4.7 Article

30 Gy or 34 Gy? Comparing 2 Single-Fraction SBRT Dose Schedules for Stage I Medically Inoperable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.05.017

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To review outcomes of 2 single-fraction lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) schedules used for medically inoperable early stage lung cancer. Methods and Materials: Patients in our institution have been treated on and off protocols using single-fraction SBRT (30 Gy and 34 Gy, respectively). All patients had node-negative lung cancer measuring <= 5 cm and lying >= 2 cm beyond the trachea-bronchial tree and were treated on a Novalis/BrainLAB system with the ExactTrac positioning system for daily image guidance. Results: For the interval from 2009 to 2012, 80 patients with 82 lesions were treated with single-fraction lung SBRT. Fifty-five patients (69%) and 25 patients (31%) received 30 Gy and 34 Gy, respectively. In a comparison of 30 Gy and 34 Gy cohorts, patient and tumor characteristics were balanced and median follow-up in months was 18.7 and 17.8, respectively. The average heterogeneity-corrected mean doses to the target were 33.75 Gy and 37.94 Gy for the 30-Gy and 34-Gy prescriptions, respectively. Comparing 30-Gy and 34-Gy cohorts, 92.7% and 84.0% of patients, respectively, experienced no toxicity (P was not significant), and had neither grade 3 nor higher toxicities. For the 30-Gy and 34-Gy patients, rates of 1-year local failure, overall survival, and lung cancer-specific mortality were 2.0% versus 13.8%, 75.0% versus 64.0%, and 2.1% versus 16.0%, respectively (P values for differences were not significant). Conclusions: This is the largest single-fraction lung SBRT series yet reported. and it confirms the safety, efficacy, and minimal toxicity of this schedule for inoperable early stage lung cancer. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available