J Med Sci 2015;31:781–6.
[22]. Zhao LN, Xu M, Jiang W, et al. Induction chemotherapy for the treatment of non-endemic locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Oncotarget 2017;8:6763–74.
[23]. Wang FZ, Sun QQ, Jiang CE, et al. Gemcitabine/cisplatin induction chemotherapy before concurrent chemotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy improves outcomes for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Oncotarget 2007;8:96798–7808.
[24]. Wang FZ, Jiang CE, Wang L, et al. Outcome and long-term efficacy of four facio-cervical fields conformal radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Oncotarget 2016;8:39756–65.
[25]. Wang FZ, Jiang C, Ye ZM, et al. Efficacy and safety of nimotuzumab with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Oncotarget 2017;8:75544–56.
[26]. Wang FZ, Jiang CE, Ye ZM, et al. Association of the neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycle with survival outcomes in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a propensity-matched analysis. Oncotarget 2017;8:94127–38.
[27]. Wang FZ, Jiang CE, Ye ZM, et al. Long-term use of nimotuzumab in combination with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and chemotherapy in the treatment of locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: experience of a single institution. Oncol Res 2018;26:277–87.
[28]. Kong L, Zhang YW, Hu CS, et al. Effects of induction docetaxel, platinum, and fluorouracil chemotherapy in patients with stage III or IVA/B nasopharyngeal cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiation therapy: final results of 2 parallel phase clinical trial. Cancer 2017;124:2258–67.
[29]. Hassan E, Galai K, Esmat E. Neo-adjuvant docetaxel and cisplatin followed by concurrent cisplatin with radiation therapy in treatment of locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Gulf J Oncolog 2008;10:46–53.
[30]. Zhong YH, Dai J, Wang XY, et al. Phase II trial of neoadjuvant docetaxel and cisplatin followed by intensity-modulated radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2013;71:1577–83.
[31]. Yau TK, Lee AW, Wong DH, et al. Treatment of stage IV(A-B) nasopharyngeal carcinoma by induction-concurrent chemoradiotherapy and accelerated fractionation: impact of chemotherapy schemes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;66:1004–10.
[32]. He X, Ou D, Ying H, et al. Experience with combination of cisplatin plus gemcitabine chemotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012;269:1027–33.
[33]. Jamshed A, Hussain R, Iqbal H. Gemcitabine and Cisplatin followed by chemo-radiation for advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014;15:899–904.
[34]. Bae WK, Hwang JE, Shim HJ, et al. Phase II study of docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-FU induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2010;65:589–95.
