4.7 Article

Carbon-ion re-irradiation for recurrences after initial treatment of stage I non-small cell lung cancer with carbon -ion radiotherapy

Journal

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
Volume 125, Issue 1, Pages 31-35

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.07.022

Keywords

Carbon-ion radiation therapy; Re-irradiation; Re-treatment; Non-small cell lung carcinoma

Funding

  1. Research Project with Heavy Ions at the National Institute of Radiological Sciences Hospital, National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Sciences and Technology, Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To investigate carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) for in-field recurrence of stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) initially treated with CIRT. Materials and methods: From January 2007 to March 2014, patients initially treated for stage I NSCLC with CIRT and relapsed in-field were candidates. Overall survival (OS) rate, local control (LC) rate, progressive free survival (PFS) rate, dose to the lungs and skin, and adverse effects were analyzed. Results: Twenty-nine patients were eligible. Median age at re-irradiation was 74 years (range 53-90). Median observation period from the first day of re-irradiation was 29 months (4-88 months). Median prescribed dose was 46.0 Gy (RBE) as initial treatment and 66.0 Gy (RBE) in 12 fractions as re irradiation. Two-year OS, LC, and PFS rates after re-irradiation were 69.0% (95% CI: 50.3-83.0), 66.9% (95% CI: 47.5-81.9), and 51.7% (95% CI: 34.1-68.9). Median skin maximum dose was 53.8 Gy (RBE) (range 4.4-103.1) and median of mean lung dose was 7.3 Gy (RBE) (range 2.6-14.0). There were no severer than grade 2 adverse effects except one (3.4%) grade 3 bacterial pneumonia, which was not considered radiation-induced. Conclusion: CIRT for stage I NSCLC local recurrence is an acceptable definitive re-treatment. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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