Chonnipa Nantavithya1, Daniel R Gomez2, Xiong Wei2, Ritsuko Komaki2, Zhongxing Liao2, Steven H Lin2, Melenda Jeter2, Quynh-Nhu Nguyen2, Heng Li3, Xiaodong Zhang3, Falk Poenisch3, X Ronald Zhu3, Peter A Balter3, Lei Feng4, Noah C Choi5, Radhe Mohan3, Joe Y Chang6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Division of Therapeutic Radiation and Oncology, Department of Radiology, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 3. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: jychang@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the feasibility of conducting a randomized study to compare the toxicity and efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus stereotactic body proton therapy (SBPT) for high-risk, medically inoperable, early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with medically inoperable NSCLC with high-risk features (centrally located or <5 cm T3 tumor or isolated lung parenchymal recurrences) were randomly assigned to SBRT or SBPT. Radiation dose was 50 Gy(relative biological effectiveness [RBE]) in 4 12.5-Gy(RBE) fractions prescribed to the planning target volume. Stereotactic body radiation therapy was given using 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or intensity modulated radiation therapy, and SBPT was given using passive scattering. Consistency in patient setup was ensured with on-board cone beam computed tomography for the SBRT group and with orthogonal X rays for the SBPT group. RESULTS: The study closed early owing to poor accrual, largely because of insurance coverage and lack of volumetric imaging in the SBPT group. Ultimately, 21 patients were enrolled, and 19 patients who received 50 Gy in 4 fractions were included for analysis (9 SBRT, 10 SBPT). At a median follow-up time of 32 months, median overall survival time was 28 months in the SBRT group and not reached in the SBPT group. Three-year overall survival was 27.8% and 90%, 3-year local control was 87.5% (8 of 9) and 90.0% (9 of 10), and 3-year regional control was 47.6% (5 of 9) and 90% (9 of 10) in the SBRT and SBPT groups, respectively. One patient in the SBPT group developed grade 3 skin fibrosis. No patients experienced grade 4/5 toxicity. CONCLUSION: Poor accrual, due to lack of volumetric imaging and insurance coverage for proton therapy, led to early closure of the trial and precluded accurate assessment of efficacy and toxicity. Comparable maturity of 2 radiation therapy modalities, particularly on-board imaging, and better insurance coverage for SBPT should be considered for future studies.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To report the feasibility of conducting a randomized study to compare the toxicity and efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus stereotactic body proton therapy (SBPT) for high-risk, medically inoperable, early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with medically inoperable NSCLC with high-risk features (centrally located or <5 cm T3 tumor or isolated lung parenchymal recurrences) were randomly assigned to SBRT or SBPT. Radiation dose was 50 Gy(relative biological effectiveness [RBE]) in 4 12.5-Gy(RBE) fractions prescribed to the planning target volume. Stereotactic body radiation therapy was given using 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or intensity modulated radiation therapy, and SBPT was given using passive scattering. Consistency in patient setup was ensured with on-board cone beam computed tomography for the SBRT group and with orthogonal X rays for the SBPT group. RESULTS: The study closed early owing to poor accrual, largely because of insurance coverage and lack of volumetric imaging in the SBPT group. Ultimately, 21 patients were enrolled, and 19 patients who received 50 Gy in 4 fractions were included for analysis (9 SBRT, 10 SBPT). At a median follow-up time of 32 months, median overall survival time was 28 months in the SBRT group and not reached in the SBPT group. Three-year overall survival was 27.8% and 90%, 3-year local control was 87.5% (8 of 9) and 90.0% (9 of 10), and 3-year regional control was 47.6% (5 of 9) and 90% (9 of 10) in the SBRT and SBPT groups, respectively. One patient in the SBPT group developed grade 3 skin fibrosis. No patients experienced grade 4/5 toxicity. CONCLUSION: Poor accrual, due to lack of volumetric imaging and insurance coverage for proton therapy, led to early closure of the trial and precluded accurate assessment of efficacy and toxicity. Comparable maturity of 2 radiation therapy modalities, particularly on-board imaging, and better insurance coverage for SBPT should be considered for future studies.