Sung Jun Ma1, Lucas M Serra1, Yusef A Syed1, Gregory M Hermann1, Jorge A Gomez-Suescun1, Anurag K Singh2. 1. Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, NY; Department of Radiation Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY. 2. Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, NY; Department of Radiation Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY. Electronic address: Anurag.Singh@RoswellPark.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare the clinical outcomes of patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had undergone either single-fraction (SF) or three-fraction (TF) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) at a single institution during over 8-year period. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with peripherally located early-stage NSCLC who had undergone SBRT from February 2007 to November 2015 were included in the present study. SBRT was delivered without heterogeneity correction. Data were retrospectively reviewed and collected in an institutional review board-approved database. R software (version 3.3.2) was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Of 159 total lung tumors, 65 lesions received 30 Gy (median, 30 Gy) in 1 fraction, and 94 lesions received 48 to 60 Gy (median, 60 Gy) in 3 fractions. Patients with a Karnofsky performance status < 80 were more common in the SF-SBRT cohort (P = .050). After a median follow-up of 22.2 and 26.2 months for the SF-SBRT and TF-SBRT cohorts, respectively (P = .29), no statistically significant difference was found in overall survival (P = .86), progression-free survival (P = .95), local failure (P = .95), nodal failure (P = .91), and distant failure (P = .49) at 24 months. At 1 and 2 years, the overall survival rates were 86.1% and 63.2% for the SF-SBRT cohort and 80.8% and 61.6% for the TF-SBRT cohort, respectively. At 1 and 2 years, the local control rates were 95.1% and 87.8% for the SF-SBRT cohort and 92.7% and 86.2% for the TF-SBRT cohort, respectively. Both regimens were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Despite more patients with poor performance status in the SF-SBRT cohort, the SF- and TF-SBRT regimens showed no differences in clinical outcomes. SF-SBRT is now our standard approach.
BACKGROUND: To compare the clinical outcomes of patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had undergone either single-fraction (SF) or three-fraction (TF) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) at a single institution during over 8-year period. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with peripherally located early-stage NSCLC who had undergone SBRT from February 2007 to November 2015 were included in the present study. SBRT was delivered without heterogeneity correction. Data were retrospectively reviewed and collected in an institutional review board-approved database. R software (version 3.3.2) was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Of 159 total lung tumors, 65 lesions received 30 Gy (median, 30 Gy) in 1 fraction, and 94 lesions received 48 to 60 Gy (median, 60 Gy) in 3 fractions. Patients with a Karnofsky performance status < 80 were more common in the SF-SBRT cohort (P = .050). After a median follow-up of 22.2 and 26.2 months for the SF-SBRT and TF-SBRT cohorts, respectively (P = .29), no statistically significant difference was found in overall survival (P = .86), progression-free survival (P = .95), local failure (P = .95), nodal failure (P = .91), and distant failure (P = .49) at 24 months. At 1 and 2 years, the overall survival rates were 86.1% and 63.2% for the SF-SBRT cohort and 80.8% and 61.6% for the TF-SBRT cohort, respectively. At 1 and 2 years, the local control rates were 95.1% and 87.8% for the SF-SBRT cohort and 92.7% and 86.2% for the TF-SBRT cohort, respectively. Both regimens were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Despite more patients with poor performance status in the SF-SBRT cohort, the SF- and TF-SBRT regimens showed no differences in clinical outcomes. SF-SBRT is now our standard approach.
Authors: Gregory M Videtic; Rebecca Paulus; Anurag K Singh; Joe Y Chang; William Parker; Kenneth R Olivier; Robert D Timmerman; Ritsuko R Komaki; James J Urbanic; Kevin L Stephans; Sue S Yom; Clifford G Robinson; Chandra P Belani; Puneeth Iyengar; Munther I Ajlouni; Darindra D Gopaul; Jorge B Gomez Suescun; Ronald C McGarry; Hak Choy; Jeffrey D Bradley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Anurag K Singh; Jorge A Gomez-Suescun; Kevin L Stephans; Jeffrey A Bogart; Gregory M Hermann; Lili Tian; Adrienne Groman; Gregory M Videtic Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: F Alongi; L Nicosia; V Figlia; V De Sanctis; R Mazzola; N Giaj-Levra; C Reverberi; M Valeriani; M F Osti Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2021-04-10 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Mark K Farrugia; Sung Jun Ma; Mark W Hennon; Chukwumere E Nwogu; Elisabeth U Dexter; Anthony L Picone; Todd L Demmy; Jorge A Gomez-Suescun; Simon Fung-Kee-Fung; Sai S Yendamuri; Anurag K Singh Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Anurag K Singh; Mark Hennon; Sung Jun Ma; Todd L Demmy; Anthony Picone; Elizabeth U Dexter; Chumy Nwogu; Kristopher Attwood; Wei Tan; Gregory M Hermann; Simon Fung-Kee-Fung; Harish K Malhotra; Sai Yendamuri; Jorge A Gomez-Suescun Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Damodar Pokhrel; Lana Sanford; Bhaswanth Dhanireddy; Janelle Molloy; Marcus Randall; Ronald C McGarry Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 2.102