Outcomes After Stereotactic Lung Radiotherapy or Wedge Resection for Stage I Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, 3601 West 13 Mile Rd, Royal Oak, MI 48073, USA.
Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 17.88). 02/2010; 28(6):928-35. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.0928
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT PURPOSE To compare outcomes between lung stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) and wedge resection for stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS One hundred twenty-four patients with T1-2N0 NSCLC underwent wedge resection (n = 69) or image-guided lung SBRT (n = 58) from February 2003 through August 2008. All were ineligible for anatomic lobectomy; of those receiving SBRT, 95% were medically inoperable, with 5% refusing surgery. Mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second and diffusing capacity of lung for carbon monoxide were 1.39 L and 12.0 mL/min/mmHg for wedge versus 1.31 L and 10.14 mL/min/mmHg for SBRT (P = not significant). Mean Charlson comorbidity index and median age were 3 and 74 years for wedge versus 4 and 78 years for SBRT (P < .01, P = .04). SBRT was volumetrically prescribed as 48 (T1) or 60 (T2) Gy in four to five fractions. Results Median potential follow-up is 2.5 years. At 30 months, no significant differences were identified in regional recurrence (RR), locoregional recurrence (LRR), distant metastasis (DM), or freedom from any failure (FFF) between the two groups (P > .16). SBRT reduced the risk of local recurrence (LR), 4% versus 20% for wedge (P = .07). Overall survival (OS) was higher with wedge but cause-specific survival (CSS) was identical. Results excluding synchronous primaries, nonbiopsied tumors, or pathologic T4 disease (wedge satellite lesion) showed reduced LR (5% v 24%, P = .05), RR (0% v 18%, P = .07), and LRR (5% v 29%, P = .03) with SBRT. There were no differences in DM, FFF, or CSS, but OS was higher with wedge. CONCLUSION Both lung SBRT and wedge resection are reasonable treatment options for stage I NSCLC patients ineligible for anatomic lobectomy. SBRT reduced LR, RR, and LRR. In this nonrandomized population of patients selected for surgery versus SBRT (medically inoperable) at physician discretion, OS was higher in surgical patients. SBRT and surgery, however, had identical CSS.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and accelerated hypofractionated radiation therapy (AHRT) have favorable local control (LC) relative to conventional fractionation in the treatment of stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report the results of our single institution experience with the treatment of early stage NSCLC with SBRT or AHRT in cases where SBRT was felt to be suboptimal. One hundred and sixty patients with Stage 1 and node negative Stage 2 NSCLC were treated with SBRT or AHRT from 2003 to 2011. Median follow-up was 29.4 and 19 months (mo), respectively. The median dose was 54Gy in 3 fractions (fx) (SBRT) and 70.2Gy in 26 fx (AHRT). Acute and late toxicities (tox) were graded (G) per CTCAE v4. Time to local (LF), regional (RF) and distant (DF) failure were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The impact of patient and tumor related factors on LF were estimated by multivariate Cox proportional hazard model. Three-year LC rates were 87.7% (SBRT) and 71.7% (AHRT). The 3-year freedom from DF was 73.3% and 68.1%. Median OS was 38.4 (95% CI 29.7-51.6) and 35 (95% CI 22-48.3) mo. No G3 or 4 tox were observed. At 1 year, 30% and 50% of complications resolved, while (5-6%) had persistent chest wall pain. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that increasing dose per fraction and tumor size (>5.5 vs. 4cm) in the AHRT and SBRT group were found to be associated with a reduced (HR 0.33 95% CI 0.13-0.84, p=0.021) and increased (HR: 6.372 95% CI 1.23-32.92, p=0.027) hazard for local failure respectively. Our results compare favorably with other reports of treatment for early stage NSCLC. AHRT patients had comparable LC despite increased size and central disease. Toxicity was limited and overall survival, regional and distant recurrences were similar between groups.
    Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 04/2014; 85(1). DOI:10.1016/j.lungcan.2014.04.003 · 3.74 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To retrospectively compute dose distributions for lung cancer patients treated with SABR, and to correlate dose distributions with outcome using a tumor control probability (TCP) model. Treatment plans for 133 NSCLC patients treated using 12Gy/fxn×4 (BED=106Gy), and planned using a pencil-beam (1D-equivalent-path-length, EPL-1D) algorithm were retrospectively re-calculated using model-based algorithms (including convolution/superposition, Monte Carlo). 4D imaging was performed to manage motion. TCP was computed using the Marsden model and associations between dose and outcome were inferred. Mean D95 reductions of 20% (max.=33%) were noted with model-based algorithms (relative to EPL-1D) for the smallest tumors (PTV<20cm(3)), corresponding to actual delivered D95 BEDs of ∼60-85Gy. For larger tumors (PTV>100cm(3)), D95 reductions were ∼10% (BED>100Gy). Mean lung doses (MLDs) were 15% lower for model-based algorithms for PTVs<20cm(3). No correlation between tumor size and 2-year local control rate was observed clinically, consistent with TCP calculations, both of which were ∼90% across all PTV bins. Results suggest that similar control rates might be achieved for smaller tumors using lower BEDs relative to larger tumors. However, more studies with larger patient cohorts are necessary to confirm this possible finding.
    Radiotherapy and Oncology 11/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2013.10.012 · 4.86 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess the efficacy of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) through a systematic review of all relevant publications from 2006 to the present compared to controls treated with surgery. In the absence of Grade I evidence, the objective outcome data should form the basis for planning future studies and commissioning SABR services. Standard systematic review methodology extracting patient and disease characteristics, treatment and outcome data from published articles reporting patient data from populations of 20 or more Stage I NSCLC patients treated with SABR with a median follow up of minimum of 1year. The individual outcome measures were corrected for stage and summary weighted outcome data were compared to outcome data from a large International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) cohort matched for stage of disease with survival as the principal endpoint and local control (local progression free survival - local PFS) as the secondary endpoint. Forty-five reports containing 3771 patients treated with SABR for NSCLC were identified that fulfilled the selection criteria; both survival and staging data were reported in 3171 patients. The 2year survival of the 3201 patients with localized stage I NSCLC treated with SABR was 70% (95% CI: 67-72%) with a 2year local control of 91% (95% CI: 90-93%). This was compared to a 68% (95% CI: 66-70) 2year survival of 2038 stage I patients treated with surgery. There was no survival or local PFS difference with different radiotherapy technologies used for SABR. Systematic review of a large cohort of patients with stage I NSCLC treated with SABR suggests that survival outcome in the short and medium term is equivalent to surgery for this population of patients regardless of co-morbidity. As selection bias cannot be assessed from the published reports and treatment related morbidity data are limited, a direct comparison between the two treatment approaches should be a priority. In the meantime, SABR can be offered to stage I patients with NSCLC as an alternative to surgery.
    Radiotherapy and Oncology 10/2013; 109(1). DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2013.09.006 · 4.86 Impact Factor