Skip to main content
Download PDF

Short-term OS as a surrogate endpoint for 5-year OS in nasopharyngeal carcinoma in non-endemic area

World Journal of Surgical Oncology volume 22, Article number: 180 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

To address this evidence gap and validate short-term OS at less than 5 years as a reliable surrogate endpoint for 5-year OS.

Methods

We analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, focusing on non-metastatic NPC patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2015. Patients were categorized into radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy groups.

Results

This retrospective study examined 2,047 non-metastatic NPC patients. Among them, 217 received radiotherapy, and 1,830 received chemoradiotherapy. Our analysis results indicated that the 4-year OS may serve as a reliable surrogate endpoint for patients with AJCC clinical stage I (80 vs. 78%, P = 0.250), regardless of the treatment received. Specifically, in the radiotherapy group, patients with stage I, T0-T1, and N0 NPC showed similar OS rates at 4 and 5 years (83 vs. 82%, P = 1.000; 78 vs. 76%, P = 0.250; 78 vs. 77%, P = 0.500, respectively). Similarly, patients with stage II-IV, T2-T4, and N1-3 NPC showed no significant difference in OS rates between 3 and 5 years (57 vs. 51%, P = 0.063; 52 vs. 46%, P = 0.250; 54 vs. 46%, P = 0.125, respectively) in the radiotherapy group. In the chemoradiotherapy group, only the 3-year OS rate did not significantly differ from that at 5 years in stage I patients (79vs. 72%, P = 0.063).

Conclusions

Our study suggests that short-term surrogate endpoints may be valuable for evaluating 5-year OS outcomes in NPC patients in non-endemic areas.

Introduction

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a malignancy affecting the nasopharyngeal epithelium [1]. It displays sensitivity to radiotherapy and chemotherapy [2]. For stage I NPC, radiotherapy alone is the recommended treatment [3]. However, NPC is often diagnosed at advanced stages, making concurrent chemoradiotherapy the standard of care for patients with locally advanced NPC. In the United States, NPC is relatively rare, with an incidence of less than 1 per 100,000 individuals [4]. Despite its rarity, the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 60% [5] is concerning, and recent trends indicate comparable incidence rates to those observed in endemic regions such as Southeast Asia [6]. Understanding the endemic nature and survival disparities remains essential for clinicians, given the tumor’s heterogeneity [7].

In oncology clinical trials, the ultimate goal is to improve long-term outcomes and increase cure rates. As a result, the five-year overall survival (OS) has long been the gold standard endpoint due to its simplicity and patient-friendliness. Nevertheless, its drawback lies in the requirement for prolonged follow-up. To address this, researchers have introduced surrogate endpoints, representing time points that closely and consistently correlate with the 5-year OS but are reached more rapidly. These surrogate endpoints offer numerous advantages, including faster trial results and potentially quicker drug approval and availability. For practical use, an ideal surrogate endpoint should not only predict treatment effects on the actual endpoint but also be relevant, understandable, and easy to explain to patients.

The incidence of NPC is significantly influenced by regional characteristics, with Southern China reporting the highest rates [1, 8]. China has made considerable progress in NPC OS over the years, owing to improvements in radiotherapy and widespread application of chemotherapy [9, 10]. The 5-year OS rate ranges from 65% for locally advanced disease to 90% for early-stage cases [11]. Studies and meta-analyses on surrogate endpoints (summarized in Supplementary Table S1) support the use of short-term OS and other survival endpoints (such as loco-regional control [LRC], progression-free survival [PFS], distant metastasis-free survival [DMFS], loco-regional recurrence-free survival [LRFS]) of less than five years as surrogates. However, the reliability and adequacy of other survival endpoints as surrogates for OS may depend on the recurrence/metastasis pattern and available salvage treatment options. Significant differences in other survival endpoints might translate into the benefits of OS in the adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy setting, considering the assumption that micrometastatic disease is eliminated by the adjuvant treatment. However, the availability of more effective salvage treatments for recurrent or metastatic disease in recent times could weaken the association between recurrence/metastases-free survival and OS by improving survival after recurrence or metastases [2, 12], leading to no apparent differences in OS [13]. Therefore, ongoing re-evaluation of surrogate endpoints is crucial, particularly in the context of rapidly evolving therapeutic standards and changing assumptions guiding their use. Nonetheless, OS remains the preferred and routine primary endpoint.

Given substantial geographical disparities in NPC, it remains uncertain whether OS at less than 5 years can replace the 5-year follow-up in non-endemic areas for non-metastatic NPC patients. For surrogate endpoints to be valid, changes in these endpoints resulting from different treatment interventions should reliably translate to changes in true clinical endpoints. Therefore, our study aimed to address this evidence gap and validate short-term OS at less than 5 years as a reliable surrogate endpoint for 5-year OS.

Materials and methods

Data source, patient populations, and variables selection

In this retrospective study, our goal was to investigate whether short-term OS at less than 5 years could serve as a surrogate for 5-year OS in non-metastatic NPC in non-endemic areas. To achieve this, we utilized data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program of the National Cancer Institute (https://seer.cancer.gov/data/).

We collected data for 3,536 NPC patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2015 from the SEER*Stat software (version 8.4.1): Incidence-SEER Research Plus Data, 18 Registries, Nov 2020 Sub (2000–2018) (Table 1), which included population-based data from 18 cancer registries covering approximately 27.8% of the United States (U.S.) population between 2000 and 2018. For inclusion in the study, patients had to meet specific criteria: (1) pathologically confirmed NPC; (2) limited histological subtypes according to the World Health Organization (WHO) classification scheme ICD-O-3(International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd Edition), including WHO I (keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma, KSCC, ICD-O-3 codes: 8070 and 8071), WHO II (differential non-keratinizing carcinoma, DNKSCC, ICD-O-3 codes: 8072 and 8073), WHO III (undifferentiated non-keratinizing carcinoma, UNKSCC, ICD-O-3 codes: 8020, 8021, and 8082), and others(ICD-O-3 codes: 8083 and 8010) [14, 15]; (3) NPC patients without metastasis (M0) diagnosed according to the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) 7th staging system; (4) patients who received radiotherapy, with the exclusion of simple radioactive implantation; (5) NPC being the first and only primary malignancy. Exclusion criteria consisted of (1) patients who did not receive any treatment; (2) patients with metastasis; (3) missing or unknown survival data; (3) follow-up duration less than 30 days; (4) data on T stage, N stage, M stage, stage groups, and race not recorded; (5) patients with non-first or not only one primary malignant tumor. No written informed consent is required since identifiable information on individual patients was not utilized in this study.

Table 1 Patients baseline characteristics
Full size table

We extracted various data variables, including patient ID, year of diagnosis, histologic type ICD-O-3, Grade, T stage, N stage, M stage, stage groups, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, survival months, vital status recode, and SEER cause-specific death classification, from the SEER database.

Treatments and endpoint

Patients were divided into two groups: radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy groups. The radiotherapy group received only radiotherapy, while the chemoradiotherapy group received radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Unfortunately, specific details about chemotherapy and radiotherapy were not available in the SEER database [16, 17]. The OS we analyzed was defined in the SEER base as the time from diagnosis until death from any cause. We established the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year OS endpoints using the cause of death (COD) and survival time.

The OS rates of the three patient groups (total, chemoradiotherapy, and radiotherapy groups) at 4 and 5 years were compared. The analysis results demonstrated that the stage of the tumor had a notable impact on survival outcomes. Consequently, we conducted separate analyses in all three populations for patients stratified by the AJCC 7th staging system. For groups where the 4- and 5-year OS rates did not significant differ, additional analysis was performed by calculating the 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates which were then compared with the 5-year OS rate. The survival rate in the last comparison that showed no significant difference was then considered the surrogate endpoint for the 5-year OS.

Statistical analysis

The life table technique was utilized for computing survival rates. The Kaplan-Meier method along with the two-sided log-rank test for visualization of survival curves to assess group differences. McNemar’s test was utilized for comparing the survival rates. Continuous variables were analyzed using Student’s t-test to identify differences, while categorical variables were compared using either the Chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test. All statistical tests were two-tailed and P < 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference. Statistical analyses were performed using RStudio software (version 4.2.1) and SPSS (version 26.0).

Results

Patient characteristics

In this study, we enrolled a total of 2,047 eligible patients, with a median follow-up duration of 53 months (ranging from 1 to 107 months). Age was categorized based on the median value, and tumor size and lymph node size were divided into three groups (< 3, ≥3 cm, and unknown; 0 cm, ≤2 cm, and > 2 cm, separately) using recognized cutoff values. able 1 summarized the baseline demographic and disease characteristics of the patients, where stage I NPC patients accounted for 8.3% (169) of the total group. The most common histologic types were WHO I (33.3%) and WHO II (29%). Within the radiotherapy group, we observed 46.1% (100) of patients with stage I NPC, 18.9% (41) with stage II NPC, 17.1% (37) with stage III NPC, and 18% (39) with stage IV NPC. Conversely, the chemoradiotherapy group had 3.8% (69) of patients in stage I, 23.2% (425) in stage II, 34.8% (637) in stage III, and 38.2% (699) in stage IV.

Five-year overall survival surrogate endpoints

Among the 2,047 patients with non-metastatic NPC, 217 underwent radiotherapy and 1,830 received chemoradiotherapy. To address the limited sample size regarding clinical stages in the radiotherapy group, we further divided the patients into specific subgroups for analysis based on the AJCC clinical stage, T stage, and N stage: stage I and II-IV groups, T0-T1 and T2-T4 groups, N0 and N1-3 groups. The 5-year OS rates were 65% for total patients, 65% for radiotherapy, and 64% for the chemoradiotherapy group. Tables 2 and 3 displays the annual survival rates and P-values for comparing different years with the earliest year of the surrogate OS endpoint.

Table 2 Annual survival rates and their comparisons of overall survival (OS) in different groups of patients
Full size table
Table 3 Year of surrogate endpoints in different groups stratified by TNM staging
Full size table

Our analysis results indicated that the 4-year OS could potentially serve as a surrogate endpoint for patients with AJCC clinical stage I (80 vs. 78%, P = 0.250), regardless of the treatment received. As shown in Fig. 1a, the survival curves for stage I exhibited a smooth progression before reaching the 5-year mark.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Overall Survival (OS) curves stratified by the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) 7th staging system for three groups. (a) total group stratified by stages I-IV; (b) chemoradiotherapy group stratified by stages I-IV; and (c) radiotherapy group stratified by stages I-IV. Corresponding group sizes and P‑values were presented. P < 0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference

Full size image

In the chemoradiotherapy group, only the 3-year OS rate showed no significant difference compared to the 5-year rate for stage I patients (79 vs. 72%, P = 0.063). Figure 1b illustrated that the survival curve for stage I remained stable until it reached the 5-year mark, whereas the survival curve for locoregionally advanced disease (stage III-IV) displayed a downward trend until 7 or 8 years, resulting in markedly unsatisfactory survival compared to early stage cases (stage I-II). Similar trends were observed in the 1- to 5-year survival rates (Table 2).

Regarding the radiotherapy group, Fig. 1c revealed that due to the small size of stage II patients (41 patients), the survival curve remained indistinguishable after 5 years. Further division of the radiotherapy patients into specific subgroups (stage I and II-IV groups, T0-T1 and T2-T4 groups, N0 and N1-3 groups) for further analysis is presented in Fig. 2. For stage I, T0-T1, and N0 patients, the 4- and 5-year OS rates displayed no significant difference (83 vs. 82%, P = 1.000; 78 vs. 76%, P = 0.250;78 vs. 77%, P = 0.500, respectively). For stage II-IV, T2-T4, and N1-3 patients, the 3-year OS rates did not significantly differ from those at 5 years (57 vs. 51%, P = 0.063; 52 vs. 46%, P = 0.250;54 vs. 46%, P = 0.125, respectively).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Radiotherapy group overall survival (OS) curves stratified by (a) stage I and II-IV; (b) stage T0-T1 and T2-T4; (c) stage N0 and N1-3. Corresponding group sizes and P‑values are presented. P < 0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference

Full size image

Discussion

Based on insights from the literature and the analysis of SEER data with its extensive sample size and long-term follow-up, we have successfully confirmed the viability of using short-term surrogate endpoints in evaluating 5-year OS outcomes for NPC patients in non-endemic areas.

Our analysis results indicated that the 4-year OS has the potential to serve as a suitable surrogate endpoint for patients with AJCC stage I NPC, irrespective of the treatment received. However, it is crucial to consider that different treatment strategies may influence survival outcomes, potentially impacting the study results. Therefore, we further categorized patients into radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy groups to explore the surrogate endpoints. For patients who underwent chemoradiotherapy, the 3-year OS may act as a surrogate endpoint in stage I NPC. For those treated solely with radiotherapy, the 4-year OS may serve as a surrogate endpoint in stage I, T0-T1, and N0 NPC. Moreover, the OS rate at 3 years may serve as a surrogate endpoint for stage II-IV, T2-T4, and N1-N3 patients.

Selecting the primary endpoint for clinical trials remains a challenging task, and validated surrogate endpoints for OS play a crucial role in streamlining the clinical study and drug development processes. Nevertheless, relying on surrogates and intermediate endpoints bears the risk of trials that may not necessarily lead to improved long-term clinical outcomes. The potential biological mechanisms underlying the poor correlation of surrogate endpoints with OS are still not fully understood. From the perspective of clinicians, short-term overall survival is generally preferred and widely accepted.

The incidence of NPC exhibits significant regional variations, with Southern China reporting the highest rates [1, 8]. Studies and meta-analyses on NPC surrogate survival endpoints have predominantly been conducted in endemic areas with Chinese populations [18,19,20,21,22,23], which may limit the generalizability of these surrogate endpoints to regions with a low incidence of NPC. To the best of our knowledge, this study stands as the first of its kind to assess short-term OS as a surrogate endpoint of less than 5 years in non-endemic regions using the SEER database. The SEER is an authoritative database of cancer statistics with long follow-up data that allows more in-depth study of the prognosis and suitable treatment options. The SEER database gathers data from approximately one third of the United States population, offering valuable demographic, clinicopathologic, cancer incidence, and survival data [24, 25].

Chemoradiotherapy is considered the standard treatment for locally advanced NPC. However, a study by Liu et al. [26], using data from the SEER database, revealed significant effects of age, race, and tumor size on the death rate of patients with stage I-II NPC. For patients receiving chemoradiotherapy, the 3-year OS could serve as a surrogate endpoint for those in stage I. When comparing our findings with two similar studies focusing on high-incidence NPC areas [18, 19], we observed earlier OS surrogate endpoints in their studies. In one study, patients with stage I/II NPC received radiotherapy alone, while the other study did not specify the chemotherapy regimen, leaving the choice to the discretion of the clinicians. Both studies, interestingly, proposed using 1-year OS as a surrogate endpoint. This might be attributed to the fact that over 90% of Chinese patients are diagnosed with WHO III NPC, a cancer type associated with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) [27]. On the other hand, about 40% of Western NPC cases fall under WHO I-II, which is more strongly associated with tobacco smoking [17, 28]. In our research, we observed that differential non-keratinizing carcinoma (WHO II, 29%) and keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (WHO I, 33.3%) were the prevalent subtypes in the non-endemic region, which aligns with existing literature [29]. On the other hand, undifferentiated non-keratinizing carcinoma (WHO III) NPC is considered to exhibit more aggressive characteristics and an increased likelihood of distant metastasis, while cases classified as WHO I-II have been reported to be less responsive to treatment [30, 31]. Interestingly, WHO III NPC showed improved survival, which can be attributed, at least in part, to the tumor’s response to treatment and the earlier age of onset [32].

Figure 1B showed that the survival curves for stage I and II patients in the chemoradiotherapy group were initially closely aligned and only began to separate after the 5-year mark. Interestingly, beyond the 5-year mark, stage II patients showed slightly better survival rates compared to stage I patients. This difference in outcomes might be attributed to the potentially harmful effects of chemotherapy toxicities and delayed curative radiotherapy on treatment effectiveness. However, the association between induction chemotherapy, concurrent, and adjuvant chemotherapy with treatment outcomes for stage II NPC remains uncertain due to limited available data [33]. Furthermore, we observed a gradual convergence of the survival curves for stage II and III patients after 5 years. This suggests a substantial tumor heterogeneity among stage II and III patients, urging further investigation into the underlying biological mechanisms driving these variations in results.

For patients treated with radiotherapy, our findings suggest that the 4-year OS for stage I, T0-T1, and N0 NPC patients, as well as the 3-year OS for stage II-IV, T2-T4, N1-N3 NPC patients, could effectively serve as surrogate endpoints for the 5-year OS in NPC patients. Stage I and II-IV, T0-T1 and T2-T4, N0 and N1-3 represent two extremes regarding survival outcomes, with the surrogate endpoint for stage I, T0-T1, and N0 indicating stable and favorable treatment effects, and that for stage II-IV, T2-T4, N1-N3 indicating stable but poorer treatment outcomes. Both stages exhibited a rapid plateau in survival, likely influenced by the utilization of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), which is known to be superior to two-dimensional conventional radiation therapy (2D-CRT) [34]. Patients treated between 2010 and 2015 were included in this study. The United States was the first country to develop IMRT technology in 1995, which was subsequently promoted worldwide [35]. However, due to limitations in the SEER database, specific details regarding the radiotherapy techniques used in the included patients could not be extracted.

Our analysis sheds valuable light on the concept of using short-term surrogate endpoints (less than 5 years) for a cohort of NPC patients in a non-endemic area, which presents several differences from cohorts in high-incidence areas. This contributes significantly to the global significance of our findings and offers promising prospects for medical professionals by potentially shortening the time required for therapeutic evaluation, conserving medical resources, and expediting future clinical trials and the development of effective treatment approaches for non-endemic NPC patients. Embracing short-term OS as surrogate endpoints could pave the way for more individualized and cost-effective surveillance for cancer survivors, benefiting post-treatment follow-up practices for cancer survivors.

Nevertheless, it is vital to acknowledge the study’s limitations. First, due to its retrospective nature, inherent bias might influence the results, and the lack of external validation is a point of consideration. Second, the majority of our study patients received chemoradiotherapy, possibly introducing bias toward outcomes. Moreover, the limited number of patients receiving radiotherapy and the absence of further stratification by the AJCC staging system could restrict the generalizability of our conclusions. Third, the SEER database does not provide specific details on radiotherapy techniques and chemotherapy regimens, coupled with the potential application of new treatment strategies, which might have led to more optimal patient survival, potentially resulting in an underestimation of the calculated survival data. Fourth, the absence of crucial information such as smoking, alcohol consumption, and nutritional status, which may correlate with prognosis, adds a layer of complexity to the interpretation. Additionally, the SEER database does not contain data on NPC recurrence and metastasis after treatment, hindering the evaluation of other survival surrogate endpoints.

Conclusion

Our study advocates for the potential use of short-term surrogate endpoints in evaluating the 5-year overall survival outcomes for NPC patients in non-endemic areas. However, further research is imperative to validate and reinforce these findings.

Data availability

Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found here: https://seer.cancer.gov/data/.

References

  1. Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, Zhang S, Zeng H, Bray F, Jemal A, Yu XQ, He J. Cancer statistics in China, 2015. Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(2):115–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hua YJ, Han F, Lu LX, Mai HQ, Guo X, Hong MH, Lu TX, Zhao C. Long-term treatment outcome of recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with salvage intensity modulated radiotherapy. Eur J cancer (Oxford England: 1990). 2012;48(18):3422–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Verma V, Ryckman JM, Simone CB 2nd, Lin C. Patterns of care and outcomes with the addition of chemotherapy to radiation therapy for stage I nasopharyngeal cancer. Acta Oncol (Stockholm Sweden). 2018;57(2):257–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mach F, Baigent C, Catapano AL, Koskinas KC, Casula M, Badimon L, Chapman MJ, De Backer GG, Delgado V, Ference BA, et al. 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk: the Task Force for the management of dyslipidaemias of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS). Eur Heart J. 2019;41(1):111–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering. In 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the scandinavian simvastatin survival study (4S). Lancet (London England). 1994;344(8934):1383–9.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Argirion I, Zarins KR, Suwanrungruang K, Pongnikorn D, Chitapanarux I, Sriplung H, Vatanasapt P, Rozek LS. Subtype Specific Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Incidence and Survival trends: differences between endemic and non-endemic populations. Asian Pac J cancer Prevention: APJCP. 2020;21(11):3291–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Luo W. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma ecology theory: cancer as multidimensional spatiotemporal unity of ecology and evolution pathological ecosystem. Theranostics. 2023;13(5):1607–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Xie S-H, Huang R-Q, Liu Y-L, Cao S-M, Qian C-N. An increase in early cancer detection rates at a single cancer center: experiences from Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center. Visualized Cancer Med. 2022;3(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 Oncology: Official J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2003;21(4):631–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sun Y, Li WF, Chen NY, Zhang N, Hu GQ, Xie FY, Sun Y, Chen XZ, Li JG, Zhu XD, et al. Induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a phase 3, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(11):1509–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Liu X, Tang LL, Du XJ, Li WF, Chen L, Zhou GQ, Guo R, Liu Q, Sun Y, Ma J. Changes in Disease failure risk of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma over time: analysis of 749 patients with long-term Follow-Up. J Cancer. 2017;8(3):455–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Ecker BL, Lee J, Saadat LV, Aparicio T, Buisman FE, Balachandran VP, Drebin JA, Hasegawa K, Jarnagin WR, Kemeny NE, et al. Recurrence-free survival versus overall survival as a primary endpoint for studies of resected colorectal liver metastasis: a retrospective study and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(10):1332–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nordlinger B, Sorbye H, Glimelius B, Poston GJ, Schlag PM, Rougier P, Bechstein WO, Primrose JN, Walpole ET, Finch-Jones M, et al. Perioperative FOLFOX4 chemotherapy and surgery versus surgery alone for resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer (EORTC 40983): long-term results of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(12):1208–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pan XX, Liu YJ, Yang W, Chen YF, Tang WB, Li CR. Histological subtype remains a prognostic factor for survival in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. Laryngoscope. 2020;130(3):E83–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ou SI, Zell JA, Ziogas A, Anton-Culver H. Epidemiology of nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the United States: improved survival of Chinese patients within the keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma histology. Annals Oncology: Official J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2007;18(1):29–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang CC, Yang CC, Yeh SA, Huang CI, Hwang TZ, Yang CC, Su YC. The Impact of Insurance and Marital Status on Survival in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Biology 2020, 9(4).

  17. Guo R, Wu H, Wang J, Lian CL, He ZY, Zhang WW, Chen YX, Wu SG. Lymph node status and outcomes for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma according to histological subtypes: a SEER Population-based retrospective analysis. Adv Therapy. 2019;36(11):3123–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen C, Yi W, Gao J, Li XH, Shen LJ, Li BF, Tu ZW, Tao YL, Jiang CB, Xia YF. Alternative endpoints to the 5-year overall survival and locoregional control for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a retrospective analysis of 2,450 patients. Mol Clin Oncol. 2014;2(3):385–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhou S, Chen C, Liu SR, Tao YL, Chang H, Wang XH, Yang X, Zhang WW, Liu S, Ding SR, et al. Surrogate endpoints shortening the therapeutic evaluation duration for different subgroups of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma receiving intensity-modulated radiotherapy: a retrospective analysis of 830 patients stratified by the 8th edition of the UICC/AJCC staging system and plasma Epstein-Barr viral. J Cancer. 2018;9(18):3352–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen YP, Chen Y, Zhang WN, Liang SB, Zong JF, Chen L, Mao YP, Tang LL, Li WF, Liu X, et al. Potential surrogate endpoints for overall survival in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an analysis of a phase III randomized trial. Sci Rep. 2015;5:12502.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Chen PL, Li WT, Wang J, Jiang YD, Wu P, Chen T, Zheng SB. Association between MTHFR gene polymorphisms (C677T, A1298C) and genetic susceptibility to prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Genet Mol Research: GMR. 2015;14(4):19191–202.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Chen YP, Sun Y, Chen L, Mao YP, Tang LL, Li WF, Liu X, Zhang WN, Zhou GQ, Guo R, et al. Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy trials in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Radiotherapy Oncology: J Eur Soc Therapeutic Radiol Oncol. 2015;116(2):157–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rotolo F, Pignon JP, Bourhis J, Marguet S, Leclercq J, Tong Ng W, Ma J, Chan AT, Huang PY, Zhu G et al. Surrogate end points for overall survival in Loco-Regionally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: an individual Patient Data Meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2017, 109(4).

  24. Zhu Y, Song X, Li R, Quan H, Yan L. Assessment of Nasopharyngeal Cancer in Young patients aged ≤ 30 years. Front Oncol. 2019;9:1179.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Patel VJ, Chen NW, Resto VA. Racial and ethnic disparities in nasopharyngeal Cancer survival in the United States. Otolaryngology–head neck Surgery: Official J Am Acad Otolaryngology-Head Neck Surg. 2017;156(1):122–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Liu P, Xue XM, Zhang C, Zhou HW, Ding ZW, Jiang YK, Wang L, Shen WD, Yang SM, Wang FY. Prognostic factor analysis in patients with early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the USA. Future Oncol. 2023;19(15):1063–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yang XL, Zhang LL, Kou J, Zhou GQ, Wu CF, Sun Y, Lin L. Cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy improved the survival of locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma after induction chemotherapy by reducing early treatment failure. BMC Cancer. 2022;22(1):1230.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Chang ET, Ye W, Zeng YX, Adami HO. The evolving epidemiology of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prevention: Publication Am Association Cancer Res Cosponsored Am Soc Prev Oncol. 2021;30(6):1035–47.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Wang Y, Zhang Y, Ma S. Racial differences in nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol. 2013;37(6):793–802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Paiar F, Di Cataldo V, Zei G, Pasquetti EM, Cecchini S, Meattini I, Mangoni M, Agresti B, Iermano C, Bonomo P, et al. Role of chemotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Oncol Reviews. 2012;6(1):e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Guo L-L, Wang H-Y, Zheng L-S, Wang M-D, Cao Y, Li Y, Liu Z-J, Peng L-X, Huang B-J, Shao J-Y., and Qian C-N.Metastasis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: what we know and do not know. Visualized Cancer Med. 2021, 2(4).

  32. Leu Y-S, Chang Y-F, Lee J-C, Lo A-C, Chen Y-J, Chen H-W. Prognosis of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma in the Elderly is worse than in younger individuals–experience of a Medical Institute. Int J Gerontol. 2014;8(2):81–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pan XB, Li L, Qu S, Chen L, Liang SX, Zhu XD. The efficacy of chemotherapy in survival of stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2020;101:104520.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Peng G, Wang T, Yang KY, Zhang S, Zhang T, Li Q, Han J, Wu G. A prospective, randomized study comparing outcomes and toxicities of intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. conventional two-dimensional radiotherapy for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Radiotherapy Oncology: J Eur Soc Therapeutic Radiol Oncol. 2012;104(3):286–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Carol M, Grant WH 3rd, Pavord D, Eddy P, Targovnik HS, Butler B, Woo S, Figura J, Onufrey V, Grossman R, et al. Initial clinical experience with the peacock intensity modulation of a 3-D conformal radiation therapy system. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 1996;66(1–3):30–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No assistance in the preparation of this article is to be declared.

Funding

This research was supported by the Youth Science Foundation of Guangxi Medical University (No. GXMUYSF201516).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ying Guan and Lu Han contributed equally to this work and shared the first authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Nanning, Guangxi, 530021, China

    Ying Guan, Han-Yin Luo, Bin-Bin Yu & Shi-Ting Huang

  2. Department of Oncology, Wuming Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, 530199, China

    Lu Han

Authors
  1. Ying Guan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lu Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Han-Yin Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bin-Bin Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shi-Ting Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YG and LH designed this study. HYL, BBY and STH performed the search, extracted and re-checked the data. YG performed data analysis and wrote the manuscript. LH reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ying Guan.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All the data were obtained from an open-access database, and therefore no approval was needed from the Medical Ethics Committee.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guan, Y., Han, L., Luo, HY. et al. Short-term OS as a surrogate endpoint for 5-year OS in nasopharyngeal carcinoma in non-endemic area. World J Surg Onc 22, 180 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-024-03460-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-024-03460-z

Keywords

World Journal of Surgical Oncology

ISSN: 1477-7819

Contact us