4.5 Review

Systematic review of stereotactic body radiotherapy in stage III non-small cell lung cancer

期刊

TRANSLATIONAL LUNG CANCER RESEARCH
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 529-538

出版社

AME PUBL CO
DOI: 10.21037/tlcr-2020-nsclc-04

关键词

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT); stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR); locally advance non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); stage III

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite the high locoregional relapse rate in stage III NSCLC patients, adding SBRT to conventional treatment regimens shows promise in improving local control. Prospective and retrospective studies have demonstrated the potential benefit of SBRT in reducing local failure rates, leading to ongoing phase II and III trials to further evaluate its efficacy in clinical scenarios.
Despite adequate treatment, 50% of stage III locally advanced inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients have a locoregional relapse. Local control on early stages on the contrary, is as high as 85-90% with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). The addition of SBRT to conventional chemoradiation or its use in monotherapy in stage III NSCLC is a novel strategy to decrease local failure that has been explored by various authors. This is a systematic review of studies using SBRT in inoperable stage III NSCLC. Search results obtained 141 articles of which only 6 original studies were pointed as relevant. Three of these studies were prospective, of which 2 were phase I dose-scalation studies and remaining 3 were retrospective. In summary, SBRT outcomes on 134 patients were included. Median dose in the SBRT treatment was 22.5 Gy in 2 to 7 fractions. Obtained global toxicity was 3.7% grade 5 and 14.17% grade 3. Dose-escalation studies proposed a 2 fraction SBRT schedule of 20-24 Gy, obtaining a 78% local control rate at 1 year and an OS of 67%. Initial improvement in local control with this innovative therapeutic strategy has led to ongoing phase II and III clinical trials that will evaluate the efficiency of SBRT in stage III NSCLC clinical scenario.

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

4.5
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