Evidence on effectiveness of intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus 2-dimensional radiotherapy in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Meta-analysis and a systematic review of the literature

Jayson Co, Michael Benedict Mejia, Janine Margarita Dizon

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Current management of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) uses radiotherapy (RT) as the curative treatment modality. Radiation delivery techniques for NPC can be achieved using 2D conventional RT or intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of IMRT versus 2D conventional RT in primary treatment of NPC. 

Results: IMRT showed better results than 2D conventional RT in terms of local control, regional control, and overall survival, but when stratified, only in T4, N2, and stage III were the differences that were seen. Objective saliva measurements and physician-graded xerostomia were better in IMRT. However, patient-reported xerostomia showed minimal improvement only in IMRT. The evidence of superiority of IMRT over 2D conventional RT is not clear. 

Conclusion: In the absence of more clinical data demonstrating the superiority of IMRT in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma, 2D conventional RT seems to be a reasonable treatment option, especially in limited resource settings.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)E2130-E2142
Number of pages13
JournalHead and Neck
Volume38
Issue numberS1
Early online date24 Dec 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2016
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • 2D radiotherapy
  • intensity-modulated radiotherapy
  • nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC)
  • oncologic outcome
  • xerostomia

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Evidence on effectiveness of intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus 2-dimensional radiotherapy in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Meta-analysis and a systematic review of the literature'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this