Timing of Thoracic Radiation Therapy With Chemotherapy in Limited-stage Small-cell Lung Cancer: Survey of US Radiation Oncologists on Current Practice Patterns

Practice Patterns of Treatment Strategy of Limited-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Survey of Chinese Oncologists

Background

Thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) with concurrent chemotherapy is the standard treatment of limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC). However, there is still a controversy surrounding the treatment strategy especially optimal dosing and fractionation schedule. Current practice patterns among Chinese oncologists are unknown.

Materials and Methods

We surveyed 212 Chinese oncologists using a questionnaire including 50 questions designed by experienced oncologists. Questions covered demographic data, treatment recommendations, and self-assessed knowledge of guidelines or key clinical trials for SCLC. The chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test were utilized to describe the result of the study.

Results

The response rate was 97% (207/212). Of all the respondents, 69% preferred TRT QD, 29% preferred BID, and 2% chose HFRT. For those who prefer TRT QD, 72% preferred a total dose of 60 Gy, followed by 15% opting for 66 Gy, 12% for <60 Gy, and 1% for 70 Gy. Of those who prefer BID, 79% preferred a total dose of 45 Gy, with 4% choosing 30 Gy, 8% choosing 50 Gy, 7% choosing 54 Gy, and 2% choosing >54 Gy. Regarding PCI, 82% of participants believed that PCI should be performed when treatment is completed and 13% believed that PCI should begin immediately after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. As for other therapies, 26% of participants choose concurrent anti-angiogenic therapy during SCLC treatment, and 49% recommended small-molecule TKI as the main anti-angiogenic therapy.

Conclusion

Substantial variation exists in how Chinese oncologists approach TRT dosing and fractionation for LS-SCLC. Almost 70% of respondents reported administering TRT QD more often in daily work. The most common doses were 60 Gy QD and 45 Gy BID.

Optimal timing of thoracic irradiation for limited stage small cell lung cancer: Current evidence and future prospects

Lung cancer is a global health concern as the leading cause of cancer related mortality worldwide. Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) poses a formidable challenge to the treating physicians with the worst prognosis among all lung cancers. However, limited stage SCLC (LS-SCLC) has a relatively better outcome with multimodality management. Efforts have been focused on optimal integration of treatment modalities to achieve an improved therapeutic ratio for patients with LS-SCLC. While chemotherapy and thoracic radiation therapy (TRT) are primary components of initial management for LS-SCLC, there is no consensus on optimal timing of TRT. Within this context, we herein provide a concise overview of current evidence and future prospects regarding the optimal timing of thoracic irradiation for LS-SCLC in light of the literature.

Elective Nodal Irradiation for Limited-stage Small-cell Lung Cancer: Survey of US Radiation Oncologists on Practice Patterns

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, elective nodal irradiation (ENI) has been used in clinical trials that have established thoracic radiotherapy as instrumental in improving survival for patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC). However, several reports have suggested that the omission of ENI might be appropriate. Current US practice patterns are unknown regarding ENI for patients with LS-SCLC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We surveyed US radiation oncologists via an institutional review board-approved questionnaire. The questions covered demographics, treatment recommendations, and self-assessed knowledge of key clinical trials. χ² and Cochran-Armitage tests were used to evaluate for statistically significant correlations between responses.

RESULTS

We received 309 responses. Of the respondents, 21% recommended ENI for N0 LS-SCLC, 29% for N1, and 30% for N2; 64% did not recommend ENI for any of these clinical scenarios. The respondents who recommended ENI were more likely to have been practicing for > 10 years (P < .001), more likely to be in private practice (P = .04), and less likely to be familiar with the ongoing Cancer and Leukemia Group B 30610 trial (P = .04). Almost all respondents (93%) prescribed the same radiation dose to the primary disease and involved lymph nodes. When delivering ENI, 36% prescribed the same dose to the involved and elective nodes, and 64% prescribed a lower dose to the elective nodes.

CONCLUSION

Nearly two thirds of respondents did not recommend ENI, which represents a shift in practice. A recent large clinical trial that omitted ENI reported greater overall survival than previously reported and lower-than-expected radiation toxicities, lending further evidence that omitting ENI should be considered a standard treatment strategy.