Percy Lee1, Billy W Loo2, Tithi Biswas3, George X Ding4, Issam M El Naqa5, Andrew Jackson6, Feng-Ming Kong7, Tamara LaCouture8, Moyed Miften9, Timothy Solberg10, Wolfgang A Tome11, An Tai12, Ellen Yorke6, X Allen Li12. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: percylee@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Jefferson Health New Jersey, Sewell, New Jersey. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, Colorado University School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 11. Department of Radiation Oncology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, New York. 12. Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Numerous dose and fractionation schedules have been used to treat medically inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or stereotactic ablative radiation therapy. We evaluated published experiences with SBRT to determine local control (LC) rates as a function of SBRT dose. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred sixty published articles reporting LC rates after SBRT for stage I NSCLC were identified. Quality of the series was assessed by evaluating the number of patients in the study, homogeneity of the dose regimen, length of follow-up time, and reporting of LC. Clinical data including 1, 2, 3, and 5-year tumor control probabilities for stages T1, T2, and combined T1 and T2 as a function of the biological effective dose were fitted to the linear quadratic, universal survival curve, and regrowth models. RESULTS: Forty-six studies met inclusion criteria. As measured by the goodness of fit χ2/ndf, with ndf as the number of degrees of freedom, none of the models were ideal fits for the data. Of the 3 models, the regrowth model provides the best fit to the clinical data. For the regrowth model, the fitting yielded an α-to-β ratio of approximately 25 Gy for T1 tumors, 19 Gy for T2 tumors, and 21 Gy for T1 and T2 combined. To achieve the maximal LC rate, the predicted physical dose schemes when prescribed at the periphery of the planning target volume are 43 ± 1 Gy in 3 fractions, 47 ± 1 Gy in 4 fractions, and 50 ± 1 Gy in 5 fractions for combined T1 and T2 tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Early-stage NSCLC is radioresponsive when treated with SBRT or stereotactic ablative radiation therapy. A steep dose-response relationship exists with high rates of durable LC when physical doses of 43-50 Gy are delivered in 3 to 5 fractions.
PURPOSE: Numerous dose and fractionation schedules have been used to treat medically inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or stereotactic ablative radiation therapy. We evaluated published experiences with SBRT to determine local control (LC) rates as a function of SBRT dose. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred sixty published articles reporting LC rates after SBRT for stage I NSCLC were identified. Quality of the series was assessed by evaluating the number of patients in the study, homogeneity of the dose regimen, length of follow-up time, and reporting of LC. Clinical data including 1, 2, 3, and 5-year tumor control probabilities for stages T1, T2, and combined T1 and T2 as a function of the biological effective dose were fitted to the linear quadratic, universal survival curve, and regrowth models. RESULTS: Forty-six studies met inclusion criteria. As measured by the goodness of fit χ2/ndf, with ndf as the number of degrees of freedom, none of the models were ideal fits for the data. Of the 3 models, the regrowth model provides the best fit to the clinical data. For the regrowth model, the fitting yielded an α-to-β ratio of approximately 25 Gy for T1 tumors, 19 Gy for T2 tumors, and 21 Gy for T1 and T2 combined. To achieve the maximal LC rate, the predicted physical dose schemes when prescribed at the periphery of the planning target volume are 43 ± 1 Gy in 3 fractions, 47 ± 1 Gy in 4 fractions, and 50 ± 1 Gy in 5 fractions for combined T1 and T2 tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Early-stage NSCLC is radioresponsive when treated with SBRT or stereotactic ablative radiation therapy. A steep dose-response relationship exists with high rates of durable LC when physical doses of 43-50 Gy are delivered in 3 to 5 fractions.
Authors: J A Hayman; M K Martel; R K Ten Haken; D P Normolle; R F Todd; J F Littles; M A Sullivan; P W Possert; A T Turrisi; A S Lichter Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sameer K Nath; Ajay P Sandhu; Daniel Kim; Anjali Bharne; Polly D Nobiensky; Joshua D Lawson; Mark Fuster; Lyudmila Bazhenova; William Y Song; Arno J Mundt Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Jonathan D Clapp; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: René W M Underberg; Frank J Lagerwaard; Ben J Slotman; Johan P Cuijpers; Suresh Senan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Omar M Salazar; Taljit S Sandhu; Paul B Lattin; Jung H Chang; Choon K Lee; Gayle A Groshko; Cheryl J Lattin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Joe Y Chang; Qiao-Qiao Li; Qing-Yong Xu; Pamela K Allen; Neal Rebueno; Daniel R Gomez; Peter Balter; Ritsuko Komaki; Reza Mehran; Stephen G Swisher; Jack A Roth Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Wendy Harris; Ellen Yorke; Henry Li; Christian Czmielewski; Mohit Chawla; Robert P Lee; Alexandra Hotca-Cho; Dominique McKnight; Andreas Rimner; D Michael Lovelock Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Michael Green; Samantha J Van Nest; Emilie Soisson; Kathryn Huber; Yixiang Liao; William McBride; Michael M Dominello; Jay Burmeister; Michael C Joiner Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Anand Mahadevan; Bahman Emami; Jimm Grimm; Lawrence R Kleinberg; Kristin J Redmond; James S Welsh; Robert Rostock; Eric Kemmerer; Kenneth M Forster; Jason Stanford; Sunjay Shah; Sucha O Asbell; Tamara A LaCouture; Carla Scofield; Ian Butterwick; Jinyu Xue; Alexander Muacevic; John R Adler Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Austin J Bartl; Mary Mahoney; Mark W Hennon; Sai Yendamuri; Gregory M M Videtic; Kevin L Stephans; Shankar Siva; Mark K Farrugia; Sung Jun Ma; Anurag K Singh Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 6.639