Familial Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma 6

100 J-C. LinTable 9.2. Summary of prognostic impact of tumor volume in nasopharyngeal carcinomaSeriesNo. ofcasesStage Treatment Image RPLNincludedTumor volumeUnivariate analysisChua et al. (1997b) 290 I–IV RT ± Ch CT Yes TV-NP£20 (n = 142)20–40 (n = 78)40–60 (n = 34)>60 (n = 36)TV-Neck£ 10 (n = 202)10–20 (n = 45)20–30 (n = 22)>30 (n = 21)LFFSp < 0.00188%80%78%56%–––––NFFS–––––p = 0.000196%87%81%81%Chua et al. (2004b) 116 I–II RT CT Yes TV-NP£15>15TV-Neck£4>4p = 0.03393%82%–––––––––Chen et al. (2004) 129 I–IV RT ± Ch CT – TV-NP – –Chang et al. (2002) 76 T3–4 RT ± Ch CT – TV-NP60 (n = 28)Shen et al. (2008) 154 I–IV RT CT Yes TV-NP£20 (n = 53)20–40 (n = 64)40–60 (n = 22)>60 (n = 15)TV-NP£60 (n = 139)>60 (n = 15)Kim and Lee (2005) 60 I–IV RT ± Ch CT Yes TV-NP£30 (n = 46)>30 (n = 14)TV-Neck£5 (n = 27)>5 (n = 33)Lee et al. (2008) 91 I–IV RT ± Ch CT Yes TV-NP£ 2020–40>40Sze et al. (2004) 308 I–IV RT ± Ch MRI Yes TV-NP