PURPOSE: This study was designed to review outcomes of once- (QD) versus twice-daily (BID) radiotherapy (RT) for limited stage small-cell lung cancer (L-SCLC) treated at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women's Hospital. METHODS: We reviewed records for all patients with L-SCLC treated with radical chemoradiotherapy at our institution between January 2005 and December 2010. Differences in patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were assessed by Student's t test and Fisher exact test. Outcomes were compared using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Twenty patients received QD RT to a median dose of 61.2 Gy, and 26 patients received BID RT to a dose of 45 Gy. Median follow-up was 2.8 years. Overall survival (OS) was similar in both groups. 5-year locoregional control (LC) for all patients was 67 %: 80 % for the QD group and 57 % for the BID group (log-rank, P = 0.16). Grade 2 or higher dermatitis and pneumonitis were significantly higher in the QD group (15 vs. 0 %, P = 0.0014 and 13 vs. 4 %, P = 0.048, respectively), whereas Grade 2 or higher esophagitis trended higher in the BID group (44 vs. 24 %, P = 0.076). CONCLUSIONS: Although there were no differences in OS with QD versus BID RT, there was a trend toward increased LC in the QD group. Dermatitis and pneumonitis were more common for QD RT, and esophagitis was somewhat more common for BID RT. Possible differences in toxicities depending on RT regimen may be worth further investigation, until results from CALGB 30610 become available.
PURPOSE: This study was designed to review outcomes of once- (QD) versus twice-daily (BID) radiotherapy (RT) for limited stage small-cell lung cancer (L-SCLC) treated at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women's Hospital. METHODS: We reviewed records for all patients with L-SCLC treated with radical chemoradiotherapy at our institution between January 2005 and December 2010. Differences in patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were assessed by Student's t test and Fisher exact test. Outcomes were compared using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Twenty patients received QD RT to a median dose of 61.2 Gy, and 26 patients received BID RT to a dose of 45 Gy. Median follow-up was 2.8 years. Overall survival (OS) was similar in both groups. 5-year locoregional control (LC) for all patients was 67 %: 80 % for the QD group and 57 % for the BID group (log-rank, P = 0.16). Grade 2 or higher dermatitis and pneumonitis were significantly higher in the QD group (15 vs. 0 %, P = 0.0014 and 13 vs. 4 %, P = 0.048, respectively), whereas Grade 2 or higher esophagitis trended higher in the BID group (44 vs. 24 %, P = 0.076). CONCLUSIONS: Although there were no differences in OS with QD versus BID RT, there was a trend toward increased LC in the QD group. Dermatitis and pneumonitis were more common for QD RT, and esophagitis was somewhat more common for BID RT. Possible differences in toxicities depending on RT regimen may be worth further investigation, until results from CALGB 30610 become available.
Authors: J P Pignon; R Arriagada; D C Ihde; D H Johnson; M C Perry; R L Souhami; O Brodin; R A Joss; M S Kies; B Lebeau Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1992-12-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeffrey A Bogart; James E Herndon; Alan P Lyss; Dorothy Watson; Antonius A Miller; Michael E Lee; Andrew T Turrisi; Mark R Green Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: N C Choi; J E Herndon; J Rosenman; R W Carey; C T Chung; S Bernard; L Leone; S Seagren; M Green Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A T Turrisi; K Kim; R Blum; W T Sause; R B Livingston; R Komaki; H Wagner; S Aisner; D H Johnson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-01-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mitchell Machtay; Kyounghwa Bae; Benjamin Movsas; Rebecca Paulus; Elizabeth M Gore; Ritsuko Komaki; Kathy Albain; William T Sause; Walter J Curran Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-10-25 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ramaswamy Govindan; Nathan Page; Daniel Morgensztern; William Read; Ryan Tierney; Anna Vlahiotis; Edward L Spitznagel; Jay Piccirillo Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Audrey Mauguen; Cécile Le Péchoux; Michele I Saunders; Steven E Schild; Andrew T Turrisi; Michael Baumann; William T Sause; David Ball; Chandra P Belani; James A Bonner; Aleksander Zajusz; Suzanne E Dahlberg; Matthew Nankivell; Sumithra J Mandrekar; Rebecca Paulus; Katarzyna Behrendt; Rainer Koch; James F Bishop; Stanley Dische; Rodrigo Arriagada; Dirk De Ruysscher; Jean-Pierre Pignon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-07-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Amir Zahra; Tangel Chang; Taher Abu Hejleh; Muhammad Furqan; Gerald H Clamon; Sudershan K Bhatia; John M Watkins; Sarah L Mott; Logan L Ahmann; Kellie L Bodeker; Douglas R Spitz; John M Buatti; Bryan G Allen Journal: J Oncol Transl Res Date: 2016-07-26
Authors: John M Watkins; J Kyle Russo; Nicholas Andresen; Coyt R Rountree; Amir Zahra; Sarah L Mott; Daniel J Herr; Jacy O'Keefe; Bryan G Allen; Anand K Sharma; John M Buatti Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2020-04-27