PURPOSE: To assess the clinical results in terms of local control, toxicity, failure pattern and toxicity of SBRT in oligometastatic patients with inoperable lung metastases. METHODS: Forty-four patients were treated (53 metastases). Dose regimen: 5 × 12 Gy (66 %), 8 × 7.5 Gy (20.8 %) and 10 × 5 Gy (13.2 %). Response was assessed using PET/CT at 6 months after SBRT. RESULTS: Local control at 1 and 2 years was 86.7 %. Seventy-five percent of local failures had received a BED <105 Gy. After a median follow-up of 13.3 months, 25 % experienced distant progression. Overall survival at 1 and 2 years was 86.7 and 60.4 %, and cancer-specific survival was 95.3 and 75.2 %, respectively. Grade 2 toxicity was 6.8 %. There was no grade 3-4 toxicity. CONCLUSION: SBRT is effective and safe. The main failure pattern is distant progression. The selection of patients with a high probability of remaining oligometastatic is crucial for the efficiency of SBRT, both clinically and in terms of resources.
PURPOSE: To assess the clinical results in terms of local control, toxicity, failure pattern and toxicity of SBRT in oligometastatic patients with inoperable lung metastases. METHODS: Forty-four patients were treated (53 metastases). Dose regimen: 5 × 12 Gy (66 %), 8 × 7.5 Gy (20.8 %) and 10 × 5 Gy (13.2 %). Response was assessed using PET/CT at 6 months after SBRT. RESULTS: Local control at 1 and 2 years was 86.7 %. Seventy-five percent of local failures had received a BED <105 Gy. After a median follow-up of 13.3 months, 25 % experienced distant progression. Overall survival at 1 and 2 years was 86.7 and 60.4 %, and cancer-specific survival was 95.3 and 75.2 %, respectively. Grade 2 toxicity was 6.8 %. There was no grade 3-4 toxicity. CONCLUSION: SBRT is effective and safe. The main failure pattern is distant progression. The selection of patients with a high probability of remaining oligometastatic is crucial for the efficiency of SBRT, both clinically and in terms of resources.
Authors: Mark K Buyyounouski; Peter Balter; Brett Lewis; David J D'Ambrosio; Thomas J Dilling; Robert C Miller; Tracey Schefter; Wolfgang Tomé; Eleanor E R Harris; Robert A Price; Andre A Konski; Paul E Wallner Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-07-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: U Pastorino; M Buyse; G Friedel; R J Ginsberg; P Girard; P Goldstraw; M Johnston; P McCormack; H Pass; J B Putnam Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 1997-01 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Kyle E Rusthoven; Brian D Kavanagh; Stuart H Burri; Changhu Chen; Higinia Cardenes; Mark A Chidel; Thomas J Pugh; Madeleine Kane; Laurie E Gaspar; Tracey E Schefter Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Abhishek A Solanki; Ralph R Weichselbaum; Daniel Appelbaum; Karl Farrey; Kamil M Yenice; Steven J Chmura; Joseph K Salama Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-12-18 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Kerstin A Kessel; Rebekka C E Grosser; Kim Melanie Kraus; Hans Hoffmann; Markus Oechsner; Stephanie E Combs Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Michelle B Rokni; Kelli B Pointer; Jonathan George; Jason J Luke; Steven J Chmura; Gage Redler Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 2.102