Steven E Schild1, Wen Fan2, Thomas E Stinchcombe3, Everett E Vokes4, Suresh S Ramalingam5, Jeffrey D Bradley6, Karen Kelly7, Herbert H Pang8, Xiaofei Wang9. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona. Electronic address: sschild@mayo.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, North Carolina. 4. University of Chicago, Department of Medicine and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 6. Washington University, Radiation Oncology, St. Louis, Missouri. 7. University of California, Medical Oncology, Davis, California. 8. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina; School of Public Health, HKU Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, Hong Kong Special Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China. 9. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina; Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) was the standard treatment for locally advanced NSCLC (LA-NSCLC). This study was performed to examine thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) parameters and their impact on adverse events (AEs). METHODS: We collected individual patient data from 3600 patients with LA-NSCLC who participated in 16 cooperative group trials of concurrent CRT. The TRT parameters examined included field design strategy (elective nodal irradiation [ENI] versus involved-field [IF] TRT [IF-TRT]) and TRT dose (60 Gy versus ≥60 Gy). The primary end point of this analysis was the occurrence of AEs. ORs for AEs were calculated with univariable and multivariable logistic models. RESULTS: TRT doses ranged from 60 to 74 Gy. ENI was not associated with more grade 3 or higher AEs than IF-TRT was (multivariable OR = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.543-1.102, p = 0.1545). Doses higher than 60 Gy (high-dose TRT) were associated with significantly more grade 3 or higher AEs (multivariable OR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.501-2.203, p < 0.0001). In contrast, ENI was associated with significantly more grade 4 or higher AEs (multivariable OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.035-1.709, p = 0.0258). Doses higher than 60 Gy were also associated with more grade 4 or higher AEs (multivariate OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.191-1.700, p = 0.0001). Grade 5 AEs plus treatment-related deaths were more frequent with higher-dose TRT (p = 0.0012) but not ENI (p = 0.099). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with LA-NSCLC treated with concurrent CRT, IF-TRT was not associated with the overall risk of grade 3 or higher AEs but was associated with significantly fewer grade 4 or higher AEs than ENI TRT. This is likely the result of irradiation of a lesser amount of adjacent critical normal tissue. Higher TRT doses were associated significantly with grade 3 or higher and grade 4 or higher AEs. On the basis of these findings and our prior report on survival, CRT using IF-TRT and 60 Gy (conventionally fractionated) were associated with more favorable patient survival and less toxicity than was the use of ENI or higher radiotherapy doses.
OBJECTIVE: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) was the standard treatment for locally advanced NSCLC (LA-NSCLC). This study was performed to examine thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) parameters and their impact on adverse events (AEs). METHODS: We collected individual patient data from 3600 patients with LA-NSCLC who participated in 16 cooperative group trials of concurrent CRT. The TRT parameters examined included field design strategy (elective nodal irradiation [ENI] versus involved-field [IF] TRT [IF-TRT]) and TRT dose (60 Gy versus ≥60 Gy). The primary end point of this analysis was the occurrence of AEs. ORs for AEs were calculated with univariable and multivariable logistic models. RESULTS: TRT doses ranged from 60 to 74 Gy. ENI was not associated with more grade 3 or higher AEs than IF-TRT was (multivariable OR = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.543-1.102, p = 0.1545). Doses higher than 60 Gy (high-dose TRT) were associated with significantly more grade 3 or higher AEs (multivariable OR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.501-2.203, p < 0.0001). In contrast, ENI was associated with significantly more grade 4 or higher AEs (multivariable OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.035-1.709, p = 0.0258). Doses higher than 60 Gy were also associated with more grade 4 or higher AEs (multivariate OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.191-1.700, p = 0.0001). Grade 5 AEs plus treatment-related deaths were more frequent with higher-dose TRT (p = 0.0012) but not ENI (p = 0.099). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with LA-NSCLC treated with concurrent CRT, IF-TRT was not associated with the overall risk of grade 3 or higher AEs but was associated with significantly fewer grade 4 or higher AEs than ENI TRT. This is likely the result of irradiation of a lesser amount of adjacent critical normal tissue. Higher TRT doses were associated significantly with grade 3 or higher and grade 4 or higher AEs. On the basis of these findings and our prior report on survival, CRT using IF-TRT and 60 Gy (conventionally fractionated) were associated with more favorable patient survival and less toxicity than was the use of ENI or higher radiotherapy doses.
Authors: Christina K Speirs; Todd A DeWees; Sana Rehman; Alerson Molotievschi; Maria A Velez; Daniel Mullen; Sandra Fergus; Marco Trovo; Jeffrey D Bradley; Cliff G Robinson Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2016-10-12 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Zhongxing Liao; J Jack Lee; Ritsuko Komaki; Daniel R Gomez; Michael S O'Reilly; Frank V Fossella; George R Blumenschein; John V Heymach; Ara A Vaporciyan; Stephen G Swisher; Pamela K Allen; Noah Chan Choi; Thomas F DeLaney; Stephen M Hahn; James D Cox; Charles S Lu; Radhe Mohan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-01-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Samir Sejpal; Ritsuko Komaki; Anne Tsao; Joe Y Chang; Zhongxing Liao; Xiong Wei; Pamela K Allen; Charles Lu; Michael Gillin; James D Cox Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-01-24 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Steven E Schild; Herbert H Pang; Wen Fan; Thomas E Stinchcombe; Everett E Vokes; Suresh S Ramalingam; Jeffrey D Bradley; Karen Kelly; Xiaofei Wang Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2018-04-22 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Stephen G Chun; Chen Hu; Hak Choy; Ritsuko U Komaki; Robert D Timmerman; Steven E Schild; Jeffrey A Bogart; Michael C Dobelbower; Walter Bosch; James M Galvin; Vivek S Kavadi; Samir Narayan; Puneeth Iyengar; Clifford G Robinson; Raymond B Wynn; Adam Raben; Mark E Augspurger; Robert M MacRae; Rebecca Paulus; Jeffrey D Bradley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Audrey Mauguen; Cécile Le Péchoux; Michele I Saunders; Steven E Schild; Andrew T Turrisi; Michael Baumann; William T Sause; David Ball; Chandra P Belani; James A Bonner; Aleksander Zajusz; Suzanne E Dahlberg; Matthew Nankivell; Sumithra J Mandrekar; Rebecca Paulus; Katarzyna Behrendt; Rainer Koch; James F Bishop; Stanley Dische; Rodrigo Arriagada; Dirk De Ruysscher; Jean-Pierre Pignon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-07-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kyle Wang; Michael J Eblan; Allison M Deal; Matthew Lipner; Timothy M Zagar; Yue Wang; Panayiotis Mavroidis; Carrie B Lee; Brian C Jensen; Julian G Rosenman; Mark A Socinski; Thomas E Stinchcombe; Lawrence B Marks Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-01-23 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Areo G Saffarzadeh; Maureen Canavan; Benjamin J Resio; Samantha L Walters; Kaitlin M Flores; Roy H Decker; Daniel J Boffa Journal: JTO Clin Res Rep Date: 2021-06-24
Authors: Matthias Mäurer; Lukas Käsmann; Daniel F Fleischmann; Michael Oertel; Danny Jazmati; Daniel Medenwald Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 3.481