Comparative effectiveness of intensity modulated radiation therapy to 3-dimensional conformal radiation in locally advanced lung cancer: pathological and clinical outcomes.
Aged
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung
/ pathology
Chemoradiotherapy
Comparative Effectiveness Research
Disease-Free Survival
Female
Humans
Lung Neoplasms
/ pathology
Male
Middle Aged
Neoadjuvant Therapy
Neoplasm Staging
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
Radiotherapy, Adjuvant
Radiotherapy, Conformal
/ adverse effects
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
/ adverse effects
Retrospective Studies
Survival Analysis
Tumor Burden
Journal
The British journal of radiology
ISSN: 1748-880X
Titre abrégé: Br J Radiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0373125
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2019
May 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
14
3
2019
medline:
25
4
2019
entrez:
14
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has better normal-tissue sparing compared with 3-dimensional conformal radiation (3DCRT). We sought to assess the impact of radiation technique on pathological and clinical outcomes in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LANSCLC) treated with a trimodality strategy. Retrospective review of LANSCLC patients treated from August 2012 to August 2018 at Sheba Medical Center, Israel. The trimodality strategy consisted of concomitant chemoradiation to 60 Gray (Gy) followed by completion surgery. The planning target volume (PTV) was defined by co-registered PET/CT. Here we compare the pathological regression, surgical margin status, local control rates (LC), disease free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between 3DCRT and IMRT. Our cohort consisted of 74 patients with mean age 62.9 years, male in 51/74 (69%), adenocarcinoma in 46/74 (62.1%), stage 3 in 59/74 (79.7%) and chemotherapy in 72/74 (97.3%). Radiation mean dose: 59.2 Gy (SD ± 3.8). Radiation technique : 3DCRT in 51/74 (68.9%), IMRT in 23/74 (31%). Other variables were similar between groups.Major pathological response (including pathological complete response or less than 10% residual tumor cells) was similar: 32/51 (62.7%) in 3DCRT and 15/23 (65.2%) in IMRT, p=0.83. Pathological complete response (pCR) rates were similar: 17/51 (33.3%) in 3DCRT and 8/23 (34.8%) in IMRT, p=0.9. Surgical margins were negative in 46/51 (90.1%) in 3DCRT vs. 17/19 (89.4%) in IMRT (p=1.0).The 2-year LC rates were 81.6% (95% CI 69-89.4%); DFS 58.3% (95% CI 45.5-69%) and 3-year OS 70% (95% CI57-80%). Comparing radiation techniques, there were no significant differences in LC (p=0.94), DFS (p=0.33) and OS (p=0.72). When used to treat LANSCLC in the neoadjuvant setting, both IMRT and 3DCRT produce comparable pathological and clinical outcomes. This study validates the real-world effectiveness of IMRT compared to 3DCRT.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30864828
doi: 10.1259/bjr.20180960
pmc: PMC6580920
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
20180960Références
Chest. 2001 Nov;120(5):1584-91
pubmed: 11713138
Phys Med Biol. 2002 Jul 7;47(13):2203-20
pubmed: 12164582
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Mar 15;58(4):1258-67
pubmed: 15001271
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Jul 15;65(4):1260-9
pubmed: 16798418
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 May 1;68(1):94-102
pubmed: 17321067
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Mar 1;73(3):927-34
pubmed: 19095368
Med Phys. 2010 Nov;37(11):5850-7
pubmed: 21158297
J Thorac Oncol. 2012 May;7(5):825-32
pubmed: 22481232
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Oct 1;84(2):456-63
pubmed: 22543206
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Sep 1;87(1):139-47
pubmed: 23920393
J Thorac Oncol. 2014 Nov;9(11):1598-608
pubmed: 25436795
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2015 Apr;25(2):110-6
pubmed: 25771415
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016 May-Jun;6(3):e73-e80
pubmed: 26725964
Clin Lung Cancer. 2016 Sep;17(5):398-405
pubmed: 26936682
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jan;35(1):56-62
pubmed: 28034064
Acta Oncol. 2017 Apr;56(4):541-547
pubmed: 28358665
Isr Med Assoc J. 2017 Oct;19(10):614-619
pubmed: 29103238