OBJECTIVES:Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a technique used to deliver high, ablative doses of radiation in a limited number of fractions to ≥1 extracranial target(s). Although recent studies have shown that SBRT provides effective local tumor control in medically inoperable early-stage lung cancer patients, its implementation in clinical practice is unknown. METHODS: A random sample of 1600 American radiation oncologists was surveyed regarding lung SBRT usage, including year adopted, most common prescription, respiratory motion management, and target localization. A biological equivalent dose (BED) was calculated using the linear quadratic model with α/β=10. Spearman rank correlation coefficients (r(s)) were calculated to identify factors associated with BED. RESULTS: Of 1373 contactable physicians, 551 responses (40%) were received. Of 510 evaluable responses, 275 physicians (54%) reported using lung SBRT, over half of whom adopted it in 2008 or later. The most commonly reported prescriptions were 20 Gy×3 (22%), 18 Gy×3 (21%), and 12 Gy×4 (17%). Three fraction regimens were most common (48%), with nearly all (89%) prescribing ≥18 Gy/fraction. The median BED was 132 Gy, with 95% of reported prescriptions having BED≥100 Gy. Factors associated with increased BED included use of fiducial markers (r(s)=0.26, P<0.001), use of planar imaging (r(s)=0.18, P<0.01), and years of experience with lung SBRT (r(s)=0.13, P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Lung SBRT has rapidly become a widely adopted treatment approach in the United States with a range of varying implementations. Further research and additional prospective trials are necessary to optimize this novel approach.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a technique used to deliver high, ablative doses of radiation in a limited number of fractions to ≥1 extracranial target(s). Although recent studies have shown that SBRT provides effective local tumor control in medically inoperable early-stage lung cancerpatients, its implementation in clinical practice is unknown. METHODS: A random sample of 1600 American radiation oncologists was surveyed regarding lung SBRT usage, including year adopted, most common prescription, respiratory motion management, and target localization. A biological equivalent dose (BED) was calculated using the linear quadratic model with α/β=10. Spearman rank correlation coefficients (r(s)) were calculated to identify factors associated with BED. RESULTS: Of 1373 contactable physicians, 551 responses (40%) were received. Of 510 evaluable responses, 275 physicians (54%) reported using lung SBRT, over half of whom adopted it in 2008 or later. The most commonly reported prescriptions were 20 Gy×3 (22%), 18 Gy×3 (21%), and 12 Gy×4 (17%). Three fraction regimens were most common (48%), with nearly all (89%) prescribing ≥18 Gy/fraction. The median BED was 132 Gy, with 95% of reported prescriptions having BED≥100 Gy. Factors associated with increased BED included use of fiducial markers (r(s)=0.26, P<0.001), use of planar imaging (r(s)=0.18, P<0.01), and years of experience with lung SBRT (r(s)=0.13, P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Lung SBRT has rapidly become a widely adopted treatment approach in the United States with a range of varying implementations. Further research and additional prospective trials are necessary to optimize this novel approach.
Authors: Bernd Gagel; Cengiz Demirel; Aline Kientopf; Michael Pinkawa; Marc Piroth; Sven Stanzel; Christian Breuer; Branka Asadpour; Thomas Jansen; Richard Holy; Joachim E Wildberger; Michael J Eble Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-12-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Y Negoro; Y Nagata; T Aoki; T Mizowaki; N Araki; K Takayama; M Kokubo; S Yano; S Koga; K Sasai; Y Shibamoto; M Hiraoka Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Paul J Keall; Gig S Mageras; James M Balter; Richard S Emery; Kenneth M Forster; Steve B Jiang; Jeffrey M Kapatoes; Daniel A Low; Martin J Murphy; Brad R Murray; Chester R Ramsey; Marcel B Van Herk; S Sastry Vedam; John W Wong; Ellen Yorke Journal: Med Phys Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: René W M Underberg; Frank J Lagerwaard; Johan P Cuijpers; Ben J Slotman; John R van Sörnsen de Koste; Suresh Senan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Morgan L Cox; Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang; Paul J Speicher; Kevin L Anderson; Zachary W Fitch; Lin Gu; Robert Patrick Davis; Xiaofei Wang; Thomas A D'Amico; Matthew G Hartwig; David H Harpole; Mark F Berry Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2017-01-08 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Robert D Timmerman; Chen Hu; Jeff M Michalski; Jeffrey C Bradley; James Galvin; David W Johnstone; Hak Choy Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Shannon M Nugent; Sara E Golden; Charles R Thomas; Mark E Deffebach; Mithran S Sukumar; Paul H Schipper; Brandon H Tieu; Drew Moghanaki; Juan Wisnivesky; Christopher Slatore Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Rhami Khorfan; Timothy J Kruser; Julia M Coughlin; Ankit Bharat; Karl Y Bilimoria; David D Odell Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: George D Bablekos; Antonis Analitis; Stylianos A Michaelides; Konstantinos A Charalabopoulos; Anastasia Tzonou Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2016-06
Authors: Dawn Owen; Kenneth R Olivier; Charles S Mayo; Robert C Miller; Kathryn Nelson; Heather Bauer; Paul D Brown; Sean S Park; Daniel J Ma; Yolanda I Garces Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-02-18 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Evan M Thomas; Richard A Popple; Brendan M Prendergast; Grant M Clark; Michael C Dobelbower; John B Fiveash Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2013-11-04 Impact factor: 2.102