PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of clinical covariates, particularly pre-chemotherapy gross tumor volume (GTV), post-chemotherapy GTV, on overall survival in the treatment of stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively analyzed 102 patients who were enrolled on three consecutive clinical trials, which employed the treatment paradigm of two cycles of induction chemotherapy followed by thoracic radiation therapy. The pre-chemotherapy GTV, post-chemotherapy GTV, change in GTV, histology, disease stage, performance status, age, race, treatment with concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone were evaluated to determine their impact on overall survival. The log10 of the GTV was used to normalize the data and thereby reduce the impact of exceptionally large values. RESULTS: Both the log10 of the post-chemotherapy GTV and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status covariates were highly prognostic for overall survival (p = 0.006 and p = 0.008, respectively). Disease stage (at diagnosis) was also significant (p = 0.048). The log10 pre-chemotherapy GTV covariate was borderline significant (p = 0.067). The strongest prognostic model was the two-covariate model, which contained the log10 post-chemotherapy GTV and ECOG performance status covariates, (model chi2 of 18.67, with p = 0.001 for each covariate). CONCLUSIONS: The log10 post-chemotherapy GTV has significant prognostic survival value when the strategy of induction chemotherapy is employed in the treatment on stage III NSCLC. ECOG performance status and stage were also significant prognostic factors for survival.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of clinical covariates, particularly pre-chemotherapy gross tumor volume (GTV), post-chemotherapy GTV, on overall survival in the treatment of stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively analyzed 102 patients who were enrolled on three consecutive clinical trials, which employed the treatment paradigm of two cycles of induction chemotherapy followed by thoracic radiation therapy. The pre-chemotherapy GTV, post-chemotherapy GTV, change in GTV, histology, disease stage, performance status, age, race, treatment with concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone were evaluated to determine their impact on overall survival. The log10 of the GTV was used to normalize the data and thereby reduce the impact of exceptionally large values. RESULTS: Both the log10 of the post-chemotherapy GTV and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status covariates were highly prognostic for overall survival (p = 0.006 and p = 0.008, respectively). Disease stage (at diagnosis) was also significant (p = 0.048). The log10 pre-chemotherapy GTV covariate was borderline significant (p = 0.067). The strongest prognostic model was the two-covariate model, which contained the log10 post-chemotherapy GTV and ECOG performance status covariates, (model chi2 of 18.67, with p = 0.001 for each covariate). CONCLUSIONS: The log10 post-chemotherapy GTV has significant prognostic survival value when the strategy of induction chemotherapy is employed in the treatment on stage III NSCLC. ECOG performance status and stage were also significant prognostic factors for survival.
Authors: Maja Guberina; Wilfried Eberhardt; Martin Stuschke; Thomas Gauler; Clemens Aigner; Martin Schuler; Georgios Stamatis; Dirk Theegarten; Walter Jentzen; Ken Herrmann; Christoph Pöttgen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Thibaud P Coroller; Vishesh Agrawal; Vivek Narayan; Ying Hou; Patrick Grossmann; Stephanie W Lee; Raymond H Mak; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Lukas Käsmann; Maximilian Niyazi; Oliver Blanck; Christian Baues; René Baumann; Sophie Dobiasch; Chukwuka Eze; Daniel Fleischmann; Tobias Gauer; Frank A Giordano; Yvonne Goy; Jan Hausmann; Christoph Henkenberens; David Kaul; Lisa Klook; David Krug; Matthias Mäurer; Cédric M Panje; Johannes Rosenbrock; Lisa Sautter; Daniela Schmitt; Christoph Süß; Alexander H Thieme; Maike Trommer-Nestler; Sonia Ziegler; Nadja Ebert; Daniel Medenwald; Christian Ostheimer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-10-13 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Joseph K Salama; Thomas E Stinchcombe; Lin Gu; Xiaofei Wang; Karen Morano; Jeffrey A Bogart; Jeffrey C Crawford; Mark A Socinski; A William Blackstock; Everett E Vokes Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-04-07 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Thomas E Stinchcombe; Lydia Hodgson; James E Herndon; Michael J Kelley; M Giulia Cicchetti; Nithya Ramnath; Harvey B Niell; James N Atkins; Wallace Akerley; Mark R Green; Everett E Vokes Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Vishesh Agrawal; Thibaud P Coroller; Ying Hou; Stephanie W Lee; John L Romano; Elizabeth H Baldini; Aileen B Chen; David Kozono; Scott J Swanson; Jon O Wee; Hugo J W L Aerts; Raymond H Mak Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Tae Ryool Koo; Sung Ho Moon; Yu Jin Lim; Ja Young Kim; Yeonjoo Kim; Tae Hyun Kim; Kwan Ho Cho; Ji-Youn Han; Young Joo Lee; Tak Yun; Heung Tae Kim; Jin Soo Lee Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-12-13 Impact factor: 3.481