4.7 Article

Smoking is a poor prognostic factor for male nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with radiotherapy

Journal

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
Volume 110, Issue 3, Pages 409-415

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.08.003

Keywords

Matched-pair analysis; Nasopharyngeal carcinoma; Prognostic factor; Radiotherapy; Smoking; Smoking index

Funding

  1. Hi-Tech Research and Development Program of China [2006AA02Z4B4]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Purpose: To evaluate the effect of smoking on prognosis of male nasopharyngeal carcinoma by comparing the treatment outcomes between smokers and non-smokers. Materials and Methods: A total of 2450 nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients were enrolled, including 1865 male patients. Matching was performed between smokers and non-smokers in male patients according to age, UICC clinical stage, T stage, N stage and treatment. Survival outcomes were compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression. Smoking index was calculated by multiplying cigarette packs per day and smoked time (year). Results: In male patients, smokers had significantly lower 5-year overall survival (70.1% vs. 77.5%, P < 0.001) and locoregional recurrent free survival (76.8% vs.82.4%, P = 0.002) compared with non-smokers. Matched-pair analysis showed that smokers kept a high risk of death compared with non-smokers (HR = 2.316, P < 0.001). High degree of smoking index (>15 pack-years) had a poor effect on overall survival (HR = 1.225, P = 0.016). When smoking index was more than 45 and 60 pack-years, the risk for death increased to 1.498 and 1.899 fold compared with non-smokers (P = 0.040, 0.001), respectively. Conclusions: Smoking was a poor prognostic factor for male nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The heavier the patients smoked, the poorer prognosis they suffered. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available