Efficacy and toxicity of three concurrent chemoradiotherapy regimens in treating nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Comparison among cisplatin, nedaplatin, and lobaplatin

Abstract

Few studies directly compare efficacy and toxicity among lobaplatin, nedaplatin and cisplatin concurrently with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Totally 141 treatment-naïve NPC without distant metastasis receiving IMRT concurrent with cisplatin or nedaplatin or lobaplatin were retrospectively enrolled. Their response rate, toxicity and long-term survival were compared. Complete response (CR) rates of concurrent lobaplatin (CR-nasopharynx [CR-nx], 82.7%; CR-cervical lymph node [CR-nd], 94.2%) were lower than those of cisplatin (CR-nx, 89.3%; CR-nd, 98.2%) and nedaplatin (CR-nx, 93.9%; CR-nd, 97.0%), but statistical significance wasn’t detected. Estimated five-year overall survival (OS), local relapse-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and progression-free survival (PFS) weren’t statistically significant between three groups. Multivariable analysis by COX proportional hazards model showed concurrent chemotherapy regimen wasn’t an independent prognostic factor. Gastrointestinal toxicity was prevalent in platinum-based concurrent chemotherapy; cisplatin group suffered heavier (≥grade 2) than other two groups. More nephrotoxicity happened in cisplatin group (17.9%) than nedaplatin (9.1%) and lobaplatin (2.0%) groups. Incidence of dermatitis of ≥grade 2 was higher in cisplatin group (60.7%) than nedaplatin (27.3%) and lobaplatin (9.6%) groups. More patients in lobaplatin and nedaplatin groups suffered from any grade thrombocytopenia (P < .001), but incidence of severe thrombocytopenia (≥grade 3) was similar. Economic cost was significant less in lobaplatin group. Cisplatin, nedaplatin and lobaplatin are equally effective when used concurrently with IMRT in NPC. Lobaplatin and nedaplatin have potential to be alternatives to cisplatin in terms of less severe acute side-effects and economic cost.