PURPOSE: Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 93-11 trial received radiation doses of 70.9, 77.4, 83.8, or 90.3 Gy. The locoregional control and survival rates were similar among the various dose levels. We investigated the effect of the gross tumor volume (GTV) on the outcome. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The GTV was defined as the sum of the volumes of the primary tumor and involved lymph nodes. The tumor response, median survival time (MST), and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed separately for smaller (< or =45 cm(3)) vs. larger (>45 cm(3)) tumors. RESULTS: The distribution of the GTV was as follows: < or =45 cm(3) in 79 (49%) and >45 cm(3) in 82 (51%) of 161 patients. The median GTV was 47.3 cm(3). N0 status and female gender were associated with better tumor responses. Patients with smaller (< or =45 cm(3)) tumors achieved a longer MST and better PFS than did patients with larger (>45 cm(3)) tumors (29.7 vs. 13.3 months, p < 0.0001; and 15.8 vs. 8.3 months, p < 0.0001, respectively). Increasing the radiation dose had no effect on the MST or PFS. On multivariate analysis, only a smaller GTV was a significant prognostic factor for improved MST and PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.12, p = 0.0002; and HR, 2.0, p = 0.0002, respectively). The GTV as a continuous variable was also significantly associated with the MST and PFS (HR, 1.59, p < 0.0001; and HR, 1.39, p < 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation dose escalation up to 90.3 Gy did not result in improved MST or PFS. The tumor responses were greater in node-negative patients and women. An increasing GTV was strongly associated with decreased MST and PFS. Future radiotherapy trials patients might need to use stratification by tumor volume.
PURPOSE:Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 93-11 trial received radiation doses of 70.9, 77.4, 83.8, or 90.3 Gy. The locoregional control and survival rates were similar among the various dose levels. We investigated the effect of the gross tumor volume (GTV) on the outcome. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The GTV was defined as the sum of the volumes of the primary tumor and involved lymph nodes. The tumor response, median survival time (MST), and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed separately for smaller (< or =45 cm(3)) vs. larger (>45 cm(3)) tumors. RESULTS: The distribution of the GTV was as follows: < or =45 cm(3) in 79 (49%) and >45 cm(3) in 82 (51%) of 161 patients. The median GTV was 47.3 cm(3). N0 status and female gender were associated with better tumor responses. Patients with smaller (< or =45 cm(3)) tumors achieved a longer MST and better PFS than did patients with larger (>45 cm(3)) tumors (29.7 vs. 13.3 months, p < 0.0001; and 15.8 vs. 8.3 months, p < 0.0001, respectively). Increasing the radiation dose had no effect on the MST or PFS. On multivariate analysis, only a smaller GTV was a significant prognostic factor for improved MST and PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.12, p = 0.0002; and HR, 2.0, p = 0.0002, respectively). The GTV as a continuous variable was also significantly associated with the MST and PFS (HR, 1.59, p < 0.0001; and HR, 1.39, p < 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation dose escalation up to 90.3 Gy did not result in improved MST or PFS. The tumor responses were greater in node-negative patients and women. An increasing GTV was strongly associated with decreased MST and PFS. Future radiotherapy trials patients might need to use stratification by tumor volume.
Authors: Mark A Sonnick; Federica Oro; Bernice Yan; Anish Desai; Abraham J Wu; Weiji Shi; Zhigang Zhang; Daphna Y Gelblum; Paul K Paik; Ellen D Yorke; Kenneth E Rosenzweig; Jamie E Chaft; Andreas Rimner Journal: Clin Lung Cancer Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Nitin Ohri; Fenghai Duan; Mitchell Machtay; Jeremy J Gorelick; Bradley S Snyder; Abass Alavi; Barry A Siegel; Douglas W Johnson; Jeffrey D Bradley; Albert DeNittis; Maria Werner-Wasik Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-02-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ellen X Huang; Jeffrey D Bradley; Issam El Naqa; Andrew J Hope; Patricia E Lindsay; Walter R Bosch; John W Matthews; William T Sause; Mary V Graham; Joseph O Deasy Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-06-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jose G Bazan; Fenghai Duan; Bradley S Snyder; Dunstan Horng; Edward E Graves; Barry A Siegel; Mitchell Machtay; Billy W Loo Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-09-19 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Jose Luis Lopez Guerra; Daniel Gomez; Yan Zhuang; David S Hong; John V Heymach; Stephen G Swisher; Steven H Lin; Ritsuko Komaki; James D Cox; Zhongxing Liao Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 7.038