Dataset Information

Optimal Radiation Dose for Stage III Lung Cancer-Should "Definitive" Radiation Doses Be Used in the Preoperative Setting?

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

There are currently two recommended radiation strategies for clinical stage III NSCLC: a lower "preoperative" (45-54 Gy) and a higher "definitive/nonsurgical" (60-70 Gy) dose. We sought to determine if definitive radiation doses should be used in the preoperative setting given that many clinical stage III patients planned for surgery are ultimately managed with chemoradiation alone.

Methods

Using the National Cancer Database data from 2006 to 2016, we performed a comparative effectiveness analysis of stage III N2 patients who received chemoradiotherapy. Patients were stratified into subgroups across 2 parameters: (1) radiation dose: lower (45-54 Gy) and higher (60-70 Gy); and (2) the use of surgery (i.e., surgical and nonsurgical treatment approaches). Long-term survival and perioperative outcomes were evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models.

Results

A cohort of 961 patients received radiation before surgery including 321 who received a higher dose and 640 who received a lower dose. A higher preoperative dose revealed similar long-term mortality risk (hazard ratio = 0.99, 95% confidence interval: 0.82-1.21, p = 0.951) compared with a lower dose. There was no significant association between radiation dose and 90-day mortality (p = 0.982), 30-day readmission (p = 0.931), or prolonged length of stay (p = 0.052) in the surgical cohort. A total of 17,904 clinical-stage IIIA-N2 patients were treated nonsurgically, including 15,945 receiving higher and 1959 treated with a lower dose. A higher dose was associated with a reduction in long-term mortality risk (hazard ratio = 0.64, 95% confidence interval: 0.60-0.67, p < 0.001) compared with a lower dose.

Conclusions

For clinical stage III NSCLC, the administration of 60 to 70 Gy of radiation seems to be more effective than the lower dose for nonsurgical patients without compromising surgical safety for those that undergo resection. This evidence supports the implementation of 60 to 70 Gy as a single-dose strategy for both preoperative and definitive chemoradiotherapy.

SUBMITTER: Saffarzadeh AG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8474436 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionA previous study showed that use of positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) for surveillance after treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) does not yield a detection or survival benefit over the use of chest CT. However, PET/CT remains a common method of follow-up imaging. Here we estimated and compared the costs of PET/CT versus CT for surveillance of patients with stage III NSCLC and identified patient and provider demographic characteristics associated with preference for use of PET/CT.Patients and methodsWe reviewed 178 patients with stage III NSCLC who had received ≥ 1 PET/CT scan within 6 months of completing radiotherapy (n = 89) or had received CT after radiotherapy (n = 89) from 2000 to 2011. Costs were measured according to Medicare payments converted from institutional billing records. Total and imaging costs were analyzed at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the end of treatment. Patient and provider demographic characteristics were also evaluated for potential associations with PET/CT use.ResultsTotal costs in the PET/CT group were higher during the first 18 months after treatment (P = .002 at 6 months, P = .019 at 12 months, and P = .018 at 18 months) but was marginally significant (P = .05) at 24 months. In univariate analysis of demographic variables, patients who lived in a state different from the treatment center might have been more likely to receive PET/CT (odds ratio [OR], 1.76; P = .051). In multivariate analysis, patients treated in 2007 to 2010 (OR, 29.9; P < .001) or 2003 to 2006 (OR, 11.6; P = .002) were more likely to receive PET/CT than patients treated in 1999 to 2002. In addition, radiation oncologists with > 10 years of experience were more likely to use PET/CT than those with less experience, although this result might be confounded by the small number of providers.ConclusionUse of PET/CT was associated with higher costs for 18 months after treatment, but the difference was at the borderline of statistical significance at 24 months.

Project description:ImportanceThe American College of Radiology (ACR) has recognized the importance of minimizing radiation doses used for lung cancer screening (LCS) computed tomography (CT). However, without standard protocols, doses could still be unnecessarily high, reducing screening margin of benefit.ObjectiveTo characterize LCS CT radiation doses and identify factors explaining variation.Design, setting, and participantsWe prospectively collected LCS examination dose metrics, from 2016 to 2017, at US institutions in the University of California, San Francisco International Dose Registry. Institution-level factors were collected through baseline survey. Mixed-effects linear and logistic regression models were estimated using forward variable selection. Results are presented as percentage excess dose and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The analysis was conducted between 2018 and 2019.Main outcomes and measuresLog-transformed measures of (1) mean volume CT dose index (CTDIvol, mGy), reflecting the average radiation dose per slice; (2) mean effective dose (ED, mSv), reflecting the total dose received and estimated future cancer risk; (3) proportion of CT scans using radiation doses above ACR benchmarks (CTDIvol >3 mGy, ED >1 mSv); and (4) proportion of CT scans using radiation doses above 75th percentile of registry doses (CTDIvol >2.7 mGy, ED >1.4 mSv).ResultsData were collected for 12 529 patients undergoing LCS CT scans performed at 72 institutions. Overall, 7232 participants (58%) were men, and the median age was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 60-70). Of 72 institutions, 15 (21%) had median CTDIvol and 47 (65%) had median ED above ACR guidelines. Institutions allowing any radiologists to establish protocols had 44% higher mean CTDIvol (mean dose difference [MDD], 44%; 95% CI, 19%-69%) and 27% higher mean ED (MDD, 27%; 95% CI, 5%-50%) vs those limiting who established protocols. Institutions allowing any radiologist to establish protocols had higher odds of examinations exceeding ACR CTDIvol guidelines (OR, 12.0; 95% CI, 2.0-71.4), and 75th percentile of registry CTDIvol (OR, 19.0; 95% CI, 1.9-186.7) or ED (OR, 8.5; 95% CI, 1.7-42.9). Having lead radiologists establish protocols resulted in lower odds of doses exceeding ACR ED guidelines (OR, 0.01; 95% CI, 0.001-0.1). Employing external vs internal medical physicists was associated with increased odds of exceeding ACR CTDIvol guidelines (OR, 6.1; 95% CI, 1.8-20.8). Having medical physicists establish protocols was associated with decreased odds of exceeding 75th percentile of registry CTDIvol (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.59). Institutions reporting protocol updates as needed had 27% higher mean CTDIvol (MDD, 27%; 95% CI, 8%-45%).Conclusions and relevanceFacilities varied in LCS CT radiation dose distributions. Institutions limiting protocol creation to lead radiologists and having internal medical physicists had lower doses.

Project description:BackgroundIn most guidelines, upper rectal cancers (URC) are not recommended to take neoadjuvant or adjuvant radiation. However, the definitions of URC vary greatly. Five definitions had been commonly used to define URC: 1) >10 cm from the anal verge by MRI; 2) >12 cm from the anal verge by MRI; 3) >10 cm from the anal verge by colonoscopy; 4) >12 cm from the anal verge by colonoscopy; 5) above the anterior peritoneal reflection (APR). We hypothesized that the fifth definition is optimal to identify patients with rectal cancer to avoid adjuvant radiation.MethodsThe data of stage II/III rectal cancer patients who underwent radical surgery without preoperative chemoradiotherapy were retrospectively reviewed. The height of the APR was measured, and compared with the tumor height measured by digital rectal examination (DRE), MRI and colonoscopy. The five definitions were compared in terms of prediction of local recurrence, survival, and percentages of patients requiring radiation.ResultsA total of 576 patients were included, with the intraoperative location of 222 and 354 tumors being above and straddle/below the APR, respectively. The median distance of the APR from anal verge (height of APR) as measured by MRI was 8.7 (range: 4.5-14.3) cm. The height of APR positively correlated with body height (r=0.862, P<0.001). The accuracy of the MRI in determining the tumor location with respect to the APR was 92.1%. Rectal cancer above the APR had a significantly lower incidence of local recurrence than those straddle/below the APR (P=0.042). For those above the APR, there was no significant difference in local recurrence between the radiation and no-radiation group. Multivariate analyses showed that tumor location regarding APR was an independent risk factor for LRFS. Tumor height as measured by DRE, MRI and colonoscopy were not related with survival outcomes. Fewer rectal cancer patients required adjuvant radiation using the definition by the APR, compared with other four definitions based on a numerical tumor height measured by MRI and colonoscopy.ConclusionsThe definition of URC as rectal tumor above the APR, might be the optimal definition to select patients with stage II/III rectal cancer to avoid postoperative adjuvant radiation.