Malignant Nasopharyngeal Tumors Workup

  • Author: Ho-Sheng Lin, MD, FACS; Chief Editor: Arlen D Meyers, MD, MBA   more...
 
Updated: Apr 2, 2012
 

Laboratory Studies

Many studies have shown that nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is closely associated with EBV.

Seroepidemiologic studies have demonstrated that 80-90% of patients with World Health Organization (WHO) type 2 NPC and WHO type 3 NPC have elevated levels of immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies to viral capsid antigen (VCA) and early antigen (EA). However, only 10-20% of patients with WHO type 1 NPC have elevated levels of IgA antibodies to VCA.

Elevated EBV titers may also be associated with other disease entities, such as sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma (SNUC), sinonasal lymphoma, and tongue cancer.

Low et al examined the EBV serology in 111 patients with NPC and in 111 healthy patients.[5] In the patients with NPC, 80.2% tested positive for IgA antibodies to EA, and 97.3% tested positive for IgA antibodies to VCA. In the control group, 100% tested negative for IgA antibodies to EA, but only 46.8% tested negative for IgA antibodies to VCA. In other words, the positive predictive value (PPV) of the EA serology is 100%, while the negative predictive value (NPV) is 83.5%. For VCA serology, the PPV is 64.7%, while the NPV is 94.5%. Therefore, a patient who tested positive for EA serology has a 100% chance of having NPC. A patient who has negative VCA serology only has a 5.5% chance of having NPC. A difficult clinical situation arises if a patient has a negative EA serology test but has a positive VCA serology. This serology combination predicts a 37.8% chance of having NPC. See Tables 1-3.

Table 1. Immunoglobulin A Antibodies to Early Antigen* (Open Table in a new window)

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* (Open Table in a new window)

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 (Open Table in a new window)

IgA Antibody to EAIgA Antibody to VCAProbability of NPC
++100%
+—100%
——5.5%
—+37.8%

Other serologic tests (which are not as well known) include IgA antibodies directed against EBV, EBV nuclear antigen (EBNA)–1 (found in about 90% of patients with NPC), and immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies to the EBV replication activator (ZEBRA).

Other laboratory tests to consider include a CBC count and a liver function test (LFT) to rule out distant metastases.

Next

Imaging Studies

Assessment of locoregional disease

MRI with gadolinium and fat suppression is the radiologic modality of choice.[6] Determine if any intracranial extension of the tumor involves the brain parenchyma or the cavernous sinus. Intracranial spread can occur through several foramina that are in close proximity to the nasopharynx. These foramina include the foramen ovale, the foramen spinosum, the foramen lacerum, the carotid canal, and the jugular foramen.

Detect any tumor extension into the retropharyngeal, parapharyngeal, and pterygomaxillary spaces, as well as the infratemporal fossa and the sinuses.

Workup for metastatic disease

In a study involving 150 patients with untreated nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), whole-body MRI and18 F-FDG positron emission tomography (PET)/CT showed similar diagnostic accuracy of 90.5% and 87.8% respectively in assessing distant site metastasis.[7]

In another study involving 78 patients, PET-CT scan was shown to be more sensitive and specific than CT scan in assessing for distant metastasis to lungs, liver, and bones.[8]

Detection of residual and/or recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma following definitive radiation with or without chemotherapy

Detection of residual and/or recurrent NPC following radiation treatment can be challenging because of radiation-induced scarring, fibrosis, and edema of the nasopharyngeal tissue. This treatment-related anatomic distortion may limit the role of anatomic-based imaging modalities such as MRI and CT. Function-based imaging modalities, such as18 F-FDG PET scan, are not affected by this anatomic distortion. In a systemic review of 21 articles, Liu et al found that18 F-FDG PET scan has an average sensitivity 95% in detection of local residual or recurrent disease, which is significantly higher compared with CT scan (76%) and MRI (78%).[9]

Function-based imaging modality, however, also has its limitations in cancer detection. The fact that both the cancer and the inflammatory tissues take up18 F-FDG limits the ability of the18 F-FDG PET-CT scan to distinguish viable tumor tissue from radionecrosis or osteomyelitis, resulting in high false-positive interpretation. Furthermore, because the hypermetabolic brain tissue provided a high background, recurrent/residual tumor located intracranially may be missed by18 F-FDG PET-CT scan, resulting in a high false-negative rate.

Another function-based imaging,201 TI single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/CT scan is based on thallium-201, which is a potassium analogue that competes with potassium for intracellular transport across the cell membrane via sodium-potassium-ATPase pump system in tumor cell membrane.[10] Because the necrotic tissue cell membrane lack the sodium-potassium-ATPase pump,201 TI does not accumulate in areas of osteoradionecrosis, and its uptake reflects the presence of viable tumor. This modality, however, is limited by spatial resolution and can miss tumors less than 1.5 cm in size.[11]

In a study comparing the use of201 TI SPECT/CT versus18 F-FDG PET-CT in detecting recurrent skull base nasopharyngeal carcinoma, Yen et al found the accuracy of these 2 modalities to be similar. The sensitivity and specificity for201 TI SPECT/CT were 66.7% and 100%, and those for18 F-FDG PET-CT were 86.7% and 75%.[11]

Previous
Next

Diagnostic Procedures

  • Transnasal biopsy of nasopharyngeal mass
    • Obtain multiple biopsy samples of the primary site to accurately determine the WHO histologic type of the tumor; an accurate determination is important because the classification has a significant prognostic implication. Although most NPCs are homogenous, Shanmugaratnam found that 26.4% of NPCs had features of more than 1 histologic type.[12] Fee encountered similar findings in 35% of recurrent NPC cases.[13] These heterologous tumors are classified according to the predominant histologic type.
    • Because of a mixture of large numbers of lymphocytes, detecting NPC by routine histopathology may be difficult. Diagnosing NPC from biopsy samples obtained from previous irradiated tissue can also be challenging. Because the association between NPC and EBV is well established, EBV-specific molecules can be used as markers for the detection of NPC in biopsy specimens. One of the EBV-specific molecules is the EBV-encoded small RNA (EBER). In a study from Taiwan, in situ hybridization assay for EBV-encoded RNA 1 (EBER1) was reported to have a sensitivity of 96.4% in detecting primary NPC.[14] When divided into subtypes, the sensitivity is 80% for WHO type 1, 97.3% for WHO type 2, and 97.3% for WHO type 3.
    • Another useful marker is the EBV gene that encodes the latent membrane protein 1 (LMP1). Although the gene that encodes LMP1 (LMP1) is not expressed consistently in all NPC (only about 65%), LMP1 is detected in every NPC cell. With the advent of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique, only a few NPC cells are needed for detection of LMP1. Therefore, swabbing of the nasopharynx and testing for LMP1 could theoretically be used as a screening tool for early detection of NPC in areas of high incidence. However, the inability of this test to detect submucosal tumors limits its usefulness. Hao et al reported using LMP1 as a potential marker to help differentiate recurrent NPC from osteoradionecrosis in sequestrectomy specimens.[15]
    • The normal nasopharynx is rich in lymphoid tissue, which makes this area a well-known target for EBV infection in conditions such as mononucleosis. A large amount of lymphocyte infiltration is also present in NPC. Therefore, obvious concern is raised because the EBV-specific molecules that are detected from the nasopharynx may come from previously EBV-infected cells and not from NPC cells. Chen et al address this issue and use immunohistochemistry to demonstrate that EBV-DNA is localized only within NPC cells and not in the lymphocytes surrounding the tumor cells or in the normal nasopharyngeal tissue.[14] Other investigators have also shown that latent EBV infection does not occur in normal nasopharyngeal epithelial cells.
    • Other malignancies, such as human T-cell leukemia virus type 1 (HTLV-1)–associated adult T-cell lymphoma, nasal lymphoma, tongue cancer, and some lethal midline granuloma, are also associated with EBV. Although these lesions are rare, they must be included in the differential diagnoses when a patient tests positive for EBV-specific molecules.
    • The histological diagnosis of persistent disease following radiotherapy may sometimes be misleading. Biopsies obtained immediately following radiation may reveal viable cancer cells, even those that eventually undergo cell death. Kwong et al studied 803 patients with NPC by obtaining serial postradiotherapy nasopharyngeal biopsies.[16] They found that cancer cells may take up to 10 weeks after the completion of radiation to undergo cell death. Thus, biopsies to exclude persistent disease should usually be obtained at least 10 weeks following completion of radiation treatment to avoid a false-positive diagnosis.
  • Fine-needle aspiration of a neck mass
    • Fine-needle aspiration of a neck mass may be useful for the detection of an occult nasopharyngeal primary tumor.
    • The PCR technique can be used to evaluate the aspirate for the presence of EBV-DNA, or in situ hybridization can be used to determine the presence of EBER (EBER1-ISH). The in situ assay was reported to have a sensitivity of 98.1% and a specificity of 100%, even in an area such as Taiwan, where a large proportion of the population is infected with EBV.[17] The PCR technique has a lower sensitivity of 90.7% and was positive in 7 out of 61 patients without NPC (specificity of 88.5%). Several publications from Western countries demonstrate the use of this test in nonendemic areas. Dictor et al reported a sensitivity of 88.9% and a specificity of 100% using EBER1-ISH on biopsy samples from cervical metastasis.[18] The 2 cases of false-negative results were cervical metastasis from keratinizing NPC.
Previous
Next

Histologic Findings

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) can be grouped into the following 3 categories according to the WHO classification system:

  • WHO type 1 – Keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (10% frequency)
  • WHO type 2 - Nonkeratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (20% frequency)
  • WHO type 3 – Undifferentiated carcinoma or lymphoepithelioma (70% frequency)
Previous
Next

Staging

The American Joint Committee on Cancer-Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (AJCC-UICC) 2002 Classification is as follows:

  • Primary tumor
    • TX - Primary tumor cannot be assessed.
    • T0 - No evidence of primary tumor
    • Tis - Carcinoma in situ
    • T1 - Tumor confined to the nasopharynx
    • T2 - Tumor extends to the soft tissues of the oropharynx and/or the nasal fossa.
      • T2a - Without parapharyngeal extension
      • T2b - With parapharyngeal extension
    • T3 - Tumor invades the bony structures and/or the paranasal sinuses.
    • T4 - Tumor with intracranial extension and/or involvement of cranial nerves, infratemporal fossa, hypopharynx, orbit, or masticator space
  • Regional lymph nodes
    • NX - Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed.
    • N0 - No regional lymph node metastasis
    • N1 - Unilateral metastasis in lymph node(s), 6 cm or less in greatest dimension, above the supraclavicular fossa
    • N2 - Bilateral metastasis in lymph node(s), 6 cm or less in greatest dimension, above the supraclavicular fossa
    • N3 - Metastasis in lymph node(s)
      • N3a - Greater than 6 cm in dimension
      • N3b - Extension to the supraclavicular fossa
  • Distant metastasis
    • MX - Distant metastasis cannot be assessed.
    • M0 - No distant metastasis
    • M1 - Distant metastasis
  • Stage
    • Stage I - T1, N0, M0
    • Stage IIA - T2a, N0, M0
    • Stage IIB - T1/T2a, N1, M0; T2b, N0/N1, M0
    • Stage III - T1/T2a/T2b, N2, M0; T3, N0/N1/N2, M0
    • Stage IVA - T4, N0/N1/N2, M0
    • Stage IVB - Any T, N3, M0
    • Stage IVC - Any T, any N, M1
Previous
Proceed to Treatment & Management
 
 
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; MedRobotic Consulting fee Consulting; Intuitive Surgical Consulting fee Speaking and teaching; LifeCell Consulting fee 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; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Medscape Salary Employment

Nader Sadeghi, MD, FRCSC  Professor, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Director of Head and Neck Surgery, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences

Nader Sadeghi, MD, FRCSC is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, American Head and Neck Society, American Thyroid Association, and Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Christopher L Slack, MD  Private Practice in Otolaryngology and Facial Plastic Surgery, 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 of Otolaryngology, Dentistry, and Engineering, 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; Medvoy Ownership interest Management position; Cerescan Imaging Consulting; Headwatersmb Consulting fee Consulting; Venturequest Royalty 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. Perri F, Bosso D, Buonerba C, Lorenzo GD, Scarpati GD. Locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Current and emerging treatment strategies. World J Clin Oncol. Dec 10 2011;2(12):377-83. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  4. 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].

  5. 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].

  6. Yu E, O'Sullivan B, Kim J, Siu L, Bartlett E. Magnetic resonance imaging of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. Mar 2010;10(3):365-75. [Medline].

  7. 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].

  8. 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].

  9. 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].

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

  11. 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].

  12. 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].

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

  14. 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].

  15. 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].

  16. 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].

  17. 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].

  18. 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].

  19. 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].

  20. 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].

  21. 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].

  22. 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].

  23. 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].

  24. 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].

  25. 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].

  26. 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].

  27. 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].

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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].

  31. 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.

  32. 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].

  33. 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].

  34. 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].

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

  36. 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].

  37. 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].

  38. 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].

  39. 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].

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

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

  42. 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].

  43. 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].

  44. 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].

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

  46. 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.

  47. 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].

  48. 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].

  49. 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].

  50. 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].

  51. 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].

  52. 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.

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

  54. 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].

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

  56. 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.

  57. 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].

  58. 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].

  59. 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].

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

  61. 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].

  62. 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].

  63. 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].

  64. 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].

  65. 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].

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

  67. 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.

  68. 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[32] IVn=171Bleomycin/epirubicin/cisplatin X 3



Radiation



60% (3 yr OS)P > .05
n=168Radiation alone54% (3 y OS)
Hareyama, 2002[33] I-IVn=40Cisplatin/5-FU X 2



Radiation



60% (5 y OS)P > .05
n=40Radiation alone45% (5 y OS)
Chua, 1998[23] T3



N2-3



n=167Cisplatin/epirubicin X 2-3



Radiation



78% (3 y OS)P = .57
n=167Radiation alone71% (3 y OS)
Ma, 2001[24] 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[26] III-IVn=141Cisplatin/5-FU X 2 +



Radiation



72.3% (5 y OS)P = .002
n=143Radiation alone54.2% (5 y OS)
Chan, 2005[25] 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[34] I-IVn=113Radiation



Vincristine/cyclophosphamide/Adriamycin X 6



59% (4 y OS)P > .05
n=116Radiation alone67% (4 y OS)
Chi, 2002[22] 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[25] 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[19] 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[21] 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[27, 28] 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[29] 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[30] 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[19]
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.