Outcomes Following Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy with Intensity-Modulated Therapy versus Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy in Early Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

IF 5.1 Q1 ONCOLOGY Lung Cancer: Targets and Therapy Pub Date : 2019-12-20 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.2147/LCTT.S235713
Michael Mix, Sean Tanny, Tamara Nsouli, Ryan Alden, Rishabh Chaudhari, Russell Kincaid, Paula F Rosenbaum, Jeffrey A Bogart, Paul Aridgides
{"title":"Outcomes Following Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy with Intensity-Modulated Therapy versus Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy in Early Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.","authors":"Michael Mix,&nbsp;Sean Tanny,&nbsp;Tamara Nsouli,&nbsp;Ryan Alden,&nbsp;Rishabh Chaudhari,&nbsp;Russell Kincaid,&nbsp;Paula F Rosenbaum,&nbsp;Jeffrey A Bogart,&nbsp;Paul Aridgides","doi":"10.2147/LCTT.S235713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The treatment techniques used for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for early-stage lung cancer continue to evolve. In this study, clinical outcomes following SBRT were evaluated according to the use of either 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Patients with stage I NSCLC who received SBRT from 2007 to 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Disease control and survival were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Dosimetric analyses for target dose heterogeneity and coverage were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 297 patients with 351 lesions were included. 3DCRT was used in 52% and IMRT in 48%. IMRT was utilized at a higher rate in more recent years. The most common regimens were 48 Gy in 4 fractions and 54-60 Gy in 3 fractions. With a median follow up of 22.7 months, there were 17 local failures for a crude relapse rate of 5.7%. Local failure did not differ in patients treated with 3DCRT and IMRT (4.9% vs 6.5%, p=0.573). Mean dose to gross tumor volume (GTV) as a percent of prescription dose was higher with 3DCRT compared with IMRT (107.7% vs 103.6%, p < 0.0001). Tumor stage, histology, and SBRT regimen did not correlate with local tumor control. Overall survival for the entire population approximated 72% at 2 years. Treatment was well tolerated with 6 documented grade 3+ events.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this single-institution cohort of SBRT for early-stage NSCLC, there was no discernible difference in clinical outcomes between those treated with 3DCRT and IMRT.</p>","PeriodicalId":18066,"journal":{"name":"Lung Cancer: Targets and Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/LCTT.S235713","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lung Cancer: Targets and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/LCTT.S235713","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Introduction: The treatment techniques used for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for early-stage lung cancer continue to evolve. In this study, clinical outcomes following SBRT were evaluated according to the use of either 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

Patients and methods: Patients with stage I NSCLC who received SBRT from 2007 to 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Disease control and survival were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Dosimetric analyses for target dose heterogeneity and coverage were performed.

Results: A total of 297 patients with 351 lesions were included. 3DCRT was used in 52% and IMRT in 48%. IMRT was utilized at a higher rate in more recent years. The most common regimens were 48 Gy in 4 fractions and 54-60 Gy in 3 fractions. With a median follow up of 22.7 months, there were 17 local failures for a crude relapse rate of 5.7%. Local failure did not differ in patients treated with 3DCRT and IMRT (4.9% vs 6.5%, p=0.573). Mean dose to gross tumor volume (GTV) as a percent of prescription dose was higher with 3DCRT compared with IMRT (107.7% vs 103.6%, p < 0.0001). Tumor stage, histology, and SBRT regimen did not correlate with local tumor control. Overall survival for the entire population approximated 72% at 2 years. Treatment was well tolerated with 6 documented grade 3+ events.

Conclusion: In this single-institution cohort of SBRT for early-stage NSCLC, there was no discernible difference in clinical outcomes between those treated with 3DCRT and IMRT.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
立体定向体放疗加调强治疗与三维适形放疗治疗早期非小细胞肺癌的疗效比较。
用于早期肺癌立体定向放射治疗(SBRT)的治疗技术在不断发展。在这项研究中,根据使用3D适形放疗(3DCRT)或调强放疗(IMRT)来评估SBRT后的临床结果。患者和方法:回顾性分析2007 - 2015年接受SBRT治疗的I期NSCLC患者。采用Kaplan-Meier估计法评估疾病控制和生存率。对靶剂量的异质性和覆盖率进行了剂量学分析。结果:共纳入297例患者,351个病灶。3DCRT占52%,IMRT占48%。近年来,IMRT的使用率较高。最常见的治疗方案是48 Gy分4次,54-60 Gy分3次。中位随访22.7个月,局部失败17例,粗复发率5.7%。3DCRT和IMRT治疗的患者局部失败无差异(4.9% vs 6.5%, p=0.573)。3DCRT的平均总肿瘤体积(GTV)占处方剂量的百分比高于IMRT (107.7% vs 103.6%, p < 0.0001)。肿瘤分期、组织学和SBRT治疗方案与局部肿瘤控制无关。整个人群2年的总生存率约为72%。治疗耐受性良好,有6例3+级事件记录。结论:在SBRT治疗早期NSCLC的单机构队列中,3DCRT和IMRT治疗的临床结果没有明显差异。
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
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Real-World Outcomes with Lurbinectedin in Second Line and Beyond for Extensive Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer in Korea. Adagrasib in KRYSTAL-12 has Broken the KRAS G12C Enigma Code in Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma. NRG1 Fusions in NSCLC: Being eNRGy Conscious. Pulmonary Spindle Cell Carcinoma Mimicking Granulomatous Inflammation: A Rare Case Report and Brief Review of the Literature. Redefining Recovery: The Transformative Impact of the ALINA Trial on Adjuvant Therapy for ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.
×
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