Observational analysis shows treatment success and survival rates in elderly patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma, indicating key prognostic factors.
ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the treatment success and prognostic variables in elderly patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) who underwent definitive radiation therapy between January 2018 and December 2023.MethodsThe study employed a retrospective design and utilized the database system of our institution, which is centralized in a single location. A total of 125 patients, aged 60 or older, who were diagnosed with undifferentiated carcinoma of the nasopharynx (UCNT) based on histological confirmation, were included in the study. The data collection period spanned from January 2018 to December 2023.Results125 patients (93 male (74.4%), 32 females (25.6%); average age, 65.9 years) were identified, 16.8% were stage I, 34.4% stage II, 32% stage III, 16.8% stage IVA. The median follow-up for all 125 patients at the time of this analysis was 32.97 months (range 0.39-80.64 months). The mean OS was 64.75 ± 2.78 months. The 1-year and 5-year OS for the entire cohort were 93% and 69%, respectively. The mean disease-free survival (DFS) was 61.91 ± 2.87 months with a 5-year rate of 72%. According to multivariate analysis, overall survival was significantly influenced by both clinical stage (P < .05) and the presence of comorbidities. The majority of patients experienced good treatment tolerance, with grade 3 adverse effects including mucositis (6.4%), dermatitis (6.4%), and neutropenia (8.8%).ConclusionsThere has been a rise in the number of older patients, and they exhibit comparable clinical characteristics to the general population. The predicted criteria were clinical stage, age beyond 70, and comorbidities, each considered independently. Utilizing multidisciplinary therapeutic options is crucial for optimizing the chosen treatment for patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Van et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: