Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 381-387

Prospective study of special stage II (T 2b-3 N 0 M 0 ) non-small-cell lung cancer treated with hypofractionated-simultaneous integrated boost-intensity modulated radiation therapy


1 Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin; Department of Radiation Oncology, Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital, 20 Yuhuangding East Road, Zhifu Area, Yantai, Shandong province; Department of Radiation Oncology VI, Shandong Cancer Hospital, 440 Jiyan Road, Huaiyin Area, Jinan, Shandong province, China
2 Department of Radiation Oncology VI, Shandong Cancer Hospital, 440 Jiyan Road, Huaiyin Area, Jinan, Shandong province, China

Date of Web Publication7-Jul-2015

Correspondence Address:
Baosheng Li
Department of Radiation Oncology VI, Shandong Cancer Hospital, 440 JiYan Road, Jinan, Shandong province, 250117
China
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0973-1482.157332

Clinical trial registration ChiCTR-ONC-13003383

Rights and Permissions
 > Abstract 

Purpose: To analyze the effects of hypofractionated-simultaneous integrated boost-intensity modulated radiation therapy (Hypo-SIB-IMRT) on medically inoperable patients with special stage II (T 2b-3 N 0 M 0 ) non-smallcell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Materials and Methods: Twenty-eight qualified patients were included. Hypo-SIB-IMRT was delivered with internal gross tumor volume (iGTV) 75Gy, clinical target volume (CTV) 60Gy, and planning target volume (PTV) 45Gy on weekdays in 3 weeks.
Results: The 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survivals (OSs) were 93, 85, and 61%, respectively, with a median survival of 46.5 months; while progression-free survivals (PFSs) were 92, 79, and 64%; and distant metastasis-free survivals (DMFSs) were 92, 84, and 77%, respectively. The cancer-specific survivals (CSS) were 93, 88, and 74%, and local control (LC) were 92, 83, and 74%, respectively. 7.1% (2/28) of patients occurred local pain, 28.6% (8/28) were with Grade 1or 2 radiation pneumonitis (RP), and 7.1% (2/28) with Grade 1 esophagitis. Of the eight patients with RP, 17.9% (5/28) developed Grade 1 radiation pulmonary fibrosis (RPF).
Conclusion: Due to the favorable long-term survivals, LC, and minimal toxicities, Hypo-SIB-IMRT presented in this prospective study may be considered an option for patients with special stage II (T 2b-3 N 0 M 0 ) NSCLC who were medically inoperable.

Keywords: Hypofractionated, intensity modulated radiation therapy, non-smallcell lung cancer, overall survival, simultaneous integrated boost


How to cite this article:
Zhang W, Liu C, Lin H, Song Y, Huang W, Li H, Li M, Li B. Prospective study of special stage II (T 2b-3 N 0 M 0 ) non-small-cell lung cancer treated with hypofractionated-simultaneous integrated boost-intensity modulated radiation therapy. J Can Res Ther 2015;11:381-7

How to cite this URL:
Zhang W, Liu C, Lin H, Song Y, Huang W, Li H, Li M, Li B. Prospective study of special stage II (T 2b-3 N 0 M 0 ) non-small-cell lung cancer treated with hypofractionated-simultaneous integrated boost-intensity modulated radiation therapy. J Can Res Ther [serial online] 2015 [cited 2022 Aug 17];11:381-7. Available from: https://www.cancerjournal.net/text.asp?2015/11/2/381/157332


 > Introduction Top


Lung cancer is increasing globally and still the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. [1] Surgical resection is the standard therapy for stage II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). [2],[3],[4] Unfortunately, some patients with stage II NSCLC are associated with comorbid medical illnesses and not suitable for surgical resection. [5],[6] Moreover, some clinical data suggest that the relapse or progression percentage of unresected stage II NSCLC patients with lymph node involved is probably higher, who were primarily referred to concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT); [7] patients with T 2-3 N 0 M 0 tumors have higher cure rate and overall survival (OS) than those with T 1-2 N 1 M 0 ones, and may prefer RT alone rather than CCRT. [8],[9],[10] However, local control (LC) and OS at 3 years of conventionalRT have historically been poor, which are30-66% and 34-42%, respectively. [11],[12],[13] In order to implement right treatments and avoid the effect of chemotherapy on the results, we chose patients with T 2-3 N 0 M 0 tumors who were medically inoperable.

Hypofractionated regimens consist of fewer fractions with higher dose per fraction, which was an effective way of killing tumor cells and showed advanced results. Recent studies showed that stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) improved LC for patients with stage IINSCLC, compared with those after surgery or conventional RT. [14],[15] However, increased normal tissue toxicities due to higher doses per fraction in SBRT should be paid attention. Risk adaptive SBRT, which was applied to both peripheral and central early-stage NSCLC, improved the incidence of radiation induced complication with acceptable outcomes. [16],[17] The hypofractionated-simultaneous integrated boost-intensity modulated radiation therapy (Hypo-SIB-IMRT) technique conducted a higher dose to primary tumor; whereas, lower doses to subclinical disease and planning treated regions at the same time, which was in accordance with radiation biology. [18] In another word, different tumor burdens need different doses to cure. To gain the balance between outcomes and normal tissue toxicities, we performed this prospective study, and first applied Hypo-SIB-IMRT for patients with special stage II (T 2b-3 N 0 M 0 ) NSCLC who were medically inoperable. The primary endpoint in this study was OS, and secondary end points were progression-free survivals (PFSs), cancer-specific survivals (CSS), distant metastasis-free survivals (DMFSs), LC, and toxicities.


 > Patients and methods Top


We performed this study after approval by three Institutional Review Boards. It was scheduled for 30 patients with special stage II (T2b-3 N0M0) NSCLC; who were medically inoperable, were included. No patients received chemotherapy before and after Hypo-SIB-IMRT until recurrence. Study enrollment was restricted to patients at high risk for complications evaluated by thoracic surgeons (for suitability for lobectomy), and referred to the RT department via multidisciplinary conferences. Most of them did not have surgery due to severe underlying cardiopulmonary dysfunction. Patients without cardiopulmonary dysfunction were eligible if they were deemed to have high-risk features of comorbid medical illness making them unsuitable for surgical resection. The study was approved by the ethical committees of our hospitals according to the Declaration of[TAG:2][/TAG:2]

Helsinki II. All patients signed an informed consent. Patients were excluded from this study if progressive disease, including distant organ or lymph node metastases, had been noted after the previous treatment.

Diagnosis and staging

Morphologic confirmation of the primary tumors by computed tomography (CT)-guided puncture or bronchoscopic biopsy was requested. If the shorter diameters of mediastinal lymph nodes were larger than 1.0 cm on pretreatment chest CT, a transbronchial needle aspiration was recommended. However, if patients refused biopsy or accompanied with unsuitable conditions, and there was no cytological or histologic verification, CT with an interval of 3 months showing tumor progression, or abnormal concentration of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) uptake in the lesions on positron emission tomography (PET) images were acceptable. The staging procedure included chest and upper abdomen CT (included visualization of the liver and adrenal glands), brain magnetic resonance (MR), nuclear scanning of bone, or whole body 18 F-FDG PET.

Target definition

The gross tumor volume (GTV) consisted of the primary lung tumor as defined on the lung windows of the planning CT. The internal GTV (iGTV) was based on slow CT, conventional CT with active breath control (ABC), 18 F-FDG PET scan, or four dimensional CT (4DCT), which were not routinely available when the trial was designed. Clinical target volume (CTV) was defined by expanding the iGTV with 5 mm for squamous cell carcinoma and 7mm for the others to account for the microscopic extension. Furthermore, the CTV contour should be edited off bone, pleura, fissures, etc., for that subclinical infiltration was unlikely occurred in such anatomy structures. To define the planning target volume (PTV), the CTV was then expanded by 5 mm set-up margin. Elective irradiation of lymph node regions was not performed.

Hypo-SIB-IMRT planning

Five to seven multileaf collimated beams were used. Beams' distributions were generally partial to one side of the lung with tumors, sparing of the spinal cord and contralateral lung as far as possible. To meet the planning goal, the beam numbers, directions, configurations, and fluence were optimized according to the positions and shapes of the targets with heterogeneity correction for lung, soft tissue, and bone using Pinnacle or Eclipse systems.

The prescription doses were specified at the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements Reports 50 and 62 reference points. The time dose fractionations were as followings: iGTV 75Gy, CTV 60Gy, and PTV 45Gy in 15 fractions once daily on consecutive weekdays. The biologically equivalent doses (BEDs) of iGTV, CTV, and PTV were 112.5, 84, and 58.5Gy, respectively, using linear-quadratic (LQ) model with α/β ratio of 10Gy. [19] Constraints placed on the risk organs were according to our experience and standard for hypofractionated RT in our centers, including V20 (volume of lung irradiated to doses above 20Gy) of bilateral lung <30%and volume of heart receiving 25Gy <50%, respectively. [20] Moreover, it was considered acceptable that mean dose of bilateral lung was <16.7Gy; maximum dose of spinal cord was limited to 37.5Gy; maximum dose of esophagus, trachea, and main bronchus were all <45Gy, respectively. Central review of treatment plans was mandated before initiating therapy. A representative beam arrangement and dose-volume histogram is illustrated in [Figure 1] and [Figure 2].
Figure 1: (a) Peripheral tumor, six fields, 4DCT simulation. (b) Central tumor, five fields, PET simulation. 4DCT = Four-dimensional computed tomography, PET = positron emission tomography

Click here to view
Figure 2: Typical dose-volume histogram

Click here to view


RT delivery

The Hypo-SIB-IMRT was delivered with 6-MV X-rays from a linear accelerator after immobilizing the patients in a vacuum bag. During the treatment, electrical port imaging device (EPID) or cone-beam CT (CBCT) were performed at least three times per week to verify the reproducibility of the target.

Evaluation

Patients were assessed after completion of Hypo-SIB-IMRT every 2 months for the 1 st year, 3-4 months during the 2 nd year, and 6 months thereafter. Tumor response was evaluated using response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) considering the best response at any time from Hypo-SIB-IMRT. [21] Clinical examinations with grading of toxicity (according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Version 3.0) and chest CT or X-ray were performed at every follow-up. [22],[23] PET was optional and mainly performed when tumor relapse was suspected. Performance status was recorded at every follow-up according to Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS). Local failure was defined as more than 20% increase or emergence in the summation of the maximum diameters at the treated region of the primary tumor after RT. Distant relapses were considered to be metastases of any distant lymph node or organs, such as contralateral lung, bone, brain, and so on.

Endpoints

The primary endpoint in this study was OS; and secondary end points were PFSs, CSSs, DMFSs, LC, and toxicities.

Statistical analysis

Statistical tests were carried out using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 17.0 (SPSS Inc, IBM Company). All tests with a P-value less than0.05 considered to be statistically significant. OS, CSS, and LC curves were calculated by Kaplan-Meier algorithms with the day of first treatment as starting point and patients were censored at the time of corresponding events occurred. PFS was censored at the time of tumor progression as well as death (all causes), and DMFS was censored at the time of emergence of distant metastasis as well as death (all causes). The log-rank test was used to calculate the associations between outcome parameters (survivals or LC) and clinical factors, including gender, age, class, histologic type, tumor location (right vs left), type (peripheral vs central), stage (II A vsII B ), and volume (>60 cm 3 vs ≤60 cm 3 ).


 > Results Top


Patient characteristics

From February 2007 to June 2012, a total of 28 patients with special stage II (T2b-3N0M0) NSCLC restaged by the 7 th edition of the Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) classification for lung cancer were recruited at three centers in China. Until March 2013, 28 patients were recruited, and no patient met the inclusion criteria in previous 6 months. Therefore, we decided to carry on the statistical analysis of the 28 patients. They were referred to the RT Department via multidisciplinary conferences. All the patients did not have surgery due to existing comorbidity.

Among 28 patients, there were 18 men and 10 women with a median age of 75 years (ranging from 50 to 85 years), with 22 patients more than or equal to 70 years. Seventeen patients had peripheral tumors and 11 were central ones. Of the 23 morphologically verified tumors; 14 were adenocarcinoma and nine squamous cell carcinoma. Eleven patients had stage II A (T 2b N 0 M 0 ) tumors and 17 were stage II B (T 3 N 0 M 0 ) ones. The median iGTV was 62.5 cm 3 (ranging from 28.6 to 137.0 cm 3 ), and 16 of them were more than 60 cm 3 . The median KPS was 70 (ranging from 60 to 90) [Table 1]. Of the 28 patients, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; 71.4%) with emphysema and pronounced reduction of the lung capacity, or cardiovascular disease (CVD; 21.4%) represented the majority of patients. Two patients (7.2%) without severe comorbid medical illnesses refused surgery. COPD was defined according to Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Diseases (GOLD) criteria. [24]
Table 1: Patient characteristics

Click here to view



 > Survivals Top


The 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS were 93, 85, and61%, respectively, with a median survival of 46.5months and median follow-up time of 41 months (ranging from 10 to 58 months). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year PFS were 92, 79, and 64%; while DMFS were 92, 84, and 77%; and CSS were 93, 88, and 74%, respectively [Figure 3]. There were significant differences in OS, CSS between the subgroups of tumor volumes (>60 cm 3 vs ≤60 cm 3 ), while DMFS was significant between different stages (II A vs II B ) [Figure 4]a-c. There were no significant differences in OS, PFS, DMFS, and CSS between the subgroups; including genders, age classes (≥70 vs <70 years), pathologies, tumor locations (right vs left), and types (peripheral vs central). During the follow-up, seven patients died of lung cancer, while five patients died of chronic obstructive lung disease and cardiovascular disease.
Figure 3: (a) Overall survival (OS). (b) Progression-free survival (PFS). (c) Distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). (d) Cancer-specific survival (CSS)

Click here to view
Figure 4: (a) OS compared tumor volume ≤60 cm3 with >60 cm3(P value = 0.001). (b) DMFS compared stage IIA with stage IIB tumors (P value = 0.012). (c) CSS compared tumor volume ≤60 cm3 with >60 cm3( P value = 0.004). (d) LC compared tumor volume ≤60 cm3 with >60 cm3(P value = 0.003)

Click here to view


Local tumor control and tumor response

The 1-, 2-, and 3-year LC were 92, 83, and 74%, respectively. Ten patients experienced complete response, 12 partial response, and six stable. During the follow-up period, 10 patients experienced local tumor progression including four stage II A and six stage II B . The mean iGTVsof relapsed patients were larger than those who did not (mean iGTV 88.1vs 52.0cm 3 ). There were significant differences in LC between the subgroups of tumor volumes (>60 cm 3 vs ≤60 cm 3 ) [Figure 4]d. No differences were seen in genders, pathologies, tumor locations (right vs left), tumor types (peripheral vs central), and stages (II A vs II B ) between patients with or without local failure.

Toxicities

All patients were well-tolerated to the treatment of Hypo-SIB-IMRT, and no one experienced the toxicities over than Grade 2. Toxicity appeared up to 3 months in this analysis was defined as early, and after 3 months as late. The most common acute toxicities were as follows: 7.1% (2/28) of patients occurred local pain, 28.6% (8/28) were with Grade 1or 2 radiation pneumonitis (RP), and 7.1% (2/28) with Grade 1 esophagitis. Of the six patients with RP, 17.9% (5/28) developed Grade 1 radiation pulmonary fibrosis (RPF). During the entire follow-up period, rib fracture and injury of brachial plexus were not found.


 > Discussion Top


So far, radiotherapy for early-stage NSCLC had been developed to hypofractionated RT (Hypo-RT) era. Some studies had documented the advantages of Hypo-RT [Table 2]. [13],[25],[26],[27] The 2-year OS ranged from 48.2 to 55.6%with median survival times from 23.5 to 25.4 months, while 2-yearLC ranged from 63.9 to 76.2%. SBRT (5-34Gy per fraction given as 1-10 fractions over a period of 1-2 weeks) for stage II NSCLC had provided exciting results these years. Reported 2-year OS and LC ranged from 10to 85% and50 to 100%, respectively. [28],[29],[30] The SIB technique offered the advantage in delivering a higher dose to the primary tumor simultaneously, whereas, conventional lower doses to treat subclinical disease. As we all know, SIB-IMRT represented an ideal technique for escalating the local dose and shortening the overall treatment time, especially for head and neck cancers or prostate cancer. [18],[19] In a study with SIB-IMRT for stage III NSCLC patients, seven patients with the largest GTVs, SIB-IMRT was superior to IMRT with dose escalation of 11.9%. [31] By far, hypo-SIB-IMRT has never been reported for patients with medically inoperable stage II NSCLC. In this study, we first applied Hypo-SIB-IMRT and BEDs were 112.5, 84, and 58.5Gy for iGTV, CTV, and PTV, respectively, which may offer some radiobiological advantages in terms of a higher dose per fraction to the heavier burden tumor targets, while a lower dose per fraction to lighter burden area. Hypo-SIB-IMRT for special stage II NSCLC in our prospective study resulted in encouraging3-year LC and OS of 74 and 61%, respectively. During the follow-up period, five patients died of comorbid diseases other than lung cancer, such as COPD or cardiovascular disease. Our encouraging outcomes may suggest that different tumor burdens prescribed different doses meets the radiobiological principles. As these studies about SBRT contained stage I patients, it was possible that outcomes were overestimated. No matter what the BED 10 were in the above studies; median survival time, OS, and LC in our current study were more promising, and the toxicities were mild [Table 2]. Besides, the 6 th Edition stage classification system defines the T 2 descriptor as: Tumor with any of the following features of size or extent: >3 cm in greatest dimension; involving main bronchus >2 cm distal to the carina; involving the visceral pleura; associated with atelectasis or obstructive pneumonitis that extends to the hilar region but does not involve the entire lung. However, the T 2 descriptor was decided into T 2a (>3to 5 cm) and T2 b (>5 to 7 cm) by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) staging committee in the new TNM classification of NSCLC. [4] Therefore, T 2b patients with no nodal involvement (N 0 ) originally belonging to stage I belong to stage II A now, which may affect the comparison of survivals.
Table 2: Studies of hypo - RT/SBRT in stage II NSCLC

Click here to view


Though SBRT had provided exciting results for peripheral stage II NSCLC, the corresponding proportions of grade 3-5 radiation side effects which was 20% in one study could not be neglected. [29] In addition, SBRT was limited to peripheral early-stage NSCLC, while 11 patients in our study with central tumor also achieved excellent results as well as mild toxicities. Therefore, though SBRT was recommended for stage II NSCLC patients who were medically inoperable by NCCN, more modestly hypofractionated regimens were alternatives. [9] In our small cohort of patients, the Hypo-SIB-IMRT treatment was well tolerated without ≥grade 3 toxicities. It may partly be because the SIB technique in our study offered the advantage of delivering a higher dose to the primary tumor, whereas simultaneously lower doses to CTV and PTV, so that normal tissues could be protected better. It might also be somewhat dependent on our precise RT techniques including CT with ABC, FDG-PET, or 4DCT in simulation, and EPID or CBCT image guiding during the treatment.

There were significant differences in OS, CSS, and LC between the subgroups of tumor volumes (>60 cm 3 vs ≤60 cm 3 ), while LC was with significance between different tumor types (peripheral vs central). Besides, DMFS was with significance between different stages (II A vs II B ). These inclinations were in favor of the previous arguments, such as local relapses are more frequent for larger GTVs. [32],[33],34] A fairly high3-year LC rate of 74% may challenge SBRT as the primary treatment for inoperable special stage II (T 2b-3 N 0 M 0 ) NSCLC. So, this could be considered as preliminary and investigated in a randomized study.

Owing to the excellent long-term survivals, LC and minimal toxicities applied in current study, Hypo-SIB-IMRT may provide better results for special stage II (T 2b-3 N 0 M 0 ) NSCLC patients without lymph nodes metastasis who are medically inoperable. The advanced RT techniques; such as SIB-IMRT, immobilization, and image guiding; should not be neglected. Nevertheless, an absolute conclusion could not be drawn from the prospective study. It should beinvestigated in a randomized study.


 > Acknowledgements Top


This study was supported by National Nature Science Foundation 81272501, Taishan Scholar of China and Shandong research fund for outstanding young scientist plan (No. BS2013YY057).[34]

 
 > References Top

1.
Are C, Rajaram S, Are M, Raj H, Anderson BO, Chaluvarya Swamy R, et al. A review of global cancer burden: Trends, challenges, strategies, and a role for surgeons. J Surg Oncol 2013;107:221-6.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Scott WJ, Howington J, Feigenberg S, Movsas B, Pisters K; American College of Chest Physicians. Treatment of non-small cell lung cancer stage I and stage II: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (2 nd edition). Chest 2007;132:234S-42.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Ettinger DS, Akerley W, Borghaei H, Chang AC, Cheney RT, Chirieac LR, et al.; NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network). Non-small cell lung cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2012;10:1236-71.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Tanoue LT, Detterbeck FC. New TNM classification for non-small-cell lung cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2009;9:413-23.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Williams CD, Stechuchak KM, Zullig LL, Provenzale D, Kelley MJ. Influence of comorbidity on racial differences in receipt of surgery among US veterans with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:475-81.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Haasbeek CJ, Palma D, Visser O, Lagerwaard FJ, Slotman B, Senan S. Early-stage lung cancer in elderly patients: A population-based study of changes in treatment patterns and survival in the Netherlands. Ann Oncol 2012;23:2743-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Howington JA, Blum MG, Chang AC, Balekian AA, Murthy SC. Treatment of stage I and II non-small cell lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3 rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2013;143:278S-313.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Wisnivesky JP, Henschke C, McGinn T, Iannuzzi MC. Prognosis of Stage II non-small cell lung cancer according to tumor and nodal status at diagnosis. Lung Cancer 2005;49:181-6.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN [email protected]): Non-small cell lung cancer. Available from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp#site. [Last accessed on 2014 Jan 24, Version 3, 2014].  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Wisnivesky JP, Bonomi M, Lurslurchachai L, Mhango G, Halm EA. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy for elderly patients with stage I-II unresected lung cancer. Eur Respir J 2012;40:957-64.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Qiao X, Tullgren O, Lax I, Sirzén F, Lewensohn R. The role of radiotherapy in treatment of stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2003;41:1-11.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Lanni TB Jr, Grills IS, Kestin LL, Robertson JM. Stereotactic radiotherapy reduces treatment cost while improving overall survival and local control over standard fractionated radiation therapy for medically inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 2011;34:494-8.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Kolodziejczyk M, Kepka L, Tyc-Szczepaniak D, Wierzchowski M. Outcome of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for early stage non-small cell lung cancer patients who met or not inclusion criteria for stereotactic-body radiation therapy. Pneumonol Alergol Pol 2011;79:326-36.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Hof H, Muenter M, Oetzel D, Hoess A, Debus J, Herfarth K. Stereotactic single-dose radiotherapy (radiosurgery) of early stage nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Cancer 2007;110:148-55.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Lo SS, Fakiris AJ, Papiez L, Abdulrahman R, McGarry RC, Henderson MA, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2008;8:87-98.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Haasbeek CJ, Lagerwaard FJ, Cuijpers JP, Slotman BJ, Senan S. Is adaptive treatment planning required for stereotactic radiotherapy of stage I non-small-cell lung cancer? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67:1370-4.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
van der Voort van Zyp NC, van der Holt B, van Klaveren RJ, Pattynama P, Maat A, Nuyttens JJ. Stereotactic body radiotherapy using real-time tumor tracking in octogenarians with non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2010;69:296-301.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Geier M, Astner ST, Duma MN, Jacob V, Nieder C, Putzhammer J, et al. Dose-escalated simultaneous integrated-boost treatment of prostate cancer patients via helical tomotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 2012;188: 410-6.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Tai P, Van Dyk J, Yu E, Battista J, Schmid M, Stitt L, et al. Radiation treatment for cervical esophagus: Patterns of practice study in Canada, 1996. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;47:703-12.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Graham MV, Purdy JA, Emami B, Harms W, Bosch W, Lockett MA, et al. Clinical dose-volume histogram analysis for pneumonitis after 3D treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;45:323-9.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:205-16.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program NCI; Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse events (CTCAE). Available from: http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/ctcaev3.pdf [Last accessed on 2006 Aug 6].  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Trotti A, Colevas AD, Setser A, Rusch V, Jaques D, Budach V, et al. CTCAE v3.0: Development of a comprehensive grading system for the adverse effects of cancer treatment. Semin Radiat Oncol 2003;13:176-81.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Ekberg-Aronsson M, Pehrsson K, Nilsson JA, Nilsson PM, Löfdahl CG. Mortality in GOLD stages of COPD and its dependence on symptoms of chronic bronchitis. Respir Res 2005;6:98.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Lester JF, Macbeth FR, Brewster AE, Court JB, Iqbal N. CT-planned accelerated hypofractionated radiotherapy in the radical treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2004;45:237-42.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Soliman H, Cheung P, Yeung L, Poon I, Balogh J, Barbera L, et al. Accelerated hypofractionated radiotherapy for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: long-term results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;79:459-65.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Bonfili P, Di Staso M, Gravina GL, Franzese P, Buonopane S, Soldà F, et al. Hypofractionated radical radiotherapy in elderly patients with medically inoperable stage I-II non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2010;67:81-5.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Salazar OM, Sandhu TS, Lattin PB, Chang JH, Lee CK, Groshko GA, et al. Once-weekly, high-dose stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung cancer: 6-year analysis of 60 early-stage, 42 locally advanced, and 7 metastatic lung cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;72:707-15.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Bral S, Gevaert T, Linthout N, Versmessen H, Collen C, Engels B, et al. Prospective, risk-adapted strategy of stereotactic body radiotherapy for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: Results of a Phase II trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;80:1343-9.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Olsen JR, Robinson CG, El Naqa I, Creach KM, Drzymala RE, Bloch C, et al. Dose-response for stereotactic body radiotherapy in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;81:e299-303.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Guckenberger M, Kavanagh A, Partridge M. Combining advanced radiotherapy technologies to maximize safety and tumor control probability in stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2012;188:894-900.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Onishi H, Shirato H, Nagata Y, Hiraoka M, Fujino M, Gomi K, et al. Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HypoFXSRT) for stage I non-small cell lung cancer: Updated results of 257 patients in a Japanese multi-institutional study. J Thorac Oncol 2007;2:S94-100.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Baumann P, Nyman J, Lax I, Friesland S, Hoyer M, Rehn Ericsson S, et al. Factors important for efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy of medically inoperable stage I lung cancer. A retrospective analysis of patients treated in the Nordic countries. Acta Oncol 2006;45:787-95.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Onimaru R, Fujino M, Yamazaki K, Onodera Y, Taguchi H, Katoh N, et al. Steep dose-response relationship for stage I non-small-cell lung cancer using hypofractionated high-dose irradiation by real-time tumor-tracking radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;70:374-81.  Back to cited text no. 34
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]


This article has been cited by
1 Open issues in the therapeutic management of unresectable stage III NSCLC in the immunotherapy era
Chiara Catania, Gaia Piperno, Alessandro Russo, Carlo Greco, Francesco Agustoni, Vieri Scotti, Claudia Proto, Claudia Sangalli, Fabiola Patani, Anna Santacaterina, Marzia Di Pietro Paolo, Benedetta Agresti, Andrea Riccardo Filippi, Sara Ramella
Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology. 2022; : 103684
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Locally advanced NSCLC: a plea for sparing the ipsilateral normal lung—prospective, clinical trial with DART-bid (dose-differentiated accelerated radiation therapy, 1.8 Gy twice daily) by VMAT
Karl Wurstbauer, Margit Kazil, Marco Meinschad, Raoul Pinter, Catharina De Vries, Patrick Clemens, Christof Kreuter, Tamara Hernler, Wolfgang Hitzl, Peter Cerkl, Thomas Künzler, Alexander De Vries
Radiation Oncology. 2022; 17(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Simultaneous Integrated Boost for Radiation Dose Escalation to the Gross Tumor Volume With Intensity Modulated (Photon) Radiation Therapy or Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy and Concurrent Chemotherapy for Stage II to III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A P
Melenda D. Jeter, Daniel Gomez, Quynh-Nhu Nguyen, Ritsuko Komaki, Xiaodong Zhang, Xiaorong Zhu, Michael O'Reilly, Frank V. Fossella, Ting Xu, Xiong Wei, Hui Wang, Wenjuan Yang, Anne Tsao, Radhe Mohan, Zhongxing Liao
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. 2018; 100(3): 730
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

  >Abstract>Introduction>Patients and methods>Results>Survivals>Discussion>Acknowledgements>Article Figures>Article Tables
  In this article
>References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3028    
    Printed78    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded99    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]