4.7 Article

ACCELERATED HYPOFRACTIONATED RADIOTHERAPY FOR EARLY-STAGE NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG CANCER: LONG-TERM RESULTS

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.11.003

关键词

Hypofractionation; Accelerated radiotherapy; Non-small cell lung cancer; Early stage; Medically inoperable

资金

  1. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To retrospectively review the results of a single-institution series of accelerated hypofractionated radiotherapy for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients who are medically inoperable or who refuse surgery. Methods and Materials: Peripherally located T1 to T3 N0 M0 tumors were treated with 48 to 60 Gy in 12 to 15 fractions between 1996 and 2007. No elective nodal irradiation was delivered. Patient, tumor, and treatment information was abstracted from the medical records. Results: A total of 124 tumors were treated in 118 patients (56 male and 62 female). Median age at diagnosis was 76.3 years (range, 49-90 years). In all, 113 patients (95.8%) were not surgical candidates because of medical comorbidities. The 2- and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 51.0% and 23.3%, respectively, and the 2- and 5-year cause-specific survival (CSS) rates were 67.6% and 59.8%, respectively. The 2- and 5-year actuarial local control (LC) rates were 76.2% and 70.1%, respectively. Univariate analysis revealed that tumor size less than 3cm compared with greater than 3 cm resulted in significantly improved OS (40.0% vs. 5.0% at 5 years; p = 0.0002), CSS (69.7% vs. 45.1% at 5 years; p = 0.0461), and a trend toward better LC (82.5% vs. 66.9% at 2 years, 76.6% vs. 60.8% at 5 years; p = 0.0685). Treatment was well tolerated and there were no treatment delays because of acute toxicity. Conclusions: Accelerated hypofractionated radiotherapy with 48 to 60 Gy using fractions of 4 Gy per day provides very good results for small tumors in medically inoperable patients with early-stage NSCLC. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据