Propensity score matching analysis of XXXX -based concurrent chemotherapy in low risk @entity189 in the intensity-modulated radiotherapy era.

@entity1 @entity5 @entity900 @entity189 @entity3 @entity204 @entity1349
BACKGROUND: @entity1 with @entity5 were reported to benefit from adding @entity900 -based concurrent chemotherapy to two-dimensional conventional radiotherapy. But this benefit becomes uncertain in the intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) era, owing to its significant advantage. METHODS: We enrolled 661 low risk (T1N1M0, T2N0-1M0 or T3N0M0, the 2010 UICC/AJCC staging system) @entity1 who underwent IMRT with or without concurrent chemotherapy. Particularly, @entity1 with IMRT alone or IMRT plus @entity900 -based concurrent chemotherapy were equally matched using propensity-score matching method. @entity1349 ( @entity1349 ), distant @entity3 -free survival (DMFS) and locoregional relapse-free survival (LRFS) were assessed with Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test and Cox regression. RESULTS: Among 661 @entity1 , IMRT alone achieved parallel @entity1349 (P = 0.379), DMFS (P = 0.169) and LRFS (P = 0.849) to IMRT plus concurrent chemotherapy. In the propensity-matched cohort of 482 @entity1 , similar survival were observed between both arms (4-years @entity1349 97.4% vs 96.1%, P = 0.134; DMFS 96.5% vs 95.1%, P = 0.763; LRFS 93.8% vs 91.5%, P = 0.715). In multivariate analysis, @entity900 -based concurrent chemotherapy did not lower the risk of @entity204 , distant @entity3 or locoregional relapse. And this association remained unchanged in subgroups by age, sex, histology and stage. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, low risk @entity189 @entity1 who underwent IMRT could not benefit from @entity900 -based concurrent chemotherapy.
