Abstract
Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a malignant tumor characterized by the malignant transformation of nasopharyngeal epithelial cells. It is highly sensitive to radiation therapy, making radiotherapy the primary treatment modality. However, 60-80% of patients are initially diagnosed with locally advanced NPC (LA-NPC), where radiotherapy alone often fails to achieve desirable outcomes. Therefore, combining radiotherapy with chemotherapy has emerged as an effective strategy to optimize treatment for LA-NPC patients. Among the various chemotherapy regimens, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) using platinum-based drugs has been established as the most commonly utilized approach for LA-NPC patients. The extensive utilization of platinum drugs in clinical settings underscores their therapeutic potential and emphasizes ongoing efforts in the development of novel platinum-based complexes for anticancer therapy. The aim of this review is to elucidate the remarkable advances made in the field of platinum-based therapies for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, emphasizing their transformative impact on patient prognosis.
1 Introduction
Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a prevalent malignant epithelial tumor, with a high incidence in Southern China and Southeast Asia. It is closely linked to Epstein-Barr virus infection, further underscoring the need for effective therapeutic interventions (1). Due to the intricate anatomical location and complex structures involved, surgical access has been limited in the treatment of NPC. Consequently, radiation therapy has remained the primary treatment modality for this type of cancer, owing to its high sensitivity to radiation. In the era of conventional two-dimensional radiotherapy (2D-RT), early-stage NPC patients achieved favorable outcomes with radical radiotherapy alone, yielded 5-year overall survival rates ranging from 86% to 97% (2–4). However, 60-80% of patients were initially diagnosed with locally advanced NPC (LA-NPC), which is associated with a higher risk of local-regional recurrence and distant metastasis (5). For these patients with locally advanced disease, radical radiation therapy alone yielded 5-year overall survival rates of 58% to 77%, with a significant propensity for distant metastasis as the primary cause of treatment failure (6–9).
Over the past few decades, photon-based radiotherapy techniques have evolved from conventional radiotherapy to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), and subsequently to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Technological advancements and equipment updates have enhanced the dosimetric characteristics of radiation, resulting in improved local control and survival rates, as well as reduced occurrence of adverse reactions in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. IMRT allows for more precise coverage of the tumor while better sparing critical organs, yielding significantly superior outcomes compared to conventional 2D-RT (10). The introduction of IMRT has led to an approximate 5-6% improvement in local control rates for locally advanced NPC (11). Currently, IMRT has become the most widely employed radiotherapy technique for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. While radiation therapy alone has shown promise in treating early-stage NPC, locally advanced cases face significant challenges, including frequent local recurrence and distant metastasis, leading to suboptimal treatment outcomes. To overcome these hurdles, the integration of radiation therapy with chemotherapy has emerged as a powerful strategy.
Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), utilizing platinum-based agents, has now established itself as the primary and standard therapeutic approach for locally advanced NPC. The anticancer mechanisms of platinum-based drugs primarily involve the inhibition of DNA synthesis through the activation of various signaling pathways, ultimately leading to apoptosis-mediated tumor regression (12). Capitalizing on this knowledge, extensive research efforts have been dedicated to the synthesis and evaluation of platinum-based complexes as potential antitumor agents. Clinical practice has witnessed the successful application of platinum drugs such as cisplatin, carboplatin, oxaliplatin, and nedaplatin in the management of NPC. Additionally, novel platinum drugs, including lobaplatin and nedaplatin, hold considerable promise in further optimizing treatment outcomes (13, 14).
This review aims to shed light on the remarkable progress achieved in the field of platinum-based therapy for NPC, underlining its transformative impact on patient outcomes. A comprehensive understanding of the clinical applications of platinum drugs will pave the way for future advancements, fostering the development of novel and more effective therapeutic strategies to combat this challenging disease.
2 The evolution of platinum-based synchronous chemotherapy in conjunction with radiation therapy
Cisplatin, a first-generation platinum-based drug, is widely recognized as one of the most extensively employed anti-tumor agents in clinical settings. Its versatility as a backbone chemotherapy drug across various malignancies has remarkably elevated patient survival rates and cure rates (15, 16). The groundbreaking Intergroup-0099 study (16) revolutionized the treatment landscape for LA-NPC patients by introducing concurrent cisplatin-based chemotherapy concomitant with radiotherapy. The study demonstrated the significant augmentation of radiotherapy efficacy through synchronous cisplatin-based chemotherapy, leading to improved patient survival outcomes. This seminal research has become a cornerstone in the establishment of the prevailing standard of care for LA-NPC. In the concurrent chemoradiotherapy group, patients received regular 100 mg/m2 doses of synchronized cisplatin chemotherapy at three-week intervals during radiotherapy. CCRT substantially enhanced local control rates among LA-NPC patients and markedly improved the 3-year overall survival (OS) rate compared to radiotherapy alone (76% vs. 46%, p < 0.001). Further analysis of updated reports revealed a strikingly significant difference in 5-year survival outcomes between the two study groups: the CCRT group exhibited a robust rate of 67%, while the radiotherapy alone group only achieved 37% (p = 0.001) (17). These results have been reaffirmed through subsequent large-scale phase III clinical trials (18–23), with long-term survival data coinciding with the 10-year follow-up (24), further highlighting the superior efficacy of CCRT over radiotherapy alone. Additionally, non-randomized controlled studies (25–28) have consistently reported the advantageous therapeutic effect of CCRT compared to radiotherapy alone. Altogether, the integration of synchronous cisplatin-based chemotherapy has significantly enhanced long-term survival outcomes for patients, bestowing valuable survival benefits upon those diagnosed with LA-NPC and solidifying its position as a fundamental cornerstone within the standard treatment paradigm for this condition.
3 Synchronous cisplatin chemotherapy
3.1 Choice of chemotherapy regimen and dosage for synchronous cisplatin monotherapy
In clinical practice, chemotherapy can cause both short-term and long-term toxicity, making it challenging for patients to tolerate high-intensity synchronous chemoradiotherapy. Studies have reported that approximately 29%-48% of patients are unable to complete the full three-cycle synchronous cisplatin chemotherapy (18, 20, 29). Determining the optimal regimen and dosage of cisplatin in combination with radiotherapy for synchronous chemotherapy remains a topic of debate, influenced by factors such as toxic reactions, patient preferences, and physician expertise. In the era of conventional radiotherapy (2D radiotherapy), the dosage of cisplatin administered during radiotherapy plays a crucial role in the prognosis of LA-NPC patients undergoing only CCRT. Retrospective studies (29–33) have previously suggested that administering a synchronous cisplatin dosage of 200mg/m2 during radiotherapy can provide survival benefits for patients. Recently, a prospective clinical study (34) demonstrated promising survival outcomes in low-risk LA-NPC patients (EBV-DNA < 4000 copies/ml) treated with 200mg/m2 cisplatin administration during radiotherapy, achieving an outstanding 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 88%. Thus, there seems to be a consensus on administering cisplatin at a dosage of ≥200mg/m2 during radiotherapy.
During concurrent radiotherapy and cisplatin administration, two common approaches are used: the weekly dosing regimen and the three-week dosing regimen. The weekly dosing regimen involves administering synchronous cisplatin at a dose of 30-40mg/m2 weekly during the course of radiotherapy, while the three-week dosing regimen entails administering synchronous cisplatin at a dose of 80-100mg/m2 every three weeks. A review of the literature indicates that the survival outcomes between the two regimens are similar (32, 35–39). The 5-year OS, disease-free survival (DFS), locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates for the three-week regimen range from 85.2% to 91%, 63.8% to 92.6%, 92.0% to 96.7%, and 76.1% to 95.6%, respectively. For the weekly regimen, the respective rates range from 68.9% to 96.7%, 64.9% to 90.7%, 91.0% to 96.3%, and 80.1% to 96.7% (Table 1). Common grade 3-4 adverse events during treatment include anemia, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, gastrointestinal reactions (such as nausea and vomiting), and mucositis. Among the five studies that reported the incidence of adverse events, four (35, 36, 38, 39) found no significant difference in grade 3-4 adverse events between the two groups. Only one study reported a lower incidence of grade 3-4 mucositis and nausea/vomiting in the weekly regimen group but a higher incidence of thrombocytopenia compared to the three-week regimen group. However, due to the limitations of retrospective studies, larger prospective phase III clinical trials are required to further validate the current research findings. Additionally, the three-week cisplatin schedule offers convenience in terms of administration frequency compared to weekly cisplatin during radiotherapy, potentially reducing hospitalization time. Consequently, the three-week regimen is often preferred in clinical practice.
Table 1
| Author | Year | Study design | Group | Number of cases | Stage | AJCC/UICC stage | dosages | Radiotherapy | Follow-up time (year) | OS | DFS | LRRFS | DMFS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tao (35) | 2014 | retrospective | 3 weeks vs. 1 week | 154 | II-IVb | 7th | 80 mg/m2; 30-40 mg/m2 | IMRT | 5 | 85.2% vs. 78.9% (P = 0.318) | 71.6% vs. 71.0% (P=0.847), | 93.5% vs. 92.6% (P = 0.904) | 80.9% vs. 80.1% (P = 0.925) |
| Lee (32) | 2016 | prospective | 3 weeks vs. 1 week | 109 | II-IVb | 5th | 40 mg/m2; 100mg/m2 | 3D-CRT/IMRT | 3 | 91.0% vs. 90.8% (P=0.900) | 63.8% vs. 64.9% (P=0.074) | / | / |
| Meng (22) | 2018 | retrospective | 3 weeks vs. 1 week | 241 | III-IVb | 7th | 80 mg/m2; 30-40 mg/m2 | IMRT | 5 | 90.0 vs. 85.6% (P= 0.207) | 92.6% vs. 85.6% (P=0.152) | 96.7% vs. 94.4% (P=0.411) | 95.6% vs. 88.9% (P=0.107) |
| Zhu (37) | 2018 | retrospective | 3 weeks vs. 1 week | 859 | III-IVb | 7th | 100 mg/m2; 40 mg/m2 | IMRT | 5 | 91% vs. 89% (P=0.715) | 81% vs. 82% (P=0.326) | 92% vs. 91% (P=0.932) | 91% vs. 96% (P=0.028) |
| Wang (38) | 2019 | retrospective | 3 weeks vs. 1 week | 322 | I-IVa | 8th | 80-100mg/m2; 30-40 mg/m2 | IMRT | 5 | 88.3% vs. 96.7% (P=0.036) | 80.5% vs. 90.7% (P=0.028) | 93.5% vs. 96.3% (P=0.251) | 91.4% vs. 96.7% (P=0.101) |
| Gundog (39) | 2020 | retrospective | 3 weeks vs. 1 week | 98 | II-Iva | 8th | 100 mg/m2; 50 mg/m2 | 3D-CRT/IMRT | 5 | 90.3% vs. 68.9% (P=0.11) | / | / | 76.1%vs. 80.1% (P=0.74) |
Clinical studies comparing three-week regimens with single-week regimens of simultaneous cisplatin chemotherapy in LA-NPC.
LA-NPC, locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma; 3D-CRT, three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy; IMRT, intensity-modulated radiotherapy; OS, overall survival; DFS, disease-free survival; LRRFS, locoregional relapse-free survival; DMFS, distant metastasis free survival.
However, CCRT alone may not provide sufficient therapeutic intensity for LA-NPC patients with high-risk factors. Results from several large phase III clinical studies have confirmed the clinical importance of adding induction chemotherapy (IC) to cisplatin-based CCRT for early eradication of distant microscopic metastatic lesions, improvement of distant tumor control rates, and enhanced survival (40–44). A study found that in the era of 3D-CRT and IMRT, IC greatly reduced tumor volume, and clinical complete remission was observed in 11.3% of patients and clinical partial remission in 79.6% of patients (42). The NCCN guidelines also recommend that IC followed by CCRT as the standard treatment for LA-NPC. For patients with NPC undergoing IC followed by CCRT, several studies have suggested that a synchronous cisplatin dose exceeding 200mg/m2 can yield survival benefits (45–47). However, divergent conclusions have been reported in other studies. Peng et al.’s research (47) indicated that a dose of less than 200mg/m2 during CCRT following IC can enhance patients’ 4-year overall survival (OS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). Conversely, Lv et al.’s study (48) proposed that there is no significant difference in survival outcomes between patients receiving a cisplatin concurrent dose of ≥200 mg/m2 and those receiving <200 mg/m2. Further validation through large-scale Phase III clinical trials is still warranted.
3.2 Synchronous chemotherapy with cisplatin in combination with other drugs
During radiotherapy, synchronous chemotherapy regimens based on cisplatin, in combination with two or three drugs, have been continuously explored for LA-NPC. The most common regimen is fluorouracil combined with cisplatin (PF) (49), and other studies have also investigated the safety and efficacy of regimens including docetaxel, fluorouracil combined with cisplatin (TPF) (50), TP regimen (51–53), and gemcitabine combined with cisplatin (GP) (54, 55). Furthermore, studies have reported on the efficacy of raltitrexed plus cisplatin (56), cetuximab plus cisplatin (57, 58), and nimotuzumab plus cisplatin (14, 59, 60). Overall, the addition of chemotherapy or targeted drugs to cisplatin-based synchronous chemotherapy did not increase efficacy compared to cisplatin alone. In addition, some uncommon single-agent synchronous chemotherapy regimens have been reported for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma, including paclitaxel (61), S-1 (47, 48, 62, 63), cetuximab (64), and nimotuzumab (65), but they did not demonstrate superior efficacy or lower toxicity compared to single-agent cisplatin.
Firstly, the relatively small sample sizes of these studies may result in insufficient statistical power and potential selection bias, thereby compromising the robustness of the research findings. Secondly, some studies are retrospective in nature and predominantly conducted within a single center, necessitating multicenter, prospective, large-scale randomized clinical trials to further investigate the efficacy of these regimens. Currently, these approaches lack substantial research evidence to support their use. Overall, the synchronous chemotherapy combining cisplatin with other drugs does not appear to enhance efficacy; instead, it may lead to more severe hematological or non-hematological toxicities.
4 Synchronous chemotherapy with other platinum agents
Cisplatin-based synchronous chemotherapy regimens are associated with increased acute and late toxicities during radiotherapy, including severe gastrointestinal reactions (such as nausea and vomiting), renal toxicity (66), and ototoxicity (67, 68), posing limitations to the use of cisplatin. Furthermore, some patients develop resistance to cisplatin, which reduces its effectiveness, particularly when tumors recur (69). As a result, there is a growing demand for other platinum-based chemotherapy agents that can provide similar efficacy to NPC but with fewer side effects. Platinum derivatives such as nedaplatin, lobaplatin, and carboplatin have been explored as alternatives to cisplatin for the treatment of NPC.
4.1 Carboplatin
Carboplatin, a second-generation platinum agent, is also utilized for the treatment of various malignancies. A small retrospective study involving 75 LA-NPC patients (70) demonstrated poorer 3-year survival outcomes in the group receiving 2 cycles of synchronous carboplatin chemotherapy. A non-inferiority clinical trial (71) comparing the efficacy of cisplatin and carboplatin in synchronous chemoradiotherapy for LA-NPC revealed no significant differences in 3-year overall survival (OS; P=0.98) and disease-free survival (DFS; P=0.96) between the synchronous carboplatin and cisplatin groups. However, data from their latest multicenter study (72) indicated that adding adjuvant chemotherapy to carboplatin-based synchronous chemoradiotherapy did not significantly improve short-term efficacy but increased toxicity. Another phase II clinical trial (73) demonstrated favorable outcomes with carboplatin-based synchronous chemoradiotherapy for LA-NPC, with a 3-year OS rate of 83.6% and a PFS rate of 65.3%. Additionally, patients exhibited good compliance. Nevertheless, there is still controversy regarding the evidence supporting the equivalence of second-generation platinum agent carboplatin to cisplatin.
4.2 Nedaplatin
Nedaplatin is a cisplatin analog with similar antitumor mechanisms and therapeutic effects, but it does not require hydration to protect the kidneys. Several studies (74–76) have compared the efficacy of nedaplatin and cisplatin in synchronous chemoradiotherapy, suggesting that nedaplatin may be a promising alternative to cisplatin, as it is effective and safe for treating NPC. The results of a randomized Phase III controlled trial (77) indicated that for stage II-IVB NPC patients, nedaplatin-based CCRT is not inferior to cisplatin-based CCRT in terms of the 2-year progression-free survival (PFS). Moreover, the cisplatin group had a higher incidence of Grade 3-4 adverse events. The recently updated 5-year follow-up results (78) support the initial findings. Additionally, from a cost-effectiveness analysis perspective, nedaplatin-based synchronous chemoradiotherapy holds an advantage (79). Overall, nedaplatin appears to be one of the potential alternatives to cisplatin in synchronous chemoradiotherapy for LA-NPC. Ongoing studies such as NCT04472403, NCT01479504, NCT01265147, NCT04437329, and NCT03503136 are further evaluating the efficacy of nedaplatin in NPC, and there are also ongoing explorations of combination regimens involving nedaplatin (80, 81).
4.3 Lobaplatin
Lobaplatin is a third-generation platinum agent. Previous studies have reported that lobaplatin can overcome certain forms of resistance caused by other platinum agents (82). The results of a Phase II trial (83) validated the efficacy and safety of lobaplatin-based induction chemotherapy followed by CCRT in the treatment of LA-NPC. Subsequently, the results of a large Phase III randomized non-inferiority controlled trial (84) demonstrated that lobaplatin-based induction chemotherapy plus CCRT for LA-NPC had similar survival outcomes and side effects compared to cisplatin-based treatment. A subsequent commentary (85) indicated that lobaplatin is not inferior to cisplatin and has lower toxicity, making it a promising alternative to cisplatin. Additionally, ongoing clinical studies such as NCT04472403, NCT03196869, ChiCTR1900021536, and ChiCTR-IIR-17013112 aim to further evaluate the benefits and risks of lobaplatin in nasopharyngeal carcinoma and validate the value of these treatment strategies (Table 2).
Table 2
| Agent | Condition | Phase | Study type | Recruiting status | Locations | treatment | Intervention | Enrollment(estimated) | NCT/ChiCTR1 no. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cisplatin | |||||||||
| Low-risk LA-NPC | III | Interventional | Recruiting | China | CCRT | P-RT vs. Nimotuzumab-RT | 36 | NCT04456322 | |
| NPC with stage T1-4N2-3 or T3-4N0-1M0 | III | Interventional | Recruiting | China | IC+CCRT | P-RT vs. GP +RT alone | 236 | NCT02460887 | |
| LA-NPC | II | Interventional | Recruiting | China | CCRT | P-RT vs. TP-RT | 164 | NCT03047265 | |
| NPC with stage II-III | III | Interventional | Recruiting | China | CCRT | DDP-RT vs. Nimotuzumab-RT | 384 | NCT03837808 | |
| NPC with stage II-IVA | II | Interventional | Recruiting | China | CCRT | P-RT vs. P+ Nimotuzumab-RT | 246 | NCT04223024 | |
| LA-NPC | III | Interventional | Recruiting | China | CCRT | P-RT vs. RT alone | 440 | NCT03015727 | |
| Lobaplatin | |||||||||
| LA-NPC | II | Interventional | Recruiting | China | IC+CCRT | DLF+L-RT vs. DPF+P-RT | 128 | NCT03196869 | |
| LA-NPC and low-risk NPC | III | Interventional | Recruiting | China | CCRT | L-RT vs. P-RT | 434 | ChiCTR1900021536 | |
| LA-NPC | II | Interventional | Recruiting | China | IC+CCRT | DL+L-RT vs. DP+ P-RT | 120 | ChiCTR-IIR-17013112 | |
| Nedaplatin | |||||||||
| LA-NPC | II | Interventional | Recruiting | China | CCRT | N-RT vs. P-RT | 20 | NCT01265147 | |
| LA-NPC | III | Interventional | Recruiting | China | IC+CCRT | DNF+P-RT vs. DPF+P-RT | 352 | NCT04437329 | |
| LA-NPC | III | Interventional | Recruiting | China | IC+CCRT | DNF+N-RT vs. DPF+P-RT | 632 | NCT03503136 | |
| LA-NPC | III | Interventional | Recruiting | China | IC+CCRT | DP+ P-RT vs. DN+N-RT | NA | NCT01479504 | |
| Carboplatin | |||||||||
| NPC with stage T3-4NxM0 or TxN2-3M0 | III | Interventional | Recruiting | China | IC+CCRT | DC+C-RT vs. DP+P-RT | 482 | NCT03919552 | |
| LA-NPC | II/III | Interventional | Recruiting | China | IC+CCRT | TGC+P-RT vs. P-RT | 172 | NCT00997906 | |
Ongoing clinical trials on platinum drugs in LA-NPC.
NPC, nasopharyngeal carcinoma; LA-NPC, locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma; IC, induction chemotherapy; RT, radiotherapy; CCRT, concurrent chemoradiotherapy; P, cisplatin; L, lobaplatin; N, nedaplatin; C, carboplatin; G, gemcitabine; T, paclitaxel; D, docetaxel; GP, gemcitabine, and cisplatin; TP, paclitaxel and cisplatin; DP, docetaxel and cisplatin; DC, docetaxel and carboplatin; DL, docetaxel and lobaplatin; DNF, docetaxel, nedaplatin, and fluorouracil, DPF docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil, DLF, docetaxel, lobaplatin, and fluorouracil.
4.4 Oxaliplatin
A phase III clinical study (86) explored the efficacy of oxaliplatin monotherapy combined with synchronous chemotherapy compared to radiation therapy alone. The findings indicated that the oxaliplatin group demonstrated a more favorable short-term survival profile; however, extensive randomized trials are warranted to thoroughly evaluate its comparative effectiveness against cisplatin.
5 Platinum and sequential treatment approach
The results of several large phase III clinical studies confirm that the addition of cisplatin-based induction chemotherapy (IC) to cisplatin-based CCRT is important for the early eradication of distant microscopic metastatic lesions, the improvement of distant tumor control and the enhancement of survival (40, 41, 43, 44, 47). The administration of 2-4 cycles of IC followed by CCRT has been shown to increase treatment-related toxicity and hinder patients’ ability to withstand subsequent high-intensity CRRT. Studies have reported that following IC, approximately 8% to 13% of patients do not complete the intended two cycles of synchronous cisplatin chemotherapy, while 22% to 39% do not complete three cycles (100mg/m2 cisplatin every three weeks) of CCRT (40, 44, 87). In addition, NPC patients receiving IC plus CRRT treatment exhibit higher rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events compared to those receiving CRRT alone, with 20% to 40% of patients unable to complete the originally planned course of synchronous radiotherapy due to severe toxicity (44, 87, 88). However, interruptions and extensions of radiotherapy have been shown to have detrimental effects on patient survival (89). The dosage of cisplatin administered during concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT-DDP) is a significant prognostic factor for LA-NPC patients, and a dose of 200mg/m2 of synchronous cisplatin may already be deemed adequate (29, 30, 34, 46, 47). While induction chemotherapy is also cisplatin-based, there is currently a lack of research focused on examining the association between the dosage of cisplatin administered during the entire treatment course and the survival outcomes of LA-NPC patients receiving IC followed by CCRT. While there is currently a lack of investigation on the therapeutic efficacy of other platinum-based drug dosages in LA-NPC patients, regarding lobaplatin and nedaplatin, significant research is warranted. In terms of toxicity reactions, it appears that lobaplatin and nedaplatin may offer a potential reduction in severe acute adverse effects compared to cisplatin. However, further exploration is required through robust head-to-head large-scale studies. Currently, there is a dearth of research exploring the impact of platinum-based drug dosages on the therapeutic efficacy of lobaplatin and nedaplatin in LA-NPC patients. However, concerning toxicity reactions, it appears that both lobaplatin and nedaplatin might offer a potential reduction in severe acute adverse effects compared to cisplatin (90). Nevertheless, further investigation is required through extensive head-to-head studies with large sample sizes to validate the finding.
6 Conclusions and prospects
In regard to the treatment of NPC, platinum-based chemotherapy agents play a pivotal role. At present, platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy, particularly cisplatin-based regimens, stands as the standard treatment for NPC. Nevertheless, investigations have revealed that combining cisplatin with other drugs in synchronous chemotherapy fails to enhance overall survival rates and may, in fact, increase the incidence of adverse reactions. Consequently, further research is imperative to elucidate the optimal dosage and regimen for cisplatin monotherapy in synchronous chemotherapy protocols for NPC. Furthermore, while there may be no substantial disparities in efficacy and toxicity between weekly and three-week regimens, the latter offers improved convenience and reduced hospitalization duration.
Distinct species of platinum-based chemotherapeutic agents possess individual merits. In an ideal scenario, alternative platinum agents should be able to replace cisplatin while boasting comparable activity, efficacy, and decreased toxicity. However, debates regarding the equivalence of second-generation platinum salts, such as carboplatin, to cisplatin in NPC patients remain unresolved. Nedaplatin, with its advantageous low cost and capacity to serve as a substitute for cisplatin-resistant patients or those intolerant to cisplatin’s side effects, represents a prospective alternative. Notably, lobaplatin, a novel generation platinum derivative, has exhibited remarkable efficacy in the management of NPC, matching cisplatin in therapeutic outcomes while demonstrating a lower incidence of toxic reactions. Nonetheless, due to its higher price compared to cisplatin, the inclusion of lobaplatin in medical insurance coverage could potentially mitigate the economic burden on patients. Lobaplatin and nedaplatin may serve as compelling avenues for advancing research in upgrading synchronous chemoradiotherapy strategies for locally advanced NPC. However, when substituting platinum salts, further study is crucial to explore alternative individualized treatment strategies, including administration dosage and regimens, aimed at alleviating long-term toxic reactions and economic burdens faced by LA-NPC patients.
Furthermore, there is ongoing exploration of platinum-based chemotherapy combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors as a first-line treatment strategy for recurrent/metastatic NPC, demonstrating notable advantages (91–93). In the case of locally advanced NPC, several ongoing clinical trials, including NCT03700476, NCT04557020, NCT04447612, NCT04447326, NCT04782765, and NCT03734809, are continuously investigating the potential advantages of integrating immunotherapy into platinum-based IC. This emerging combination holds significant potential as a prospective therapeutic option for the future management of LA-NPC.
Statements
Author contributions
FZ: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. YW: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. HW: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
ChenYPChanATCLeQTBlanchardPSunYMaJ. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Lancet (2019) 394:64–80. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30956-0
2
YiJLGaoLHuangXDLiSYLuoJWCaiWMet al. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated by radical radiotherapy alone: Ten-year experience of a single institution. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (2006) 65:161–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.12.003
3
XiaoWWHanFLuTXChenCYHuangYZhaoC. Treatment outcomes after radiotherapy alone for patients with early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (2009) 74:1070–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.09.008
4
SongCHWuHGHeoDSKimKHSungMWParkCI. Treatment outcomes for radiotherapy alone are comparable with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy in early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Laryngoscope (2008) 118:663–70. doi: 10.1097/MLG.0b013e3181626cfe
5
WeiKRZhengRSZhangSWLiangZHOuZXChenWQ. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma incidence and mortality in China in 2010. Chin J Cancer. (2014) 33:381–7. doi: 10.5732/cjc.014.10086
6
MaoYPXieFYLiuLZSunYLiLTangLLet al. Re-evaluation of 6th edition of AJCC staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma and proposed improvement based on magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (2009) 73:1326–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.07.062
7
TakiarVMaDGardenASLiJRosenthalDIBeadleBMet al. Disease control and toxicity outcomes for T4 carcinoma of the nasopharynx treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Head Neck. (2016) 38 Suppl 1:E925–33. doi: 10.1002/hed.24128
8
ChuaDTMaJShamJSMaiHQChoyDTHongMHet al. Long-term survival after cisplatin-based induction chemotherapy and radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a pooled data analysis of two phase III trials. J Clin Oncol (2005) 23:1118–24. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.12.081
9
LiuMZTangLLZongJFHuangYSunYMaoYPet al. Evaluation of sixth edition of AJCC staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma and proposed improvement. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (2008) 70:1115–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.07.2353
10
MoonSHChoKHLeeCGKeumKCKimYSWuHGet al. IMRT vs. 2D-radiotherapy or 3D-conformal radiotherapy of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Survival outcome in a Korean multi-institutional retrospective study (KROG 11-06). Strahlenther Onkol. (2016) 192:377–85. doi: 10.1007/s00066-016-0959-y
11
ZhangBMoZDuWWangYLiuLWeiY. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus 2D-RT or 3D-CRT for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Oral Oncol (2015) 51:1041–6. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2015.08.005
12
BoulikasTVougioukaM. Cisplatin and platinum drugs at the molecular level. (Review). Oncol Rep (2003) 10:1663–82. doi: 10.3892/or.10.6.1663
13
WangXWangXGuoZ. Functionalization of platinum complexes for biomedical applications. Acc Chem Res (2015) 48:2622–31. doi: 10.1021/acs.accounts.5b00203
14
WangLZhuangHXuXZhouJJiaoY. Efficacy and survival analysis of nimotuzumab combined with concurrent chemoradiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Front Oncol (2023) 13:1129649. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1129649
15
RancouleCGuyJBVallardABen MradMRehailiaAMagnéN. [50th anniversary of cisplatin]. Bull Cancer. (2017) 104:167–76. doi: 10.1016/j.bulcan.2016.11.011
16
Al-SarrafMLeBlancMGiriPGFuKKCooperJVuongTet al. Chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy in patients with advanced nasopharyngeal cancer: phase III randomized Intergroup study 0099. J Clin Oncol (1998) 16:1310–7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.4.1310
17
Al-SarrafMLeBlancMGiriPGFuKKCooperJVuongTet al. Superiority of 5-year survival with chemo-radiotherapy (CT-RT) vs radiotherapy in patients (Pts) with locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC). Intergroup (0099) (SWOG 8892, RTOG 8817, ECOG 2388) phase III study: final report (abstract no. 905). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol20(2001):227a.
18
WeeJTanEHTaiBCWongHBLeongSSTanTet 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 (2005) 23:6730–8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.16.790
19
ZhangYChenLHuGQZhangNZhuXDYangKYet al. Final overall survival analysis of gemcitabine and cisplatin induction chemotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A multicenter, randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol (2022) 40:2420–5. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.00327
20
LeeAWLauWHTungSYChuaDTChappellRXuLet al. Preliminary results of a randomized study on therapeutic gain by concurrent chemotherapy for regionally-advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: NPC-9901 Trial by the Hong Kong Nasopharyngeal Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol (2005) 23:6966–75. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.00.7542
21
ChanATLeungSFNganRKTeoPMLauWHKwanWHet al. Overall survival after concurrent cisplatin-radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst (2005) 97:536–9. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dji084
22
ChanATTeoPMNganRKLeungTWLauWHZeeBet al. Concurrent chemotherapy-radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: progression-free survival analysis of a phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol (2002) 20:2038–44. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.08.149
23
ChenYLiuMZLiangSBZongJFMaoYPTangLLet 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 (2008) 71:1356–64. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.12.028
24
LeeAWMTungSYNgWTLeeVNganRKCChoiHCWet al. A multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial of concurrent chemoradiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in patients with regionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: 10-year outcomes for efficacy and toxicity. Cancer (2017) 123:4147–57. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30850
25
ChengSHLiuTWJianJJTsaiSYHaoSPHuangCHet al. Concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer J Sci Am (1997) 3:100–6.
26
ChengSHJianJJTsaiSYYenKLChuNMChanKYet al. Long-term survival of nasopharyngeal carcinoma following concomitant radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (2000) 48:1323–30. doi: 10.1016/S0360-3016(00)00779-3
27
LinJCChenKYJanJSHsuCY. Partially hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy and concurrent chemotherapy for advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (1996) 36:1127–36. doi: 10.1016/S0360-3016(96)00384-7
28
LinJCJanJSHsuCY. Pilot study of concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy for stage IV nasopharyngeal cancer. Am J Clin Oncol (1997) 20:6–10. doi: 10.1097/00000421-199702000-00002
29
LeeAWTungSYNganRKChappellRChuaDTLuTXet al. Factors contributing to the efficacy of concurrent-adjuvant chemotherapy for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: combined analyses of NPC-9901 and NPC-9902 Trials. Eur J Cancer. (2011) 47:656–66. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.10.026
30
LoongHHMaBBLeungSFMoFHuiEPKamMKet al. Prognostic significance of the total dose of cisplatin administered during concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Radiother Oncol (2012) 104:300–4. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.12.022
31
WeiWHuangZLiSChenHZhangGLiSet al. Pretreatment Epstein-Barr virus DNA load and cumulative cisplatin dose intensity affect long-term outcome of nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with concurrent chemotherapy: experience of an institute in an endemic area. Oncol Res Treat (2014) 37:88–95. doi: 10.1159/000360178
32
LeeJYSunJMOhDRLimSHGooJLeeSHet al. Comparison of weekly versus triweekly cisplatin delivered concurrently with radiation therapy in patients withlocally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer: A multicenter randomized phase II trial (KCSG-HN10-02). Radiother Oncol (2016) 118:244–50. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2015.11.030
33
PengHChenLZhangYLiWFMaoYPZhangFet al. Prognostic value of the cumulative cisplatin dose during concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A secondary analysis of a prospective phase III clinical trial. Oncologist (2016) 21:1369–76. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0105
34
LiXYLuoDHGuoLMoHYSunRGuoSSet al. Deintensified chemoradiotherapy for pretreatment epstein-barr virus DNA-selected low-risk locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A phase II randomized noninferiority trial. J Clin Oncol (2022) 40:1163–73. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.01467
35
TaoCJLinLZhouGQTangLLChenLMaoYPet al. Comparison of long-term survival and toxicity of cisplatin delivered weekly versus every three weeks concurrently with intensity-modulated radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. PloS One (2014) 9:e110765. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110765
36
MengDFSunRPengLXHuangYSYangQLuoDHet al. A comparison of weekly versus 3-weekly cisplatin during concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma using intensity modulated radiation therapy: a matched study. J Cancer. (2018) 9:92–9. doi: 10.7150/jca.21357
37
ZhuQHuHTangLQYouRZhaoJJWengDSet al. Weekly versus triweekly cisplatin plus intensity-modulated radiotherapy in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A propensity score analysis with a large cohort. J Cancer. (2018) 9:3447–55. doi: 10.7150/jca.26110
38
WangKDongJHeSWangXJiangCHuPet al. Comparison of weekly and triweekly cisplatin regimens during concurrent chemoradiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. BMC Cancer. (2019) 19:482. doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-5688-z
39
GundogMBasaranHBozkurtOErogluC. A comparison of cisplatin cumulative dose and cisplatin schedule in patients treated with concurrent chemo-radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol (2020) 86:676–86. doi: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2019.04.008
40
SunYLiWFChenNYZhangNHuGQXieFYet 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) 17:1509–20. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30410-7
41
CaoSMYangQGuoLMaiHQMoHYCaoKJet al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A phase III multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer. (2017) 75:14–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.12.039
42
PengHChenLLiWFGuoRMaoYPZhangYet al. Tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts long-term survival outcomes in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A secondary analysis of a randomized phase 3 clinical trial. Cancer (2017) 123:1643–52. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30520
43
FrikhaMAuperinATaoYElloumiFToumiNBlanchardPet al. A randomized trial of induction docetaxel-cisplatin-5FU followed by concomitant cisplatin-RT versus concomitant cisplatin-RT in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (GORTEC 2006-02). Ann Oncol (2018) 29:731–6. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx770
44
ZhangYChenLHuGQZhangNZhuXDYangKYet al. Gemcitabine and cisplatin induction chemotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. N Engl J Med (2019) 381:1124–35. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1905287
45
LiuSLSunXSYanJJChenQYLinHXWenYFet al. Optimal cumulative cisplatin dose in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients based on induction chemotherapy response. Radiother Oncol (2019) 137:83–94. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.04.020
46
JiangYTChenKHYangJLiangZGLiLQuSet al. Efficiency of high cumulative cisplatin dose in high- and low-risk patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Med (2022) 11:715–27. doi: 10.1002/cam4.4477
47
WenDWLiZXChenFPLinLPengBYKouJet al. Individualized cumulative cisplatin dose for locoregionally-advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients receiving induction chemotherapy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Oral Oncol (2020) 107:104675. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.104675
48
LvJWQiZYZhouGQHeXJChenYPMaoYPet al. Optimal cumulative cisplatin dose in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients receiving additional induction chemotherapy. Cancer Sci (2018) 109:751–63. doi: 10.1111/cas.13474
49
LinJCJanJSHsuCYLiangWMJiangRSWangWY. Phase III study of concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: positive effect on overall and progression-free survival. J Clin Oncol (2003) 21:631–7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.06.158
50
KomatsuMAraiYYabukiKSanoDShionoOSakumaYet al. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (TPF) in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Anticancer Res (2015) 35:6861–7.
51
HeXYHuCSYingHMWuYRZhuGPLiuTF. Paclitaxel with cisplatin in concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol (2010) 267:773–8. doi: 10.1007/s00405-009-1112-7
52
BaykaraMBuyukberberSOzturkBCoskunUKaplanMAUnsalDKet al. Efficacy and safety of concurrent chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin and docetaxel in patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancers. Tumori (2013) 99:469–73. doi: 10.1177/030089161309900405
53
ChenXHongYFengJYeJZhengPGuanXet al. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy comparison of taxanes and platinum versus 5-fluorouracil and platinum in nasopharyngeal carcinoma treatment. Chin Med J (Engl) (2014) 127:142–9. doi: 10.3901/JME.2014.09.142
54
HeXOuDYingHZhuGHuCLiuT. Experience with combination of cisplatin plus gemcitabine chemotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol (2012) 269:1027–33. doi: 10.1007/s00405-011-1720-x
55
GuMFLiuLZHeLJYuanWXZhangRLuoGYet al. Sequential chemoradiotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Cancer. (2013) 132:215–23. doi: 10.1002/ijc.27638
56
WuYWeiXYuanZXuHLiYLiYet al. Phase II study of induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy with raltitrexed and cisplatin in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Chin J Cancer Res (2020) 32:665–72. doi: 10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2020.05.11
57
MaBBYKamMKMLeungSFHuiEPKingADChanSLet al. A phase II study of concurrent cetuximab-cisplatin and intensity-modulated radiotherapy in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Ann Oncol (2012) 23:1287–92. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdr401
58
LiYChenQYTangLQLiuLTGuoSSGuoLet al. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy with or without cetuximab for stage II to IVb nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a case-control study. BMC Cancer. (2017) 17:567. doi: 10.1186/s12885-017-3552-6
59
CaiZChenDQiuWLiangCHuangYZhouJet al. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy combined with nimotuzumab in stage III-IVa nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a retrospective analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol (2022) 149(6):2327–44. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1316434/v1
60
ZongJFLiangQDLuQJLiuYHXuHCChenBJet al. Comparison of radiotherapy combined with nimotuzumab vs. chemoradiotherapy for locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma. BMC Cancer. (2021) 21:1274. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08995-y
61
HuWDingWYangHShaoMWangBWangJet al. Weekly paclitaxel with concurrent radiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Radiother Oncol (2009) 93:488–91. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2009.06.030
62
FengtongJJiangtaoFYatingWLiliWJianboCXiaofeiW. Effects of S-1 combined with radiotherapy in the treatment of nasopharyngeal cancer: A meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. Open Med (Wars). (2017) 12:107–14. doi: 10.1515/med-2017-0017
63
WenLYouCLuXZhangL. Phase II trial of concurrent chemoradiotherapy with S-1 versus weekly cisplatin for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Mol Clin Oncol (2015) 3:687–91. doi: 10.3892/mco.2015.529
64
XuTLiuYDouSLiFGuanXZhuG. Weekly cetuximab concurrent with IMRT aggravated radiation-induced oral mucositis in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Results of a randomized phase II study. Oral Oncol (2015) 51:875–9. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2015.06.008
65
LiHMLiPQianYJWuXXieLWangFet al. A retrospective paired study: efficacy and toxicity of nimotuzumab versus cisplatin concurrent with radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. BMC Cancer. (2016) 16:946. doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2974-x
66
DriessenCMUijenMJvan der GraafWTvan OpstalCCKaandersJHNijenhuisTet al. Degree of nephrotoxicity after intermediate- or high-dose cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer. Head Neck. (2016) 38 Suppl 1:E1575–81. doi: 10.1002/hed.24281
67
YipPLMokKCJHoHSLeeWYVWongACLLauCTet al. Sensorineural hearing loss in nasopharyngeal carcinoma survivors in the modern treatment era - the early and late effects of radiation and cisplatin. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). (2022) 34:e160–e7. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2021.10.013
68
LowWKTohSTWeeJFook-ChongSMWangDY. Sensorineural hearing loss after radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy: a single, blinded, randomized study. J Clin Oncol (2006) 24:1904–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.0096
69
AmableL. Cisplatin resistance and opportunities for precision medicine. Pharmacol Res (2016) 106:27–36. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2016.01.001
70
YauTKLeeAWWongDHPangESNgWTYeungRMet al. Treatment of Stage IV(A-B) nasopharyngeal carcinoma by induction-concurrent chemoradiotherapy and accelerated fractionation: impact of chemotherapy schemes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (2006) 66:1004–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.06.016
71
ChitapanaruxILorvidhayaVKamnerdsupaphonPSumitsawanYTharavichitkulESukthomyaVet al. Chemoradiation comparing cisplatin versus carboplatin in locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer: randomised, non-inferiority, open trial. Eur J Cancer. (2007) 43:1399–406. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.03.022
72
ChitapanaruxIKittichestRTungkasamitTAsakitTChomprasertKChakrabandhuSet al. Two-year outcome of concurrent chemoradiation with carboplatin with or without adjuvant carboplatin/fluorouracil in nasopharyngeal cancer: A multicenter randomized trial. Curr Probl Cancer. (2021) 45:100620. doi: 10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2020.100620
73
SongthongAChakkabatCKannarunimitDLertbutsayanukulC. Efficacy of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with concurrent carboplatin in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Radiol Oncol (2015) 49:155–62. doi: 10.2478/raon-2014-0044
74
TangCWuFWangRLuHLiGLiuMet al. Comparison between nedaplatin and cisplatin plus docetaxel combined with intensity-modulated radiotherapy for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a multicenter randomized phase II clinical trial. Am J Cancer Res (2016) 6:2064–75.
75
LiuTSunQChenJLiBQinWWangFet al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus nedaplatin or cisplatin for locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a retrospective study. J Cancer. (2018) 9:3676–82. doi: 10.7150/jca.27198
76
ZhanZJTaoHYQiuWZLiuZYZhangRXLiaoKet al. Clinical value of nedaplatin-based chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy for locoregional advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a retrospective, propensity score-matched analysis. J Cancer. (2020) 11:6782–9. doi: 10.7150/jca.47090
77
TangLQChenDPGuoLMoHYHuangYGuoSSet al. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy with nedaplatin versus cisplatin in stage II-IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol (2018) 19:461–73. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30104-9
78
TangQNLiuLTQiBGuoSSLuoDHSunRet al. Effect of concurrent chemoradiotherapy with nedaplatin vs cisplatin on the long-term outcomes of survival and toxic effects among patients with stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A 5-year follow-up secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open (2021) 4:e2138470. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.38470
79
LiaoWHuangJWuQZhuGWangXWenFet al. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy with nedaplatin versus cisplatin in stage II-IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Oral Oncol (2019) 93:15–20. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2019.04.003
80
XuJHeXChengKGuoWBianXJiangXet al. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy with nedaplatin plus paclitaxel or fluorouracil for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Survival and toxicity. Head Neck. (2014) 36:1474–80. doi: 10.1002/hed.23487
81
HuYFuJTShiDFengBShiZ. Clinical efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus nedaplatin in the treatment of advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Cancer Res Ther (2016) 12:C252–c5. doi: 10.4103/0973-1482.200750
82
McKeageMJ. Lobaplatin: a new antitumour platinum drug. Expert Opin Investig Drugs (2001) 10:119–28. doi: 10.1517/13543784.10.1.119
83
KeLRXiaWXQiuWZHuangXJYangJYuYHet al. Safety and efficacy of lobaplatin combined with 5-fluorouracil as first-line induction chemotherapy followed by lobaplatin-radiotherapy in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: preliminary results of a prospective phase II trial. BMC Cancer. (2017) 17:134. doi: 10.1186/s12885-017-3080-4
84
LvXCaoXXiaWXLiuKYQiangMYGuoLet al. Induction chemotherapy with lobaplatin and fluorouracil versus cisplatin and fluorouracil followed by chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage III-IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol (2021) 22:716–26. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00075-9
85
CavalieriSLicitraL. Next generation platinum salt in nasopharygeal carcinoma. Lancet Oncol (2021) 22:577–8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00182-0
86
ZhangLZhaoCPengPJLuLXHuangPYHanFet al. Phase III study comparing standard radiotherapy with or without weekly oxaliplatin in treatment of locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: preliminary results. J Clin Oncol (2005) 23:8461–8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.00.3863
87
YangQCaoSMGuoLHuaYJHuangPYZhangXLet al. Induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: long-term results of a phase III multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer. (2019) 119:87–96. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.07.007
88
LeeNHarrisJGardenASStraubeWGlissonBXiaPet al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: radiation therapy oncology group phase II trial 0225. J Clin Oncol (2009) 27:3684–90. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.9109
89
KwongDLShamJSChuaDTChoyDTAuGKWuPM. The effect of interruptions and prolonged treatment time in radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (1997) 39:703–10. doi: 10.1016/S0360-3016(97)00339-8
90
LiangXLiuQYaoWYangS. Efficacy and toxicity of three concurrent chemoradiotherapy regimens in treating nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Comparison among cisplatin, nedaplatin, and lobaplatin. Med (Baltimore). (2022) 101:e31187. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000031187
91
MaiHQChenQYChenDHuCYangKWenJet al. Toripalimab or placebo plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a multicenter randomized phase 3 trial. Nat Med (2021) 27:1536–43. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01444-0
92
YangYQuSLiJHuCXuMLiWet al. Camrelizumab versus placebo in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin as first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (CAPTAIN-1st): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol (2021) 22:1162–74. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00302-8
93
YangYPanJWangHZhaoYQuSChenNet al. Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal cancer: A multicenter phase 3 trial (RATIONALE-309). Cancer Cell (2023) 41:1061–72.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2023.04.014
Summary
Keywords
nasopharyngeal carcinoma, concurrent chemoradiotherapy, chemotherapy, Platinum, Cisplatin
Citation
Zhu F, Wu Y and Wang H (2023) Advance in integrating platinum-based chemotherapy with radiotherapy for locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Front. Oncol. 13:1259331. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1259331
Received
15 July 2023
Accepted
12 September 2023
Published
28 September 2023
Volume
13 - 2023
Edited by
Paolo Bossi, Humanitas Research Hospital, Italy
Reviewed by
Maria Cossu Rocca, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), Italy
Updates
Copyright
© 2023 Zhu, Wu and Wang.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Hua Wang, 420143449@qq.com
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.