4.5 Article

Dose escalation study of proton beam therapy with concurrent chemotherapy for stage III non-small cell lung cancer

Journal

CANCER SCIENCE
Volume 107, Issue 7, Pages 1018-1021

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/cas.12955

Keywords

Dose escalation; esophagus; late toxicity; non-small cell lung cancer; proton beam therapy

Categories

Funding

  1. Shizuoka Cancer Center

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study is to determine the recommended dose (RD) of proton beam therapy (PBT) for inoperable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We tested two prescribed doses of PBT: 66 Gy (relative biological effectiveness [RBE]) in 33 fractions and 74 Gy (RBE) in 37 fractions in arms 1 and 2, respectively. The planning target volume (PTV) included the primary tumor and metastatic lymph nodes with adequate margins. Concurrent chemotherapy included intravenous cisplatin (60 mg/m(2), day 1) and oral S-1 (80, 100 or 120 mg based on body surface area, days 1-14), repeated as four cycles every 4 weeks. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as grade 3 or severe toxicities related to PBT during days 1-90. Each dose level was performed in three patients, and then escalated to the next level if no DLT occurred. When one patient developed a DLT, three additional patients were enrolled. Overall, nine patients (five men, four women; median age, 72 years) were enrolled, including six in arm 1 and three in arm 2. The median follow-up time was 43 months, and the median progression-free survival was 15 months. In arm 1, grade 3 infection occurred in one of six patients, but no other DLT was reported. Similarly, no DLT occurred in arm 2. However, one patient in arm 2 developed grade 3 esophageal fistula at 9 months after the initiation of PBT. Therefore, we determined that 66 Gy (RBE) is the RD from a clinical viewpoints. (Clinical trial registration no. UMIN000005585)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available