Consecutive Daily Versus Every Other Day Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Scheduling for Stage I Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

IF 2.2 Q3 ONCOLOGY Advances in Radiation Oncology Pub Date : 2024-09-06 DOI:10.1016/j.adro.2024.101625
Yue Lin MD , Muhammad M. Qureshi MBBS, MPH , Sonny Batra MD , Minh-Tam Truong MD , Kimberley S. Mak MD, MPH
{"title":"Consecutive Daily Versus Every Other Day Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Scheduling for Stage I Non-small Cell Lung Cancer","authors":"Yue Lin MD ,&nbsp;Muhammad M. Qureshi MBBS, MPH ,&nbsp;Sonny Batra MD ,&nbsp;Minh-Tam Truong MD ,&nbsp;Kimberley S. Mak MD, MPH","doi":"10.1016/j.adro.2024.101625","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>The optimal delivery schedule for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in treating stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is unknown. This study used the National Cancer Database to examine daily versus every other day (QOD) SBRT scheduling, including trends over time and association with survival.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>The National Cancer Database was used to retrospectively identify patients with stage I NSCLC treated with 3-, 4-, or 5-fraction of SBRT between 2004 and 2016. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression modeling.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 15,269 patients, 3927 (25.7%) received SBRT daily, and 11,342 (74.3%) received treatment QOD. The use of QOD treatment increased from 63.2% in 2007 to 78.3% in 2016, and 5-fraction SBRT increased from 3.7% in 2004 to 51.4% in 2016 (both <em>P &lt;</em> .0001). QOD 5-fraction became the most prevalent scheduling from 2012 to 2016 (28.5% in 2012 to 41.6% in 2016). Factors significantly associated with daily SBRT scheduling included number of fractions, race, lower income, lower comorbidities, and treatment at academic/research programs (all <em>P</em> ≤ .01).</div><div>Median survival for daily SBRT was 37.9 months versus 38.4 months for QOD (<em>P =</em> .4). On multivariable analysis, no difference was found in overall survival between daily versus QOD scheduling (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.04; <em>P =</em> .55). Five-fraction SBRT was associated with worse survival versus 3 fractions (aHR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03-1.15; <em>P =</em> .002). With 3-fraction SBRT, QOD treatment was associated with improved survival versus daily treatment (aHR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98; <em>P =</em> .02). With 5-fraction SBRT, QOD treatment was associated with worse survival versus daily treatment (aHR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02-1.22; <em>P =</em> .02).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>QOD SBRT schedules were more frequently used to treat stage I NSCLC than daily regimens by a factor of 3:1, and QOD 5-fraction SBRT became the most common dose schedule after 2012. Three-fraction QOD SBRT was associated with improved survival versus daily, whereas 5-fraction QOD SBRT was associated with worse survival versus daily.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7390,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","volume":"9 12","pages":"Article 101625"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245210942400188X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

The optimal delivery schedule for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in treating stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is unknown. This study used the National Cancer Database to examine daily versus every other day (QOD) SBRT scheduling, including trends over time and association with survival.

Methods and Materials

The National Cancer Database was used to retrospectively identify patients with stage I NSCLC treated with 3-, 4-, or 5-fraction of SBRT between 2004 and 2016. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression modeling.

Results

Of 15,269 patients, 3927 (25.7%) received SBRT daily, and 11,342 (74.3%) received treatment QOD. The use of QOD treatment increased from 63.2% in 2007 to 78.3% in 2016, and 5-fraction SBRT increased from 3.7% in 2004 to 51.4% in 2016 (both P < .0001). QOD 5-fraction became the most prevalent scheduling from 2012 to 2016 (28.5% in 2012 to 41.6% in 2016). Factors significantly associated with daily SBRT scheduling included number of fractions, race, lower income, lower comorbidities, and treatment at academic/research programs (all P ≤ .01).
Median survival for daily SBRT was 37.9 months versus 38.4 months for QOD (P = .4). On multivariable analysis, no difference was found in overall survival between daily versus QOD scheduling (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.04; P = .55). Five-fraction SBRT was associated with worse survival versus 3 fractions (aHR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03-1.15; P = .002). With 3-fraction SBRT, QOD treatment was associated with improved survival versus daily treatment (aHR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98; P = .02). With 5-fraction SBRT, QOD treatment was associated with worse survival versus daily treatment (aHR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02-1.22; P = .02).

Conclusions

QOD SBRT schedules were more frequently used to treat stage I NSCLC than daily regimens by a factor of 3:1, and QOD 5-fraction SBRT became the most common dose schedule after 2012. Three-fraction QOD SBRT was associated with improved survival versus daily, whereas 5-fraction QOD SBRT was associated with worse survival versus daily.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非小细胞肺癌 I 期的连续每日与隔日立体定向体放射治疗计划
目的 立体定向体放射治疗(SBRT)治疗I期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的最佳放疗时间尚不清楚。本研究利用美国国家癌症数据库对每日与隔日(QOD)SBRT计划进行了研究,包括随时间变化的趋势以及与生存率的关系。方法和材料利用美国国家癌症数据库回顾性地识别了2004年至2016年间接受3、4或5分次SBRT治疗的I期NSCLC患者。结果在15269名患者中,3927人(25.7%)每天接受SBRT治疗,11342人(74.3%)接受QOD治疗。QOD治疗的使用率从2007年的63.2%增加到2016年的78.3%,5分次SBRT的使用率从2004年的3.7%增加到2016年的51.4%(P均为0.0001)。从 2012 年到 2016 年,QOD 5 分法成为最普遍的排期方式(2012 年为 28.5%,2016 年为 41.6%)。与每日SBRT排期明显相关的因素包括分次数、种族、较低的收入、较低的合并症以及在学术/研究项目中接受治疗(所有P均≤.01)。每日SBRT的中位生存期为37.9个月,而QOD为38.4个月(P = .4)。在多变量分析中,每日排期与 QOD 排期的总生存期没有差异(调整后危险比 [aHR],0.99;95% 置信区间 [CI],0.94-1.04;P = .55)。五分段 SBRT 与三分段相比,生存率更低(aHR,1.09;95% CI,1.03-1.15;P = .002)。对于 3 个分次的 SBRT,QOD 治疗与每日治疗相比可提高生存率(aHR,0.91;95% CI,0.84-0.98;P = .02)。结论在治疗I期NSCLC时,QOD SBRT方案比日常方案更常用,其比例为3:1,2012年后QOD 5分段SBRT成为最常用的剂量方案。3分次QOD SBRT与每日方案相比生存率更高,而5分次QOD SBRT与每日方案相比生存率更低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Advances in Radiation Oncology
Advances in Radiation Oncology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
208
审稿时长
98 days
期刊介绍: The purpose of Advances is to provide information for clinicians who use radiation therapy by publishing: Clinical trial reports and reanalyses. Basic science original reports. Manuscripts examining health services research, comparative and cost effectiveness research, and systematic reviews. Case reports documenting unusual problems and solutions. High quality multi and single institutional series, as well as other novel retrospective hypothesis generating series. Timely critical reviews on important topics in radiation oncology, such as side effects. Articles reporting the natural history of disease and patterns of failure, particularly as they relate to treatment volume delineation. Articles on safety and quality in radiation therapy. Essays on clinical experience. Articles on practice transformation in radiation oncology, in particular: Aspects of health policy that may impact the future practice of radiation oncology. How information technology, such as data analytics and systems innovations, will change radiation oncology practice. Articles on imaging as they relate to radiation therapy treatment.
期刊最新文献
Outcomes After Stereotactic Body Radiation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Child-Pugh A Versus Child-Pugh B/C Cirrhosis Editorial board Pegylated Interferon Combined With Low-Dose Total Skin Electron Beam Therapy for Advanced Stage Mycosis Fungoides: Two Case Reports and Literature Review Cone Beam Computed Tomography-Based Online Adaptive Radiation Therapy of Esophageal Cancer: First Clinical Experience and Dosimetric Benefits Prospective Trial on the Impact of Weekly Cone Beam Computed Tomography-Guided Correction on Mean Heart Dose in Breast Cancer Breath-Hold Radiation Therapy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1