Diane C Ling1, Clayton B Hess1, Allen M Chen2, Megan E Daly3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA. Electronic address: medaly@ucdavis.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in reducing treatment-related toxicity for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains incompletely defined. We compared acute toxicity and oncologic outcomes in a large cohort of patients treated with IMRT or 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3-DCRT), with or without elective nodal irradiation (ENI). METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review was performed evaluating 145 consecutive patients with histologically confirmed stage III NSCLC treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. Sixty-five (44.8%) were treated with 3-DCRT using ENI, 43 (30.0%) with 3-DCRT using involved-field radiotherapy (IFRT), and 37 (25.5%) with IMRT using IFRT. All patients received concurrent chemotherapy. Comparison of acute toxicities by treatment technique (IMRT vs. 3-DCRT) and extent of nodal irradiation (3-DCRT-IFRT vs. 3-DCRT-ENI) was performed for grade 2 or higher esophagitis or pneumonitis, number of acute hospitalizations, incidence of opioid requirement, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy utilization, and percentage weight loss during treatment. Local control and overall survival were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: We identified no significant differences in any measures of acute toxicity by treatment technique or extent of nodal irradiation. There was a trend toward lower rates of grade 2 or higher pneumonitis among IMRT patients compared to 3-DCRT patients (5.4% vs. 23.0%; P = .065). Local control and overall survival were similar between cohorts. CONCLUSION: Acute and subacute toxicities were similar for patients treated with IMRT and with 3-DCRT with or without ENI, with a nonsignificant trend toward a reduction in pneumonitis with IMRT. Larger studies are needed to better define which patients will benefit from IMRT.
BACKGROUND: The role of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in reducing treatment-related toxicity for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains incompletely defined. We compared acute toxicity and oncologic outcomes in a large cohort of patients treated with IMRT or 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3-DCRT), with or without elective nodal irradiation (ENI). METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review was performed evaluating 145 consecutive patients with histologically confirmed stage III NSCLC treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. Sixty-five (44.8%) were treated with 3-DCRT using ENI, 43 (30.0%) with 3-DCRT using involved-field radiotherapy (IFRT), and 37 (25.5%) with IMRT using IFRT. All patients received concurrent chemotherapy. Comparison of acute toxicities by treatment technique (IMRT vs. 3-DCRT) and extent of nodal irradiation (3-DCRT-IFRT vs. 3-DCRT-ENI) was performed for grade 2 or higher esophagitis or pneumonitis, number of acute hospitalizations, incidence of opioid requirement, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy utilization, and percentage weight loss during treatment. Local control and overall survival were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: We identified no significant differences in any measures of acute toxicity by treatment technique or extent of nodal irradiation. There was a trend toward lower rates of grade 2 or higher pneumonitis among IMRT patients compared to 3-DCRTpatients (5.4% vs. 23.0%; P = .065). Local control and overall survival were similar between cohorts. CONCLUSION: Acute and subacute toxicities were similar for patients treated with IMRT and with 3-DCRT with or without ENI, with a nonsignificant trend toward a reduction in pneumonitis with IMRT. Larger studies are needed to better define which patients will benefit from IMRT.
Authors: Steve B Jiang; Cynthia Pope; Khaled M Al Jarrah; Jong H Kung; Thomas Bortfeld; George T Y Chen Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2003-06-21 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Shervin M Shirvani; Jing Jiang; Daniel R Gomez; Joe Y Chang; Thomas A Buchholz; Benjamin D Smith Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2013-08-21 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Jeffrey D Bradley; Rebecca Paulus; Ritsuko Komaki; Gregory Masters; George Blumenschein; Steven Schild; Jeffrey Bogart; Chen Hu; Kenneth Forster; Anthony Magliocco; Vivek Kavadi; Yolanda I Garces; Samir Narayan; Puneeth Iyengar; Cliff Robinson; Raymond B Wynn; Christopher Koprowski; Joanne Meng; Jonathan Beitler; Rakesh Gaur; Walter Curran; Hak Choy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-01-16 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: H Helen Liu; Xiaochun Wang; Lei Dong; Qiuwen Wu; Zhongxing Liao; Craig W Stevens; Thomas M Guerrero; Ritsuko Komaki; James D Cox; Radhe Mohan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jeremy P Harris; James D Murphy; Alexandra L Hanlon; Quynh-Thu Le; Billy W Loo; Maximilian Diehn Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Shervin M Shirvani; Aditya Juloori; Pamela K Allen; Ritsuko Komaki; Zhongxing Liao; Daniel Gomez; Michael O'Reilly; James Welsh; Vassiliki Papadimitrakopoulou; James D Cox; Joe Y Chang Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Inga S Grills; Di Yan; Alvaro A Martinez; Frank A Vicini; John W Wong; Larry L Kestin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038