4.7 Article

Multi-Institutional Phase I/II Trial of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Lung Metastases

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 27, 期 10, 页码 1579-1584

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.6386

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of high-dose stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for the treatment of patients with one to three lung metastases. Patients and Methods Patients with one to three lung metastases with cumulative maximum tumor diameter smaller than 7 cm were enrolled and treated on a multi-institutional phase I/II clinical trial in which they received SBRT delivered in 3 fractions. In phase I, the total dose was safely escalated from 48 to 60 Gy. The phase II dose was 60 Gy. The primary end point was local control. Lesions with at least 6 months of radiographic follow-up were considered assessable for local control. Secondary end points included toxicity and survival. Results Thirty-eight patients with 63 lesions were enrolled and treated at three participating institutions. Seventy-one percent had received at least one prior systemic regimen for metastatic disease and 34% had received at least two prior regimens (range, zero to five). Two patients had local recurrence after prior surgical resection. There was no grade 4 toxicity. The incidence of any grade 3 toxicity was 8% (three of 38). Symptomatic pneumonitis occurred in one patient (2.6%). Fifty lesions were assessable for local control. Median follow-up for assessable lesions was 15.4 months (range, 6 to 48 months). The median gross tumor volume was 4.2 mL (range, 0.2 to 52.3 mL). Actuarial local control at one and two years after SBRT was 100% and 96%, respectively. Local progression occurred in one patient, 13 months after SBRT. Median survival was 19 months. Conclusion This multi-institutional phase I/II trial demonstrates that high-dose SBRT is safe and effective for the treatment of patients with one to three lung metastases.

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