OBJECTIVES: To determine if lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) using a coplanar beam technique was associated with similar outcomes as lung SBRT using a non-coplanar beam technique. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patients undergoing lung SBRT between January 2008 and April 2011. SBRT was initially delivered with multiple non-coplanar, non-overlapping beams; however, starting in December 2009, SBRT was delivered predominantly with all coplanar beams in order to reduce treatment time and complexity. RESULTS: This analysis included 149 patients; the median follow-up was 21 months. SBRT was delivered for primary (n = 90) or recurrent (n = 17) non-small cell lung cancer, or lung oligometastasis (n = 42). The most common dose (Gy)/fraction (fx) regimens were 48 Gy/4 fx (39%), 54 Gy/3 fx (37%), and 50 Gy/5 fx (17%). The beam arrangement was coplanar in 61 patients (41%) and non-coplanar in 88 patients (59%). In patients treated with 54 Gy/3 fx, the mean treatment times per fraction for the coplanar and non-coplanar cohorts were 10 and 14 minutes (p < 0.0001). Kaplan-Meier 2-year estimates of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, and local control (LC) for the coplanar and non-coplanar cohorts were 65% vs. 56% (p = 0.30), 47% vs. 39% (p = 0.71), and 92% and 92% (p = 0.94), respectively. The 1-year estimates of grade 2-5 pulmonary toxicity for the coplanar and non-coplanar cohorts were 11% and 17%, respectively (p = 0.30). On multivariate analysis, beam arrangement was not significantly associated with OS, LC or pulmonary toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with lung SBRT using a coplanar technique had similar outcomes as those treated with a non-coplanar technique.
OBJECTIVES: To determine if lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) using a coplanar beam technique was associated with similar outcomes as lung SBRT using a non-coplanar beam technique. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patients undergoing lung SBRT between January 2008 and April 2011. SBRT was initially delivered with multiple non-coplanar, non-overlapping beams; however, starting in December 2009, SBRT was delivered predominantly with all coplanar beams in order to reduce treatment time and complexity. RESULTS: This analysis included 149 patients; the median follow-up was 21 months. SBRT was delivered for primary (n = 90) or recurrent (n = 17) non-small cell lung cancer, or lung oligometastasis (n = 42). The most common dose (Gy)/fraction (fx) regimens were 48 Gy/4 fx (39%), 54 Gy/3 fx (37%), and 50 Gy/5 fx (17%). The beam arrangement was coplanar in 61 patients (41%) and non-coplanar in 88 patients (59%). In patients treated with 54 Gy/3 fx, the mean treatment times per fraction for the coplanar and non-coplanar cohorts were 10 and 14 minutes (p < 0.0001). Kaplan-Meier 2-year estimates of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, and local control (LC) for the coplanar and non-coplanar cohorts were 65% vs. 56% (p = 0.30), 47% vs. 39% (p = 0.71), and 92% and 92% (p = 0.94), respectively. The 1-year estimates of grade 2-5 pulmonary toxicity for the coplanar and non-coplanar cohorts were 11% and 17%, respectively (p = 0.30). On multivariate analysis, beam arrangement was not significantly associated with OS, LC or pulmonary toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with lung SBRT using a coplanar technique had similar outcomes as those treated with a non-coplanar technique.
Entities:
Keywords:
4DCT; local control; lung metastases; non-small cell lung cancer; radiation pneumonitis; stereotactic body radiotherapy
Authors: Robert Timmerman; Rebecca Paulus; James Galvin; Jeffrey Michalski; William Straube; Jeffrey Bradley; Achilles Fakiris; Andrea Bezjak; Gregory Videtic; David Johnstone; Jack Fowler; Elizabeth Gore; Hak Choy Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David A Palma; Suresh Senan; Cornelis J A Haasbeek; Wilko F A R Verbakel; Andrew Vincent; Frank Lagerwaard Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-06-26 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Chin Loon Ong; Wilko F A R Verbakel; Johan P Cuijpers; Ben J Slotman; Frank J Lagerwaard; Suresh Senan Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2010-11-11 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: O Kenneth Macdonald; Jon J Kruse; Janelle M Miller; Yolanda I Garces; Paul D Brown; Robert C Miller; Robert L Foote Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
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