Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Immunol.

Sec. Cancer Immunity and Immunotherapy

This article is part of the Research TopicNext-Generation Treatment for Pediatric Cancer: Advancing Immunotherapy through CombinationsView all articles

New Insights into the Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults: A Retrospective Study

Provisionally accepted
Mengwei  RenMengwei Ren1Jing  TianJing Tian2Mengyuan  HanMengyuan Han1Shiran  SunShiran Sun1Kai  WangKai Wang1Runye  WuRunye Wu1Meng  YuanMeng Yuan3Junlin  YiJunlin Yi1*Fei  MaFei Ma1*Sidan  LiSidan Li1*
  • 1Center for National Cancer, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
  • 2Beijing Shijitan Hospital Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
  • 3Beijing Children's Hospital Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and survival impacts of diverse induction chemotherapy regimens (including combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs]), radiotherapy modalities, and consolidation therapy in children, adolescents, and young adults (CAYA) with locally advanced or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Methods This multicenter retrospective study analyzed 102 CAYA NPC patients (aged 6–24 years; stage III–IVB) from two Chinese centers (January 2011–October 2024). All received induction therapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), radiotherapy combined with concurrent anti-EGFR therapy, or radiotherapy alone, with select cases receiving consolidation (median follow-up: 22 months). Results GP and TPF induction achieved higher objective response rates (ORR) vs. TP (GP: 68.0% vs. TP: 31.6%, P = 0.005; TPF: 89.5% vs. TP: 68.0%, P < 0.001), though no significant difference in long-term survival was observed. ICIs + chemotherapy (n=15) improved ORR (93.3% vs. 53.3%, P=0.013) though without a demonstrable difference in survival metrics at this follow-up. In patients achieving partial response (PR) post-induction, CCRT/anti-EGFR therapy + radiotherapy improved 1-year progression-free survival (PFS: 94.5% vs. 50.0%, P < 0.001) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS: 97.4% vs. 50.0%, P < 0.001). For stable disease (SD) patients, multimodal therapy increased 5-year overall survival (OS: 100% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.046). Consolidation therapy (n=24) in locally advanced NPC was associated with clinical stage (P = 0.001) but not survival (P > 0.05). Conclusion TPF/GP regimens improved short-term responses with manageable toxicity. The addition of ICIs enhanced objective response rates, though survival benefits were not assessable within the limited follow-up period. CCRT demonstrated survival advantages over radiotherapy alone, especially in PR patients, while consolidation therapy showed limited benefit except in advanced subgroups. These findings, generated from a retrospective analysis, highlight the need for personalized strategies and warrant validation in larger prospective trials.

Keywords: adolescent and young adult, Children, immune checkpoint inhibitors, Induction Chemotherapy, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, Retrospective study

Received: 11 Dec 2025; Accepted: 09 Feb 2026.

Copyright: © 2026 Ren, Tian, Han, Sun, Wang, Wu, Yuan, Yi, Ma and Li. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence:
Junlin Yi
Fei Ma
Sidan Li

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.