Bibliometric analysis reveals rising focus on chemotherapy and survival prognosis in nasopharyngeal carcinoma, indicating a shift towards improved management strategies.
Chemotherapy has played an essential role in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) management since the 1980s, when its radiosensitizing effects were first recognized. The landmark Intergroup 0099 trial established concurrent cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy as the standard for locoregionally advanced NPC, demonstrating significant survival benefits over radiotherapy alone. As an Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-associated malignancy with distinct geographical distribution (endemic in southern China and Southeast Asia), NPC presents unique therapeutic challenges. Subsequent studies refined chemotherapy sequencing, introducing induction approaches to address distant failure risks and adjuvant strategies for high-risk cases. The evolution of chemotherapy regimens has been particularly crucial given NPC's anatomical complexity and surgical limitations. Recent years have seen growing emphasis on balancing efficacy with toxicity reduction, especially for endemic populations where treatment-related morbidity significantly impacts quality of life. The published documents of the last 10 years were analyzed by bibliometrics and visualization in order to assess the focus and trend of chemotherapy research in NPC. Based on Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database, the relevant literatures during the period 2014-2024 were searched and visualized the countries, authors, institutions, and keywords through CiteSpace and VOSviewer to understand the hotspots and trends of chemotherapy in NPC treatment. In the past decade, chemotherapy has gained more and more attention in NPC, and the leading countries are China and the United States, and the author with the most publications is Jun Ma. Sun Yat-sen University is the institution with the most publications. Our study has learned that combination chemotherapy and survival prognosis are the focus of attention in this field, and bibliometrics can help us to have a better understanding and management of it.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Deng et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: