Markus Glatzer1, Corinne Faivre-Finn2, Dirk De Ruysscher3, Joachim Widder4, Paul Van Houtte5, Esther G C Troost6, M R Dahele7, Ben J Slotman7, Sara Ramella8, Christoph Pöttgen9, Stephanie T H Peeters3, Ursula Nestle10, Fiona McDonald11, Cecile Le Pechoux12, Rafal Dziadziuszko13, José Belderbos14, Paul M Putora15. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Switzerland. Electronic address: markus.glatzer@kssg.ch. 2. Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester & The Christie NHS Foundation Trust Manchester, United Kingdom. 3. Maastricht University Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro Clinic), School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (GROW), The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. 5. Department Radiation Oncology, Institut Bordet, Université Libre Bruxelles, Belgium. 6. OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Germany; Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, Germany; and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VUMC, The Netherlands. 8. Department of RadiationOncology, Campus Bio-Medico University, Rome, Italy. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, West German Tumor Centre, University of Duisburg-Essen Medical School, Germany. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, Kliniken Maria Hilf, Moenchengladbach, Germany; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Freiburg, Germany. 11. Department of Radiotherapy, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 12. Department of Radiation Oncology, Gustave Roussy, France. 13. Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Gdansk, Poland. 14. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 15. Department of Radiation Oncology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Switzerland; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In limited disease small cell lung cancer (LD-SCLC), the CONVERT trial has not demonstrated superiority of once-daily (QD) radiotherapy (66 Gy) over twice-daily (BID) radiotherapy (45 Gy). We explored the factors influencing the selection between QD and BID regimens. METHODS: Thirteen experienced European thoracic radiation oncologists as selected by the European Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO) were asked to describe their strategies in the management of LD-SCLC. Treatment strategies were subsequently converted into decision trees and analysed for agreement and discrepancies. RESULTS: Logistic reasons, patients' performance status and radiotherapy dose constraints were the three major decision criteria used by most experts in decision making. The use of QD and BID regimens was balanced among European experts, but there was a trend towards the BID regimen for fit patients able to travel twice a day to the radiotherapy site. CONCLUSION: BID and QD radiotherapy are both accepted regimens among experts and the decision is influenced by pragmatic factors such as availability of transportation.
BACKGROUND: In limited disease small cell lung cancer (LD-SCLC), the CONVERT trial has not demonstrated superiority of once-daily (QD) radiotherapy (66 Gy) over twice-daily (BID) radiotherapy (45 Gy). We explored the factors influencing the selection between QD and BID regimens. METHODS: Thirteen experienced European thoracic radiation oncologists as selected by the European Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO) were asked to describe their strategies in the management of LD-SCLC. Treatment strategies were subsequently converted into decision trees and analysed for agreement and discrepancies. RESULTS: Logistic reasons, patients' performance status and radiotherapy dose constraints were the three major decision criteria used by most experts in decision making. The use of QD and BID regimens was balanced among European experts, but there was a trend towards the BID regimen for fit patients able to travel twice a day to the radiotherapy site. CONCLUSION: BID and QD radiotherapy are both accepted regimens among experts and the decision is influenced by pragmatic factors such as availability of transportation.
Authors: Markus Glatzer; Kari Tanderup; Angeles Rovirosa; Lars Fokdal; Claudia Ordeanu; Luca Tagliaferri; Cyrus Chargari; Vratislav Strnad; Johannes Athanasios Dimopoulos; Barbara Šegedin; Rachel Cooper; Esten Søndrol Nakken; Primoz Petric; Elzbieta van der Steen-Banasik; Kristina Lössl; Ina M Jürgenliemk-Schulz; Peter Niehoff; Ruth S Hermansson; Remi A Nout; Paul Martin Putora; Ludwig Plasswilm; Nikolaos Tselis Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Nadia A Saeed; Lan Jin; Alexander W Sasse; Arya Amini; Vivek Verma; Nataniel H Lester-Coll; Po-Han Chen; Roy H Decker; Henry S Park Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2022-02 Impact factor: 2.895