Mark A Sonnick1, Federica Oro1, Bernice Yan1, Anish Desai1, Abraham J Wu1, Weiji Shi2, Zhigang Zhang2, Daphna Y Gelblum1, Paul K Paik3, Ellen D Yorke1, Kenneth E Rosenzweig4, Jamie E Chaft3, Andreas Rimner5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 3. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. Electronic address: rimnera@mskcc.org.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The optimal radiation dose for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not known for patients who receive sequential chemoradiation (CRT) or definitive radiotherapy (RT) only. Our objective was to determine whether a benefit exists for radiation dose escalation for these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patients included in our retrospective analysis had undergone RT for NSCLC from 2004 to 2013, had not undergone surgery, and received a dose ≥ 50.0 Gy. Patients who received concurrent CRT were excluded from the analysis, leaving 336 patients for analysis. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), local failure (LF), and distant failure (DF). RESULTS: On multivariate analysis, after adjusting for age, Karnofsky performance status, gross tumor volume, and treatment modality, patients treated with a radiation dose > 66 Gy had significantly improved OS compared with those treated with < 60 Gy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.87; P = .008). After adjusting for smoking history and radiologic tumor size, patients treated with a radiation dose > 66 Gy had a significantly decreased risk of LF compared with those treated with < 60 Gy (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.91; P = .02). The radiation dose was not an independent prognostic factor of DF on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: When controlling for tumor volume and/or dimensions and other independent prognostic factors, patients with locally advanced NSCLC who were not candidates for concurrent CRT benefited from a radiation dose > 66 Gy versus < 60 Gy with improved OS and reduced LF. An increased radiation dose did not appear to affect the incidence of DF.
INTRODUCTION: The optimal radiation dose for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not known for patients who receive sequential chemoradiation (CRT) or definitive radiotherapy (RT) only. Our objective was to determine whether a benefit exists for radiation dose escalation for these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patients included in our retrospective analysis had undergone RT for NSCLC from 2004 to 2013, had not undergone surgery, and received a dose ≥ 50.0 Gy. Patients who received concurrent CRT were excluded from the analysis, leaving 336 patients for analysis. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), local failure (LF), and distant failure (DF). RESULTS: On multivariate analysis, after adjusting for age, Karnofsky performance status, gross tumor volume, and treatment modality, patients treated with a radiation dose > 66 Gy had significantly improved OS compared with those treated with < 60 Gy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.87; P = .008). After adjusting for smoking history and radiologic tumor size, patients treated with a radiation dose > 66 Gy had a significantly decreased risk of LF compared with those treated with < 60 Gy (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.91; P = .02). The radiation dose was not an independent prognostic factor of DF on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: When controlling for tumor volume and/or dimensions and other independent prognostic factors, patients with locally advanced NSCLC who were not candidates for concurrent CRT benefited from a radiation dose > 66 Gy versus < 60 Gy with improved OS and reduced LF. An increased radiation dose did not appear to affect the incidence of DF.
Authors: Judi N A van Diessen; Chun Chen; Michel M van den Heuvel; José S A Belderbos; Jan-Jakob Sonke Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2016-02-15 Impact factor: 6.280
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: Jeffrey Bradley; Mary V Graham; Kathryn Winter; James A Purdy; Ritsuko Komaki; Wilson H Roa; Janice K Ryu; Walter Bosch; Bahman Emami Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: K Furuse; M Fukuoka; M Kawahara; H Nishikawa; Y Takada; S Kudoh; N Katagami; Y Ariyoshi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Feng-Ming Kong; Randall K Ten Haken; Matthew J Schipper; Molly A Sullivan; Ming Chen; Carlos Lopez; Gregory P Kalemkerian; James A Hayman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: W T Sause; C Scott; S Taylor; D Johnson; R Livingston; R Komaki; B Emami; W J Curran; R W Byhardt; A T Turrisi Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1995-02-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: D De Ruysscher; A Botterweck; M Dirx; M Pijls-Johannesma; R Wanders; M Hochstenbag; A-M C Dingemans; G Bootsma; W Geraedts; J Simons; C Pitz; P Lambin Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2008-08-20 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: M Thor; Jo Deasy; A Iyer; E Bendau; A Fontanella; A Apte; E Yorke; A Rimner; A Jackson Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2019-05-27 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Michelle Iocolano; Aaron T Wild; Margaret Hannum; Zhigang Zhang; Charles B Simone; Daphna Gelblum; Abraham J Wu; Andreas Rimner; Annemarie F Shepherd Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2019-10-12 Impact factor: 4.089