4.7 Article

Outcome in a Prospective Phase II Trial of Medically Inoperable Stage I Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients Treated With Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 27, 期 20, 页码 3290-3296

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.5681

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Nordic Cancer Union
  2. Stockholm Cancer Society
  3. Stockholm County Council
  4. Swedish Cancer Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The impact of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) on 3-year progression-free survival of medically inoperable patients with stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was analyzed in a prospective phase II study. Patients and Methods Fifty-seven patients with T1NOMO (70%) and T2N0M0 (30%) were included between August 2003 and September 2005 at seven different centers in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark and observed up to 36 months. SBRT was delivered with 15 Gy times three at the 67% isodose of the planning target volume. Results Progression-free survival at 3 years was 52%. Overall- and cancer-specific survival at 1, 2, and 3 years was 86%, 65%, 60%, and 93%, 88%, 88%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in survival between patients with T1 or T2 tumors. At a median follow-up of 35 months (range, 4 to 47 months), 27 patients (47%) were deceased, seven as a result of lung cancer and 20 as a result of concurrent disease. Kaplan-Meier estimated local control at 3 years was 92%. Local relapse was observed in four patients (7%). Regional relapse was observed in three patients (5%). Nine patients (16%) developed distant metastases. The estimated risk of all failure (local, regional, or distant metastases) was increased in patients with T2 (41%) compared with those with T1 (18%) tumors (P = .027). Conclusion With a 3-year local tumor control rate higher than 90% with limited toxicity, SBRT emerges as state-of-the-art treatment for medically inoperable stage I NSCLC and may even challenge surgery in operable instances.

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