Malignant Nasopharyngeal Tumors Treatment & Management

  • Author: Ho-Sheng Lin, MD, FACS; Chief Editor: Arlen D Meyers, MD, MBA   more...
 
Updated: Oct 16, 2009
 

Medical Therapy

Previously untreated nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Nasopharynx

External beam radiation therapy is the primary mode of management of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), both at the primary site and in the neck. This is mainly because of this tumor's high degree of sensitivity to radiation as well as the anatomical constraints for surgical access to the highly complex nasopharyngeal region. Recent advances in imaging capabilities (eg, the ability to more accurately define tumor location) and improved radiotherapy techniques (eg, stereotactic radiotherapy boost) have helped to improve the locoregional control rate. At the same time, complications associated with radiation therapy have been reduced. Various sophisticated fractionation schema and boosting techniques have been advocated, with a minimum of 65-75 Gy of radiation delivered to the primary site.

Although radiation therapy alone is a well-accepted management of stages I and II NPC, the administration of chemotherapy adjunctive to radiotherapy in advanced NPC (stages III-IV) has remained a controversial issue because of conflicting reports in the literature. When interpreting these data, the inherent difference in disease type in endemic areas (eg, Southeast Asia) and nonendemic areas (eg, North America and Western Europe) must be noted. WHO type 1 makes up fewer than 5% of all NPC cases in Southeast Asia, while it accounts for 25% of tumor types in the Intergroup Study from North America.[17] WHO type 1 NPC is generally considered to be less radiosensitive than WHO type 2 and 3 NPC; therefore, WHO type 1 NPC is associated with the worst prognosis. Not surprisingly then, the locoregional control and survival rates reported from Southeast Asia are, in general, better than rates reported from the West.

Another important thing to remember is that the radiation regimens reported in Asian studies are typically more aggressive than ones reported in nonendemic areas in the West.[18] This may account for the better outcome in the radiation-alone arm seen in Asian studies, making it harder to show survival benefit with the addition of chemotherapy. Finally, many different types of chemotherapeutic regimens (different drugs, concentrations, and different timing) were used in these trials, which may also account for some of the differences in outcome.

Chemotherapy can be delivered before (neoadjuvant), during (concurrent), or following (adjuvant) radiation therapy. Active chemotherapeutic agents include cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), doxorubicin, epirubicin, bleomycin, mitoxantrone, methotrexate, and vinca alkaloids. Various chemotherapeutic approaches have been devised to improve the response rates while minimizing toxicities.

In 1998, a landmark study (Intergroup Study 0099) was reported by Al-Saraaf et al.[17] This was a large, prospective, randomized trial from North America that demonstrated that concomitant chemoradiation (cisplatin 100 mg/m2 infused on days 1, 22, and 43) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin (80 mg/m2) and 5-FU (1 g/m2) every 4 weeks for 3 cycles improved overall survival (OS) at 3 years for patients with advanced stages of NPC over radiation therapy alone (75% vs 46%).

In an updated report, Al-Saraaf reported that patients treated with chemoradiation continued to have superior OS rates over patients treated with radiation alone at 5 years (67% vs 37%).[19] This study was the first large randomized trial that demonstrated a significant improvement in OS with the addition of chemotherapy to radiation. Following this landmark study, a major change in the treatment paradigm for patients with advanced stage NPC occurred in the United States. Most centers now treat patients who have advanced-stage NPC with a combination of chemotherapy and radiation. However, this treatment regimen is certainly not routinely practiced in other parts of the world, especially in endemic regions in Asia.

In contrast to the Intergroup Study 0099, several large, prospective, randomized trials failed to show any survival benefit with the addition of chemotherapy for treatment of advanced NPC (see Table 4 below). Most of these earlier studies from Asia, however, used chemotherapy either in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant fashion instead of the concurrent and adjuvant regimen used in Intergroup Study. Using chemotherapy in an adjuvant setting, the Taiwan Cooperative Oncology Group Trial failed to demonstrate any survival benefit from the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy in advanced stages of NPC. The 5-year OS for the chemoradiation group was 61% versus 55% survival for radiation alone group.[20]

Studies using chemotherapy in a neoadjuvant setting also failed to show survival advantage. A randomized trial from the Asian-Oceanian Clinical Oncology Association compared induction chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone.[21] The 3-year OS rate was 78% for the induction chemotherapy group, which was not significantly different from the 3-year OS of 71% for the radiation alone group.

In a similar large, randomized trial, Ma et al reported a 5-year OS of 63% for the group that received induction chemotherapy followed by radiation versus a 5-year OS of 56% for the group that underwent radiation alone.[22] Statistical significant improvement in survival was not achieved (P =0.11). Finally, Chan et al evaluated the addition of both neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy and reported a 5-year OS rate of 80% for the chemoradiation group and 81% for the radiation alone group with P =0.1.[23]

Unfortunately, the disparate results in these well-conducted large, prospective, randomized trials are difficult to interpret, for several reasons. First, the difference in the proportion of the 3 types of NPC in each of these studies may contribute to some of the disparities in the effect of chemotherapy in these different studies. As stated previously, most of the NPC cases (>95%) in Southeast Asia involve type 2 NPC and type 3 NPC, which are extremely radiosensitive. Treatment with radiation alone usually results in an excellent 5-year OS rate, ranging from 60-80%. Improving on this excellent survival rate is difficult with the addition of chemotherapy. Although fewer than 5% of patients in these studies from Southeast Asia have type 1 NPC, a large proportion of patients (25%) in the Intergroup Study have type 1 NPC, which is less radiosensitive and is associated with a much lower survival rate than radiation alone.[17]

The possibility exists that the significant improvement in survival reported from the Intergroup Study may be more applicable to patients with type 1 NPC than patients with type 2 or 3 NPC.[17] Subgroup analysis of the Intergroup Study seems to support the significant beneficial effect of adding chemotherapy for patients with WHO type I NPC (see Table 5 below). In patients with WHO type I treated by radiation alone, the 5-year OS rate is only 14%. The survival rate increased to 59% in the same group of patients treated with chemoradiation. However, one must be cautious in drawing conclusion from subset analysis, especially given the small number of patients in this subset of WHO type I (n = 36).

The debate over whether chemotherapy is beneficial in the treatment of advanced NPC is further complicated because different trials used different chemotherapeutic agents (eg, vincristine, cisplatin, bleomycin, epirubicin, 5-FU, methotrexate) as well as different delivery schedules (ie, neoadjuvant, concurrent, adjuvant, combination). The improved survival rate from the Intergroup Study may result from the concurrent use of chemotherapy with radiation, whereas many prior studies from Asian countries mainly use chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting, neoadjuvant setting, or both.

To test this hypothesis, several phase III randomized trials were conducted in Asia using chemotherapy in the concurrent fashion with radiotherapy. Unfortunately, the results were again inconclusive. Chi et al reported that the concurrent use of cisplatin, 5-FU, and leucovorin with radiation failed to improve 5-year overall survival in stage IV NPC patients when compared with radiation alone (61% versus 55%). On the other hand, Chan et al reported on a phase III randomized study comparing concurrent use of weekly infusion of cisplatin (40 mg/m2) during radiation versus radiation alone.[23] They demonstrated that for patients with stage II and III NPC, the 5-year OS rate is better in patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (70.3%) than for patients treated with radiation alone (58.6%).

Another study from Taiwan reported by Lin et al also demonstrated that the use of concurrent chemoradiotherapy is superior to radiotherapy alone.[24] In that study, patients were treated with 2 cycles of cisplatin and 5-FU during radiation. The 5-year OS rate in the chemoradiation group (72.3%) was significantly better than that for the radiation alone group (54.2%).

Two published randomized phase III clinical trials, using the exact same treatment schema that was used in the Intergroup Study 0099, however, gave contradictory results. Using concurrent chemoradiation with cisplatin followed by adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-FU, Wee et al reported a statistically significant (p = 0.017) improvement in 5-year OS rate in patients who received chemoradiotherapy (65%) versus patients who received radiation alone (46%).[25, 26] However, using this same regimen, Lee et al reported no statistical significant difference (p = 0.97) in 3-year OS rate in patients treated with chemoradiotherapy (78%) versus patients treated with radiation alone (78%) (see Table 4 below).[27] Nonetheless, the locoregional control rate in the chemoradiation group (92%) is statistically significantly (p = 0.027) better than that for the radiation alone group (82%).

Further, this was the first randomized trial to include a more contemporary standard of radiation, with approximately 60% of patients receiving some form of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). As stated earlier, radiation regimens used in Asian studies are typically more aggressive and treatment with radiation alone usually results in an excellent 5-year OS rate. Thus, it may be more difficult to improve on this excellent survival rate (using radiation alone) with the addition of chemotherapy.

Finally, a recently published randomized phase III trial from Chen et al involved 316 patients from Chinese mainland.[28] Patients in the combined treatment arm were given concurrent cisplatin (40 mg/m2) weekly during 7 weeks of radiation followed by cisplatin (80 mg/m2 on day 1) and fluorouracil (800 mg/ m2 on days 1-5) every 4 weeks for 3 cycles after radiation. The 2-year OS for the chemoradiation arm and radiation-alone arm were 89.8% and 79.7% (P = 0.003).[28]

Most recently, a report from the Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma (MAC-NPC) reviewed individual patient data from 8 well-designed randomized trials that compared chemotherapy plus radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in locally advanced NPC.[29] A total of 1753 patients were included in this review. All trials used conventional radiotherapy and cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The authors found that the addition of chemotherapy improved 5-year OS from 56% to 62% (absolute survival benefit, 6%) and improved EFS from 42% to 52% (absolute benefit, 10%).

They also observed a significant interaction between chemotherapy timings and OS (P =.005), which explained the heterogeneity of clinical trial results previously noted. The use of concurrent chemotherapy with radiation was found to result in the highest survival benefit. In the sensitivity analysis, chemotherapy was found to be more efficient against WHO type 1 disease than other types. The authors concluded that the addition of chemotherapy to standard radiotherapy provides a small but significant survival benefit in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. This benefit is essentially observed when chemotherapy is administered concomitantly with radiotherapy. The role of induction chemotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy is more questionable.

Table 4. Prospective Randomized Clinical Trials of Chemoradiation Versus Radiation Alone in the Treatment of Locally Advanced NPC (Open Table in a new window)

Author, YearStageNumber



of



Patients



Treatment ArmsSurvival RateP Value
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Radiation
VUMCA, 1996[30] IVn=171Bleomycin/epirubicin/cisplatin X 3



Radiation



60% (3 yr OS)P > .05
n=168Radiation alone54% (3 y OS)
Hareyama, 2002[31] I-IVn=40Cisplatin/5-FU X 2



Radiation



60% (5 y OS)P > .05
n=40Radiation alone45% (5 y OS)
Chua, 1998[21] T3



N2-3



n=167Cisplatin/epirubicin X 2-3



Radiation



78% (3 y OS)P = .57
n=167Radiation alone71% (3 y OS)
Ma, 2001[22] III-IVn=224Cisplatin/bleomycin/5-FU X 2-3



Radiation



63% (5 y OS)P = .11
n=225Radiation alone56% (5 y OS)
Concurrent Chemotherapy and Radiation
Lin, 2003[24] III-IVn=141Cisplatin/5-FU X 2 +



Radiation



72.3% (5 y OS)P = .002
n=143Radiation alone54.2% (5 y OS)
Chan, 2005[23] II-IVn=174Cisplatin weekly and



Radiation



70.3% (5 y OS)P = .048
n=176Radiation alone58.6% (5 y OS)
Radiation Followed by Adjuvant Chemotherapy
Rossi, 1988[32] I-IVn=113Radiation



Vincristine/cyclophosphamide/Adriamycin X 6



59% (4 y OS)P > .05
n=116Radiation alone67% (4 y OS)
Chi, 2002[20] IVn=77Radiation



Cisplatin/5-FU/leucovorin X 9



61% (5 y OS)P = .5
n=77Radiation alone55% (5 y OS)
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Radiation Followed by Adjuvant Chemotherapy
Chan, 1995[23] n=34Cisplatin/5-FU X 2



Radiation



Cisplatin/5-FU X 4



80% (5 y OS)P = .1
n=40Radiation alone81% (5 y OS)
Concurrent Chemotherapy and Radiation Followed by Adjuvant Chemotherapy
Al-Sarraf, 1998[17] III-IVn=93Cisplatin X 3 +



Radiation



Cisplatin/5-FU X 3



78% (3 y OS)P < 0.001
n=92Radiation alone47% (3 y OS)
Al-Sarraf, 2001[19] III-IVn=93Cisplatin X 3 +



Radiation



Cisplatin/5-FU X 3



67% (3 y OS)P < 0.001
n=92Radiation alone37% (3 y OS)
Wee, 2004[25, 26] III-IVn=111Cisplatin X 3 +



Radiation



Cisplatin/5-FU X 3



85% (2 y OS)P = 0.017
n=109Radiation alone77% (2 y OS)
Lee, 2004[27] T1-4



N2-3



n=172Cisplatin X 3 +



Radiation



Cisplatin/5-FU X 3



76% (3 y OS)P = 0.97
n=176Radiation alone77% (3 y OS)
Chen, 2008[28] III-IVn=1581) Cisplatin weekly + radiation



2) Cisplatin/5-FU X 3



89.8% (2 y OS)P = 0.003
n=158Radiation alone
79.7% (2 y OS)

Table 5. Intergroup Study 0099. Subgroup Analysis of 5-Year Overall Survival Based on WHO Types[17] (Open Table in a new window)

TreatmentWHO I, II, III



(n=147) OS, %



WHO II and III



(n=111, 75) OS, %



WHO I



(n=36, 25%) OS, %



Radiation374514
Chemoradiation677059

Neck

Radiation therapy more readily controls neck disease that arises from NPC than comparable neck disease from other head and neck carcinomas. Regional control remains a possibility even with extensive nodal disease. Delivery of radiation at a minimum of 65-75 Gy to the clinically positive neck node is recommended. Given the high propensity of NPC to metastasize to the neck, most authors recommend elective treatment of the N0 neck. Furthermore, treatment of both sides of the neck is recommended. The retropharyngeal and parapharyngeal lymph nodes are included in the treatment volume of the primary tumor.

Persistent or recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (locoregional failures)

Despite recent advances in the management of NPC, locoregional failure is still significant, with reported rates of 15.6-58% (median, 34%).[33, 34, 35, 36]

Nasopharynx - Local failure

The frequency of local failure is reported to range from 18-58%.[37, 38] Management of locally recurrent diseases can be accomplished with either re-irradiation or salvage nasopharyngectomy. Re-irradiation is associated with a high frequency of complications, including temporal lobe necrosis, brainstem damage, cranial neuropathy, endocrine dysfunction, visual and hearing impairments, osteonecrosis, soft tissue necrosis, and trismus. These complications can be reduced with the use of brachytherapy or stereotactic radiotherapy. Although the potential for these complications is high, only 10-30% of patients achieve local control after the second course of irradiation.[39, 40] A survival rate of 34-48% at 3 years has been reported, although only about 15-23% of patients achieve disease-free survival.[39, 40]

Neck - Regional failure

The frequency of persistent or recurrent neck disease is reported to range from 8-34%.[41] Patients whose treatment failed regionally can be treated with either re-irradiation or salvage neck dissection. The control rate after re-irradiation is reported to be between 28% and 33%.[40] In contrast, Wei et al reported a regional control rate of 66% after radical neck dissection.[42] Despite a relatively good chance of regional control, these patients who presented with recurrent or persistent neck disease usually have a high risk of distant metastases.

Distant metastases

A high prevalence of distant metastases has been observed for patients with NPC, with a substantial number eventually experiencing distant failure despite lasting locoregional control. The distant failure rate was reported to range from 18-35%. At the time of initial presentation, 5-10% of patients may already have distant metastases. The occurrence of distant disease does not appear to be associated with the size of the primary tumor. However, a strong association exists between nodal disease and the development of distant disease, with 38% of patients with N+ neck disease exhibiting distant metastases versus 11% of patients with N0 neck disease. Some series have reported a rate of up to 80% of distant metastasis in patients with N3 neck disease.

The lung is the most common site of metastasis, followed by bone and the liver. Currently, available treatment modalities are ineffective in curing distant metastases. Palliative treatment is directed toward pain relief, symptom control, and prolongation of life. Radiation can be extremely effective in palliating pain from bone metastasis. Although the use of palliative chemotherapy in a patient who experiences symptoms is reasonable, the use of palliative chemotherapy in a patient without any symptoms is not as clear. The desire for prolongation of life must be balanced against the patient's quality of life, which should be the first priority.

Next

Surgical Therapy

Previously untreated nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Because of the tumor's high degree of sensitivity to radiation and the anatomical constraints for surgical access to the highly complex nasopharyngeal region, nasopharyngectomy is reserved only for treatment of recurrent NPC with limited disease.

Persistent or recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (locoregional failures)

Nasopharynx - Local failure

Although nasopharyngectomy can achieve slightly better local control and a lower rate of complication as compared with re-irradiation, this surgery is only applicable in patients with limited disease such as rT1, rT2, rT3. A recurrent or residual disease that involves the middle cranial fossa may be amenable to resection through the craniofacial approach. Most surgeons consider the involvement of the cavernous sinus, the cranial nerves, and the carotid artery as a contraindication for surgical intervention, even though tumors in these areas are technically resectable. Surgery is contraindicated because of the high morbidity associated with resection of the internal carotid artery and the cranial nerves in the setting of a very low probability of cure. The local control rate in properly selected patients is reported to be 30-67% at 5 years.

Various surgical approaches to the nasopharyngeal region have been described. Each approach has its own merit, and no single approach has clearly been shown to be superior to the other approaches. Because of the nature of the disease process, which involves an extremely complex anatomical region, the surgeon needs to be familiar with all of these surgical approaches. The operation performed must be tailored to the areas involved by the tumor and may involve a combination of approaches, thus allowing maximal exposure while minimizing associated morbidity.

Neck - Regional failure

Radical neck dissection can be used to treat recurrent or residual disease in the neck after radiation treatment with a good probability of regional control. Wei et al reported a regional control rate of 66% after radical neck dissection.[42] On serial sectioning of the entire radical neck dissection specimen, 27.5% of the specimen was found to have tumors lying in close proximity to, or even infiltrating, the spinal accessory nerve. Based on this finding, Wei et al recommended radical neck dissection as the salvage procedure of choice.[42] If the retropharyngeal or parapharyngeal space is involved, neck dissection is extended to include this region.

Previous
Next

Preoperative Details

A detailed assessment of the extent of tumor involvement is extremely important. Most surgeons consider the involvement of the cavernous sinus as a contraindication for surgery. A clear appreciation of the tumor in relation to the internal carotid artery is essential. Metastatic workup must be performed to exclude distant metastases.

Previous
Next

Intraoperative Details

Fee describes a transpalatal, transmaxillary, and transcervical approach.[11] This approach to the nasopharynx provides excellent exposure to both sides of the nasopharynx with minimal morbidity to the patient. Isolation and protection of the internal carotid artery through the transcervical approach allow resection of the lateral nasopharyngeal wall with minimal risk to the internal carotid artery and the cranial nerves. Disease that extends to the pterygomaxillary space can be exposed via a transmaxillary approach through the posterior wall of the maxillary sinus. Then, the clivus and vertebral body bone are drilled with a large cutting burr. Fee reported on his experience with 33 patients who had recurrent NPC and were monitored for 2-17 years after nasopharyngectomy. A 5-year local control rate of 67% with a 5-year disease-free survival rate of 52% and an OS rate of 60% were achieved.

Fisch describes the infratemporal fossa approach, and Gross and Panje describe the lateral temporal approach.[43, 44] Both approaches provide excellent exposure of tumors that extend into the infratemporal fossa and the parapharyngeal space. A major disadvantage of these approaches is that entry into the nasopharynx is performed on the side of the lesion, making complete excision difficult if the tumor extends to the contralateral nasopharynx. Furthermore, the morbidity following this approach is significant and may include sensorineural hearing loss, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, unilateral laryngeal paralysis, and facial nerve deficit.

Wei et al suggested a new idea for exposure of the nasopharynx through the maxillary swing (facial translocation).[45] This approach involves a Weber-Fergusson incision. After achieving the necessary bone cuts, the entire osteocutaneous complex is swung laterally to provide exposure of disease in the ipsilateral pterygomaxillary and paranasopharyngeal space. However, the control of the internal carotid artery is less than optimal. Wei reported a local control rate of 42% at 3.5 years.[45]

Biller and Krespi describe the transcervico-mandibulo-palatal approach. This approach provides a wide-field exposure of the nasopharynx and excellent protection of the internal carotid artery. Morton et al reported a 67% local control rate at 2 years with this approach.[46] King et al reported on a series of 31 patients who were treated with a variety of surgical approaches followed by postoperative radiation.[47] They reported a 5-year survival rate of 47% with a 5-year disease-free survival rate of 42%.

With the increasing interest in minimally invasive surgery in the field of head and neck, endoscopic approach for resection of recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma has been described. Chen et al. reported on a series of 6 patients with recurrent T1 or T2a disease who underwent endoscopic nasopharyngectomy with a local control rate of 83% at a mean follow-up duration of 29 months.[12]

Previous
Next

Postoperative Details

The nasopharyngeal defect is covered with a split-thickness skin graft. The graft is held in place with packing. A 14F Foley catheter is then placed through the nose, and the balloon is inflated to keep the packing in place. Bilateral or unilateral myringotomy and tube placement are performed at the end of the surgery. The Foley catheter is usually removed on the third postoperative day, and the nasopharyngeal packing is removed on the 10th postoperative day. The patient is instructed to irrigate the nasopharynx with normal saline until healing is complete.

Previous
Next

Follow-up

Unlike other head and neck cancers, NPC is known for its continued risk of late recurrences, and long-term follow-up care is required. Although most recurrences occur within 5 years, 5-15% of recurrences may manifest between the 5th and 10th year. Therefore, patients with NPC should be monitored for at least 10 years after treatment. Some authors have suggested that a 10-year, rather than the 5-year, survival rate is needed to assess the effectiveness of a particular treatment of NPC.

Previous
Next

Complications

Radiation

Recent advances in imaging capabilities (which more accurately define tumor volumes) and improved radiotherapy have helped in improving the locoregional control rate while, at the same time, reducing the complications associated with radiation therapy. However, in an attempt to improve locoregional control and survival rates, a higher radiation dose, a more radical fractionation schedule, and the addition of chemotherapy have, in some cases, increased the frequency and severity of complications.

Complications associated with radiation therapy to the nasopharynx and the neck can be classified according to the following organ systems:

  • Brain - Pituitary dysfunction, brainstem encephalopathy, temporal lobe necrosis, cranial nerve palsy
  • Ear - Sensorineural hearing loss, otitis media with effusion, eustachian tube dysfunction
  • Eye - Dry eye syndrome, ischemic retinopathy
  • Thyroid - Hypothyroidism
  • Gastrointestinal system - Severe mucositis, xerostomia, nausea, vomiting, dysphagia, dehydration, esophageal stricture
  • Musculoskeletal system - Excessive fibrosis, trismus, radiation myelitis, osteoradionecrosis, soft tissue necrosis, osteomyelitis
  • Vascular system - Stenosis of common carotid artery or internal carotid artery (Cheng et al reported a 16% incidence of critical stenosis of either the common carotid artery or the internal carotid artery.[48] )

Surgery

Surgical complications can be divided into those associated with nasopharyngectomy and those associated with neck dissection. Because surgery is usually performed after a course of radical radiotherapy, complications from poor wound healing are commonly observed. These complications include palatal fistula, nasopharyngeal wound infection, osteonecrosis, osteomyelitis of cervical vertebrae or skull base, nonunion or malunion of osteotomy sites, and wound edge or flap necrosis. Other complications include damage to the internal carotid artery or the cranial nerves, dural violation at the skull base, and death.

Previous
Next

Outcome and Prognosis

The prognostic factors for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) include the extent of the primary tumor (ie, skull base invasion, cranial nerve involvement, parapharyngeal infiltration), the level of the disease in the neck, the histologic subtype, the age and the sex of the patient, and the type and technique of radiotherapy. Survival rates are generally better in females than in males.

Some of the largest studies have reported a 5-year disease-free survival rate of 40-60% with primary radiation treatment. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate is 85-95% for stage I NPC and 70-80% for stage II NPC treated with radiation alone. For stages III and IV NPC treated with radiation alone, the 5-year OS rate ranges from 24-80%, with better results generally occurring in patients from Southeast Asia. The Intergroup Study 0099 demonstrated that North American patients with advanced NPC benefited from concurrent chemotherapy with an improved 5-year OS rate of 67% compared with the 5-year OS rate of 37% for patients treated with radiation alone.

WHO type 3 NPC or undifferentiated carcinoma has the most favorable prognosis because of its high degree of radiosensitivity. The 5-year OS rate is 60-80%. In contrast, WHO type 1 NPC has the worst prognosis, with a 5-year OS rate of 20-40% because of its low radiosensitivity.

Unlike other head and neck carcinomas, some NPCs have a long, protracted course. Some patients can live with their recurrent disease for many years before succumbing to the disease.

Previous
Next

Future and Controversies

Several areas continue to be debated regarding the management of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

The role of chemotherapy in advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Unfortunately, the literature is conflicting regarding the role of chemotherapy in the management of advanced NPC. This discrepancy in the literature may result from differences in the proportion of NPC WHO types, the types of chemotherapeutic agents, and delivery schedules in these various clinical trials. The significant improvement in survival with the addition of chemotherapy reported from the Intergroup Study may be because of the large proportion of patients with type 1 NPC in this study and the concurrent use of chemotherapy. Other large clinical trials, most notably from Asia, include a large proportion of patients with type 2 or 3 NPC who received chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant fashion. These trials failed to demonstrate improvement in overall survival (OS) with the addition of chemotherapy.

Several clinical trials from Asia that incorporated the use of concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locoregionally advanced NPC did show statistically significant improvement in OS. However, results are still conflicting. Using the same regimen as the one used in Intergroup Study 0099, Lee et al reported no statistically significant difference in 3-year OS in patients treated with chemoradiotherapy (76%) versus patients treated with radiation alone (77%). Nonetheless, the locoregional control rate in the chemoradiation group (93%) is statistically significantly better than the radiation alone group (82%).

Most recently, a report from the Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma (MAC-NPC) reviewed individual patient data from 8 well-designed, randomized trials comparing chemotherapy plus radiotherapy with radiotherapy alone in locally advanced NPC. A total of 1753 patients were included in this review. The authors found that the addition of chemotherapy improved 5-year OS from 56% to 62% (absolute survival benefit, 6%) and improved EFS from 42% to 52% (absolute benefit, 10%). The authors concluded that the addition of chemotherapy to standard radiotherapy provides a small but significant survival benefit in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. This benefit is essentially observed when chemotherapy is administered concomitantly with radiotherapy. The role of induction chemotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy is more questionable.

Treatment recommendations for type and schedule of chemotherapeutic agents

Even if the decision is made to add chemotherapy to the treatment, the type and the schedule of chemotherapeutic agents must be determined. The goal is to determine the optimal timing and regimen, thereby maximizing the effectiveness of the treatment while minimizing the adverse effects. Numerous clinical trials to address this issue are ongoing.

Conventional versus altered fractionation, stereotactic radiation boost, and brachytherapy

The goal of these therapies is to find the optimal radiation regimen, thereby maximizing the effectiveness of this treatment while minimizing the adverse effects. The general recommendation for treatment of a primary tumor is a radiation dosage of at least 66 Gy. Stereotactic radiotherapy and brachytherapy may be used to boost dosage as well as to minimize surrounding tissue damage. Various clinical trials that involve different radiation regimens have been reported, and many more clinical trials are ongoing.

Salvage nasopharyngectomy or re-irradiation for local recurrence

The choice of therapy for local recurrence is another area of ongoing controversy. Fee concluded that the results of surgical resection are probably only slightly better than retreatment with radiotherapy. However, Fee believes that surgery is associated with fewer long-term complications when compared with re-irradiation. With the continued improvement in radiation delivery techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and stereotactic boost, complications associated with re-irradiation may decrease.

The best approach for performing nasopharyngectomy

None of the surgical approaches for resection of recurrent NPC is ideal. Because of the nature of the disease process, which involves an extremely complex anatomical region, the surgeon needs to be familiar with all of the surgical approaches. The operation must be tailored to the areas involved by the tumor and may involve a combination of approaches, thus allowing maximal exposure while minimizing associated morbidity.

Previous
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Ho-Sheng Lin, MD, FACS  Associate Professor, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty, Sleep Fellowship Program, Divison of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Wayne State University School of Medicine; Chief, Section of Otolaryngology, Department of Surgery, John D Dingell Veterans Affairs Medical Center

Ho-Sheng Lin, MD, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, American Academy of Sleep Medicine, American Association of University Professors, American College of Surgeons, American Head and Neck Society, Association of VA Surgeons, Chinese American Medical Society, Southwest Oncology Group, and Triological Society

Disclosure: Inspire Medical Grant/research funds conducting clinical trial; VA Merit Award Grant/research funds research; NIH Grant/research funds research; Cardiorobotics Consulting fee Consulting; Intuitive Surgical Consulting fee Speaking and teaching; LifeCell Honoraria Speaking and teaching

Coauthor(s)

Willard E Fee Jr, MD  Edward C and Amy H Sewall Professor Emeritus, Chairman Emeritus, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine

Willard E Fee Jr, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, American Laryngological Association, American Laryngological Rhinological and Otological Society, American Medical Association, and California Medical Association

Disclosure: Accuray, Inc Ownership interest Consulting; Health Development Corp. Ownership interest Consulting; NIH Grant/research funds Other

Specialty Editor Board

Benoit J Gosselin, MD, FRCSC  Associate Professor of Surgery, Dartmouth Medical School; Director, Comprehensive Head and Neck Oncology Program, Norris Cotton Cancer Center; Staff Otolaryngologist, Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center

Benoit J Gosselin, MD, FRCSC is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, American Head and Neck Society, American Medical Association, American Rhinologic Society, Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, New Hampshire Medical Society, North American Skull Base Society, and Ontario Medical Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD  Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Senior Pharmacy Editor, eMedicine

Disclosure: eMedicine Salary Employment

Nader Sadeghi, MD, FRCS(C)  Professor of Surgery, Director of Head and Neck Surgery, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences

Nader Sadeghi, MD, FRCS(C) is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, American Head and Neck Society, Federation of Medical Specialists in Quebec, and Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Christopher L Slack, MD  Otolaryngology-Facial Plastic Surgery, Private Practice, Associated Coastal ENT; Medical Director, Treasure Coast Sleep Disorders

Christopher L Slack, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, and American Medical Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Arlen D Meyers, MD, MBA  Professor, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine

Arlen D Meyers, MD, MBA is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, and American Head and Neck Society

Disclosure: Covidien Corp Consulting fee Consulting; US Tobacco Corporation Unrestricted gift Unknown; Axis Three Corporation Ownership interest Consulting; Omni Biosciences Ownership interest Consulting; Sentegra Ownership interest Board membership; Syndicom Ownership interest Consulting; Oxlo Consulting; Medvoy Ownership interest Management position; Cerescan Imaging Honoraria Consulting; GYRUS ACMI Honoraria Consulting

References
  1. Fee WE Jr, Gilmer PA, Goffinet DR. Surgical management of recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma after radiation failure at the primary site. Laryngoscope. Nov 1988;98(11):1220-6. [Medline].

  2. Tu GY, Hu YH, Xu GZ, Ye M. Salvage surgery for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. Mar 1988;114(3):328-9. [Medline].

  3. Teo PM, Tsao SY, Ho JH, Yu P. A proposed modification of the Ho stage-classification for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Radiother Oncol. May 1991;21(1):11-23. [Medline].

  4. Low WK, Leong JL, Goh YH, Fong KW. Diagnostic value of Epstein-Barr viral serology in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. Oct 2000;123(4):505-7. [Medline].

  5. Ng SH, Chan SC, Yen TC, et al. Pretreatment evaluation of distant-site status in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: accuracy of whole-body MRI at 3-Tesla and FDG-PET-CT. Eur Radiol. Jul 9 2009;[Medline].

  6. Chua ML, Ong SC, Wee JT, et al. Comparison of 4 modalities for distant metastasis staging in endemic nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Head Neck. Mar 2009;31(3):346-54. [Medline].

  7. Liu T, Xu W, Yan WL, Ye M, Bai YR, Huang G. FDG-PET, CT, MRI for diagnosis of local residual or recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma, which one is the best? A systematic review. Radiother Oncol. Dec 2007;85(3):327-35. [Medline].

  8. Waxman AD. Use of thallium 201 in tumor evaluation. West J Med. Jul 1992;157(1):60. [Medline].

  9. Yen RF, Ting LL, Cheng MF, Wu YW, Tzen KY, Hong RL. Usefulness of 201TL SPECT/CT relative to 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting recurrent skull base nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Head Neck. Jun 2009;31(6):717-24. [Medline].

  10. Shanmugaratnam K, Chan SH, de-The G, et al. Histopathology of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: correlations with epidemiology, survival rates and other biological characteristics. Cancer. Sep 1979;44(3):1029-44. [Medline].

  11. Fee WE Jr. Nasopharynx. In: Close LG, Larson DL, Shah JP. Essentials of Head and Neck Oncology. New York, NY: Thieme; 1998:205-210.

  12. Chen CL, Wen WN, Chen JY, Hsu MM, Hsu HC. Detection of Epstein-Barr virus genome in nasopharyngeal carcinoma by in situ DNA hybridization. Intervirology. 1993;36(2):91-8. [Medline].

  13. Hao SP, Tsang NM, Chang KP. Differentiation of recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma and skull base osteoradionecrosis by Epstein-Barr virus-derived latent membrane protein-1 gene. Laryngoscope. Apr 2001;111(4 Pt 1):650-2. [Medline].

  14. Kwong DL, Nicholls J, Wei WI, et al. The time course of histologic remission after treatment of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer. Apr 1 1999;85(7):1446-53. [Medline].

  15. Tsai ST, Jin YT, Mann RB, Ambinder RF. Epstein-Barr virus detection in nasopharyngeal tissues of patients with suspected nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer. Apr 15 1998;82(8):1449-53. [Medline].

  16. Dictor M, Siven M, Tennvall J, Rambech E. Determination of nonendemic nasopharyngeal carcinoma by in situ hybridization for Epstein-Barr virus EBER1 RNA: sensitivity and specificity in cervical node metastases. Laryngoscope. Apr 1995;105(4 Pt 1):407-12. [Medline].

  17. Al-Sarraf M, LeBlanc M, Giri PG, Fu KK, Cooper J, Vuong T. Chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy in patients with advanced nasopharyngeal cancer: phase III randomized Intergroup study 0099. J Clin Oncol. Apr 1998;16(4):1310-7. [Medline].

  18. Lu H, Peng L, Yuan X, et al. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a treatment paradigm also applicable to patients in Southeast Asia. Cancer Treat Rev. Jun 2009;35(4):345-53. [Medline].

  19. Al-Sarraf M. Treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer: historical and critical review. Cancer Control. Sep-Oct 2002;9(5):387-99. [Medline].

  20. Chi KH, Chang YC, Guo WY, et al. A phase III study of adjuvant chemotherapy in advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. Apr 1 2002;52(5):1238-44. [Medline].

  21. 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. Dec 1 1998;83(11):2270-83. [Medline].

  22. Ma BB, Chan AT. Recent perspectives in the role of chemotherapy in the management of advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer. Jan 1 2005;103(1):22-31. [Medline].

  23. Chan AT, Leung SF, Ngan RK, et al. Overall survival after concurrent cisplatin-radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. Apr 6 2005;97(7):536-9. [Medline].

  24. Lin JC, Jan JS, Hsu CY, Liang WM, Jiang RS, Wang WY. Phase III study of concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: positive effect on overall and progression-free survival. J Clin Oncol. Feb 15 2003;21(4):631-7. [Medline].

  25. Wee J, Tan EH, Tai BC, et al. Randomized trial of radiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union against cancer stage III and IV nasopharyngeal cancer of the endemic variety. J Clin Oncol. Sep 20 2005;23(27):6730-8. [Medline].

  26. Wee J, Tan EH, Tai BC. Final report of SQNP01-a phase III randomized trial comparing RT with chemoRT for locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer. JInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;66:S16.

  27. Lee AW, Tung S, Chua D. Prospective randomized study on therapeutic gain achieved by addition of chemotherapy for T1-4N2-3M0 nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) [abstract 5506]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2004;23.

  28. Chen Y, Liu MZ, Liang SB, et al. Preliminary results of a prospective randomized trial comparing concurrent chemoradiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy with radiotherapy alone in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma in endemic regions of china. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. Aug 1 2008;71(5):1356-64. [Medline].

  29. Baujat B. Chemotherapy as an adjunct to radiotherapy in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [serial online]. Oct 18, 2006;4:[Medline]. Available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD004329/frame.html.

  30. 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. International Nasopharynx Cancer Study Group. VUMCA I trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. Jun 1 1996;35(3):463-9. [Medline].

  31. 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. Apr 15 2002;94(8):2217-23. [Medline].

  32. Rossi A, Molinari R, Boracchi P, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with vincristine, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin after radiotherapy in local-regional nasopharyngeal cancer: results of a 4-year multicenter randomized study. J Clin Oncol. Sep 1988;6(9):1401-10. [Medline].

  33. Hsu MM, Tu SM. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma in Taiwan. Clinical manifestations and results of therapy. Cancer. Jul 15 1983;52(2):362-8. [Medline].

  34. Chua DT, Sham JS, Choy D, et al. Patterns of failure after induction chemotherapy and radiotherapy for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: the Queen Mary Hospital experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. Apr 1 2001;49(5):1219-28. [Medline].

  35. Kwong DL, Sham JS, Au GK, et al. Concurrent and adjuvant chemotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a factorial study. J Clin Oncol. Jul 1 2004;22(13):2643-53. [Medline].

  36. Leung TW, Tung SY, Sze WK, et al. Treatment results of 1070 patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an analysis of survival and failure patterns. Head Neck. Jul 2005;27(7):555-65. [Medline].

  37. Lee AW, Poon YF, Foo W, et al. Retrospective analysis of 5037 patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated during 1976-1985: overall survival and patterns of failure. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992;23(2):261-70. [Medline].

  38. Sham JS, Choy D. Prognostic factors of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a review of 759 patients. Br J Radiol. Jan 1990;63(745):51-8. [Medline].

  39. Fu KK, Newman H, Phillips TL. Treatment of locally recurrent carcinoma of the nasopharynx. Radiology. Nov 1975;117(2):425-31. [Medline].

  40. Yan JH, Hu YH, Gu XZ. Radiation therapy of recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Report on 219 patients. Acta Radiol Oncol. 1983;22(1):23-8. [Medline].

  41. Zhang EP, Lian PG, Cai KL, et al. Radiation therapy of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: prognostic factors based on a 10-year follow-up of 1302 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. Feb 1989;16(2):301-5. [Medline].

  42. Wei WI, Ho CM, Wong MP, Ng WF, Lau SK, Lam KH. Pathological basis of surgery in the management of postradiotherapy cervical metastasis in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. Sep 1992;118(9):923-9; discussion 930. [Medline].

  43. Fisch U. The infratemporal fossa approach for nasopharyngeal tumors. Laryngoscope. Jan 1983;93(1):36-44. [Medline].

  44. Panje WR, Gross CE. Treatment of tumor of the nasopharynx: surgical therapy. In: Thawley SE, Panje WR. Comprehensive Management of Head and Neck Tumors. 1. Philadelphia, Pa: WH Sauders Co; 1987:662-683.

  45. Wei WI, Ho CM, Yuen PW, Fung CF, Sham JS, Lam KH. Maxillary swing approach for resection of tumors in and around the nasopharynx. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. Jun 1995;121(6):638-42. [Medline].

  46. Morton RP, Liavaag PG, McLean M, Freeman JL. Transcervico-mandibulo-palatal approach for surgical salvage of recurrent nasopharyngeal cancer. Head Neck. Jul-Aug 1996;18(4):352-8. [Medline].

  47. King WW, Ku PK, Mok CO, Teo PM. Nasopharyngectomy in the treatment of recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a twelve-year experience. Head Neck. May 2000;22(3):215-22. [Medline].

  48. Cheng SW, Ting AC, Lam LK, Wei WI. Carotid stenosis after radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. Apr 2000;126(4):517-21. [Medline].

  49. Agulnik M, Siu LL. State-of-the-art management of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: current and future directions. Br J Cancer. Mar 14 2005;92(5):799-806. [Medline].

  50. Al-Sarraf M, LeBlanc M, Giri PG. Superiority of 5-year survival with chemoradiotherapy vs. radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer. Intergroup 0099 phase III study: final report abstract. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001;20:227a.

  51. Bailet JW, Mark RJ, Abemayor E, et al. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma: treatment results with primary radiation therapy. Laryngoscope. Sep 1992;102(9):965-72. [Medline].

  52. Brown JJ, Berry GJ, Moretto J, Keating WF, Fee WE Jr. Validity of clinic biopsy specimens in classifying histopathologic characteristics of recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. Sep 1997;123(9):950-5. [Medline].

  53. Brown JJ, Fee WE Jr. Management of the neck in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Otolaryngol Clin North Am. Oct 1998;31(5):785-802. [Medline].

  54. Chen MK, Lai JC, Chang CC, Liu MT. Minimally invasive endoscopic nasopharyngectomy in the treatment of recurrent T1-2a nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The Laryngoscope [serial online]. May 2007;117:894-896. [Medline]. Available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1097/MLG.0b013e3180381644/full.

  55. Chien G, Yuen PW, Kwong D, Kwong YL. Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of nasopharygeal carcinoma: consistent patterns of genetic aberrations and clinicopathological correlations. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. Apr 1 2001;126(1):63-7. [Medline].

  56. Chong VF, Rumpel H, Fan YF, Mukherji SK. Temporal lobe changes following radiation therapy: imaging and proton MR spectroscopic findings. Eur Radiol. 2001;11(2):317-24. [Medline].

  57. Fee WE Jr, Roberson JB Jr, Goffinet DR. Long-term survival after surgical resection for recurrent nasopharyngeal cancer after radiotherapy failure. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. Nov 1991;117(11):1233-6. [Medline].

  58. Ho JH. Stage classification of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a review. IARC Sci Publ. 1978;99-113. [Medline].

  59. International Nasopharynx Cancer Study Group. 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. International Nasopharynx Cancer Study Group. VUMCA I trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. Jun 1 1996;35(3):463-9. [Medline].

  60. Lee JT, Ko CY. Has survival improved for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the United States?. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. Feb 2005;132(2):303-8. [Medline].

  61. 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. Mar 1 2001;19(5):1350-7. [Medline].

  62. Neel HB 3rd, Pearson GR, Weiland LH, et al. Application of Epstein-Barr virus serology to the diagnosis and staging of North American patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. Jun 1983;91(3):255-62. [Medline].

  63. Teo PM, Chan AT, Lee WY, Leung TW, Johnson PJ. Enhancement of local control in locally advanced node-positive nasopharyngeal carcinoma by adjunctive chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. Jan 15 1999;43(2):261-71. [Medline].

  64. Vokes EE, Liebowitz DN, Weichselbaum RR. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Lancet. Oct 11 1997;350(9084):1087-91. [Medline].

  65. Wee J, Tai BC, Wong HB. Phase III randomized trial of radiotherapy versus concurrent chemo-radiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with AJCC/UICC (1997) stage 3 and 4 nasopharyngeal cancer of the endemic variety [abstract 5500]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2004;23:487.

  66. Wee J, Tai BC, Wong HB. Phase III randomized trial of radiotherapy versus concurrent chemo-radiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with AJCC/UICC (1997) stage 3 and 4 nasopharyngeal cancer of the endemic variety [abstract 5500]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2004;23:487.

Previous
Next
 
Axial T2-weighted image shows a left-sided cervical nodal metastasis resulting from nasopharyngeal cancer.
Table 1. Immunoglobulin A Antibodies to Early Antigen*
Serology StatusNPCControlTotal
Antibody positive89089
Antibody negative22111133
Total111111222
*Sensitivity – 89/111 (80.2%)



Specificity – 111/111 (100%)



Positive predictive value – 89/89 (100%)



Negative predictive value – 111/133 (83.5%)



Table 2. Immunoglobulin A Antibodies to Viral Capsid Antigen*
Serology StatusNPCControlTotal
Antibody positive10859167
Antibody negative35255
Total111111222
*Sensitivity - 108/111 (97.3%)



Specificity - 52/111 (46.8%)



Positive predictive value - 108/167



(64.7%)



Negative predictive value - 52/55 (94.5%)



Table 3. Predictive Value of Epstein-Barr Virus Serology Combinations
IgA Antibody to EAIgA Antibody to VCAProbability of NPC
++100%
+100%
5.5%
+37.8%
Table 4. Prospective Randomized Clinical Trials of Chemoradiation Versus Radiation Alone in the Treatment of Locally Advanced NPC
Author, YearStageNumber



of



Patients



Treatment ArmsSurvival RateP Value
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Radiation
VUMCA, 1996[30] IVn=171Bleomycin/epirubicin/cisplatin X 3



Radiation



60% (3 yr OS)P > .05
n=168Radiation alone54% (3 y OS)
Hareyama, 2002[31] I-IVn=40Cisplatin/5-FU X 2



Radiation



60% (5 y OS)P > .05
n=40Radiation alone45% (5 y OS)
Chua, 1998[21] T3



N2-3



n=167Cisplatin/epirubicin X 2-3



Radiation



78% (3 y OS)P = .57
n=167Radiation alone71% (3 y OS)
Ma, 2001[22] III-IVn=224Cisplatin/bleomycin/5-FU X 2-3



Radiation



63% (5 y OS)P = .11
n=225Radiation alone56% (5 y OS)
Concurrent Chemotherapy and Radiation
Lin, 2003[24] III-IVn=141Cisplatin/5-FU X 2 +



Radiation



72.3% (5 y OS)P = .002
n=143Radiation alone54.2% (5 y OS)
Chan, 2005[23] II-IVn=174Cisplatin weekly and



Radiation



70.3% (5 y OS)P = .048
n=176Radiation alone58.6% (5 y OS)
Radiation Followed by Adjuvant Chemotherapy
Rossi, 1988[32] I-IVn=113Radiation



Vincristine/cyclophosphamide/Adriamycin X 6



59% (4 y OS)P > .05
n=116Radiation alone67% (4 y OS)
Chi, 2002[20] IVn=77Radiation



Cisplatin/5-FU/leucovorin X 9



61% (5 y OS)P = .5
n=77Radiation alone55% (5 y OS)
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Radiation Followed by Adjuvant Chemotherapy
Chan, 1995[23] n=34Cisplatin/5-FU X 2



Radiation



Cisplatin/5-FU X 4



80% (5 y OS)P = .1
n=40Radiation alone81% (5 y OS)
Concurrent Chemotherapy and Radiation Followed by Adjuvant Chemotherapy
Al-Sarraf, 1998[17] III-IVn=93Cisplatin X 3 +



Radiation



Cisplatin/5-FU X 3



78% (3 y OS)P < 0.001
n=92Radiation alone47% (3 y OS)
Al-Sarraf, 2001[19] III-IVn=93Cisplatin X 3 +



Radiation



Cisplatin/5-FU X 3



67% (3 y OS)P < 0.001
n=92Radiation alone37% (3 y OS)
Wee, 2004[25, 26] III-IVn=111Cisplatin X 3 +



Radiation



Cisplatin/5-FU X 3



85% (2 y OS)P = 0.017
n=109Radiation alone77% (2 y OS)
Lee, 2004[27] T1-4



N2-3



n=172Cisplatin X 3 +



Radiation



Cisplatin/5-FU X 3



76% (3 y OS)P = 0.97
n=176Radiation alone77% (3 y OS)
Chen, 2008[28] III-IVn=1581) Cisplatin weekly + radiation



2) Cisplatin/5-FU X 3



89.8% (2 y OS)P = 0.003
n=158Radiation alone
79.7% (2 y OS)
Table 5. Intergroup Study 0099. Subgroup Analysis of 5-Year Overall Survival Based on WHO Types[17]
TreatmentWHO I, II, III



(n=147) OS, %



WHO II and III



(n=111, 75) OS, %



WHO I



(n=36, 25%) OS, %



Radiation374514
Chemoradiation677059
Previous
Next
 
 
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2012 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

DISCLAIMER: The content of this Website is not influenced by sponsors. The site is designed primarily for use by qualified physicians and other medical professionals. The information contained herein should NOT be used as a substitute for the advice of an appropriately qualified and licensed physician or other health care provider. The information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only. In no way should it be considered as offering medical advice. Please check with a physician if you suspect you are ill.