Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 14, 2025
An Efficient and Simple Method to Establish NK and T Cell Lines from Patients with Chronic Active Epstein-Barr Virus Infection
Published on: March 30, 2018
Development of a risk classification system combining TN-categories and circulating EBV DNA for non-metastatic NPC in
Fo-Ping Chen1, Li Lin1, Jin-Hui Liang2
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Background:
The objective of this study was to construct a risk classification system integrating cell-free Epstein-Barr virus (cfEBV) DNA with T- and N- categories for better prognostication in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).
Methods:
Clinical records of 10,149 biopsy-proven, non-metastatic NPC were identified from two cancer centers; this comprised a training (N = 9,259) and two validation cohorts (N = 890; including one randomized controlled phase 3 trial cohort). Adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) method using a two-tiered stratification by cfEBV DNA and TN-categories was applied to generate the risk model. Primary clinical endpoint was overall survival (OS). Performances of the models were compared against American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control (AJCC/UICC) 8th edition TNM-stage classification and two published recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) models, and were validated in the validation cohorts.
Results:
We chose a cfEBV DNA cutoff of ⩾2,000 copies for optimal risk discretization of OS, disease-free survival (DFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in the training cohort. AHR modeling method divided NPC into six risk groups with significantly disparate survival (p < 0.001 for all): AHR1, T1N0; AHR2A, T1N1/T2-3N0 cfEBV DNA < 2,000 (EBVlow); AHR2B, T1N1/T2-3N0 cfEBV DNA ⩾ 2,000 (EBVhigh) and T1-2N2/T2-3N1 EBVlow; AHR3, T1-2N2/T2-3N1 EBVhigh and T3N2/T4N0 EBVlow; AHR4, T3N2/T4 N0-1 EBVhigh and T1-3N3/T4N1-3 EBVlow; AHR5, T1-3N3/T4 N2-3 EBVhigh. Our AHR model outperformed the published RPA models and TNM stage with better hazard consistency (1.35 versus 3.98-12.67), hazard discrimination (5.29 versus 6.69-13.35), explained variation (0.248 versus 0.164-0.225), balance (0.385 versus 0.438-0.749) and C-index (0.707 versus 0.662-0.700). In addition, our AHR model was superior to the TNM stage for risk stratification of OS in two validation cohorts (p < 0.001 for both).
Conclusion:
Herein, we developed and validated a risk classification system that combines the AJCC/UICC 8th edition TN-stage classification and cfEBV DNA for non-metastatic NPC. Our new clinicomolecular model provides improved OS prediction over the current staging system.
