Hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (HART) for inoperable, nonmetastatic non-small cell lung carcinoma of the lung (NSCLC): results of a phase II study for patients ineligible for combination radiochemotherapy

WITHDRAWN: Radical radiotherapy for stage I/II non-small cell lung cancer in patients not sufficiently fit for or declining surgery (medically inoperable)

The authors are unable to update this review. A new team is being sought to update it.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Clinical survey for registering treatment decision criteria in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer radiotherapy and determination of the dose–response relationship for 1-year survival

Purpose

Recent studies have suggested significant variations in radiotherapy schedules used to treat advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), both between different centers in one country as well as between countries. In this study, different treatment methodologies have been explored using management plans proposed by radiation oncologists regarding general questions and theoretical case histories for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Materials and methods

The survey was conducted by sending a questionnaire to 24 radiotherapy centers in Europe. The questionnaire was composed of two sections. The first section concerned reasons for giving radiotherapy, parameters that influence the choice of total dose and fractionation for radiotherapy and kind of equipment used. The second section concerned the management of five theoretical patients (A–E) regarding the selection of the radiotherapy technique and the aim of treatment (radical or palliative). Furthermore, 19 trials comparing different regimens of palliative radiotherapy in patients with NSCLC were reviewed. There were marked differences in the doses of the investigated radiotherapy schemes, the patient characteristics and the assessed outcome measures.

Results

70% of the responders answered that the most important factors for deciding what dose and fractionation scheme to use were: metastases, performance status (PS) of the patient, lung function and size of the primary tumour. The most common reasons for giving the treatment were symptom relief, prolongation of life and, in some cases, possibly cure. More than 95% of the responders stated that they would give radiotherapy in each of these cases. The total doses proposed where 20 Gy in five fractions or 30 Gy in ten fractions in 2 weeks for the cases A and D. If the previous two schemes were converted to a fractionation scheme delivering 2 Gy per fraction, the equivalent doses would be 23 and 33 Gy, respectively. For the cases B, C and E, the proposed fractionation schemes were 2 Gy daily to 60–68 Gy in 6 weeks or 2 Gy daily to 68 Gy in 7 weeks. For the case E, 20% of the responders suggested Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) giving 21 Gy three times a week with a day apart to 63 Gy. The total dose and number of fractions of radiotherapy are related to the perceived aims and expectations of treatment. Those aiming at extending life would give significantly higher total doses in a larger number of fractions, whereas those aiming at relieving symptoms would give significantly lower total doses. There is evidence for an increase in survival, in patients who are given higher radiotherapy doses, especially in those patients with better PS.

Conclusions

This survey demonstrates a range of treatment strategies for advanced and inoperable NSCLC within Europe. There are a number of factors that influence the perceived aims of treatment and treatment planning. These factors should be taken into account when evaluating the effectiveness of different irradiation techniques, especially in the determination of radiobiological parameters and dose–response relations. The majority of patients should be treated with short courses of palliative radiotherapy, of one or two fractions. The use of high-dose palliative regimens using many fractions or SBRT should be considered for selected patients with good PS.

Chemoradiotherapy for lung cancer

Chemoradiotherapy is a standard treatment for both unresectable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer and limited-stage small cell lung cancer. Cisplatin-based chemotherapy with concurrent thoracic radiotherapy yields a 5-year survival rate of approximately 15% for patients with unresectable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. The state-of-the-art treatment for limited-stage small cell lung cancer is four cycles of chemotherapy with cisplatin plus etoposide combined with early concurrent twice-daily thoracic irradiation and prophylactic cranial irradiation after complete remission. A 5-year survival rate of approximately 25% is expected among patients treated for limited-stage small cell lung cancer. The incorporation of new agents, including target-based drugs, is one of the most promising strategies for improving the survival of patients.

Radical radiotherapy for stage I/II non-small cell lung cancer in patients not sufficiently fit for or declining surgery (medically inoperable): a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of radical radiotherapy in medically inoperable stage I/II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and the extent of treatment related morbidity.

METHODS

Randomised trials were sought by electronically searching the Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, and both randomised and non-randomised trials were sought by searching Medline and Excerpta Medica (Embase). Further studies were identified from references cited in those papers already identified by electronic searching. The studies included were those of patients of any age with stage I/II NSCLC receiving radiotherapy at a dose of >40 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or its radiobiological equivalent.

RESULTS

Two randomised and 35 non-randomised studies were identified. One randomised and nine non-randomised studies did not meet the selection criteria, leaving one randomised and 26 non-randomised studies for analysis. In the randomised trial 2 year survival was higher following continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (CHART; 37%) than following 60 Gy in 30 fractions over 6 weeks (24%). An estimated 2003 patients were included in the 26 non-randomised studies; overall survival was 22-72% at 2 years, 17-55% at 3 years, and 0-42% at 5 years. Following treatment, 11-43% of patients died from causes other than cancer. Cancer specific survival was 54-93% at 2 years, 22-56% at 3 years, and 13-39% at 5 years. Complete response rates were 33-61% and local failure rates were 6-70%. Distant metastases developed in approximately 25% of patients. Better response rates and survival were seen in those with smaller tumours and in those receiving higher doses although the reasons for prescribing higher doses were not clearly stated. The outcome was worse in those with prior weight loss or poor performance status. Assessment of treatment related morbidity and effects on quality of life and symptom control were inconclusive because of the lack of prospective evaluation and paucity of data.

CONCLUSIONS

No randomised trials compared a policy of immediate radical radiotherapy with palliative radiotherapy given when patients develop symptoms. In the absence of such trials, radical radiotherapy appears to result in a better survival than might be expected had treatment not been given. A substantial, though variable, proportion of patients died during follow up from causes other than cancer. The optimal radiation dose and treatment technique (particularly with respect to mediastinal irradiation) remain uncertain.

Radical radiotherapy for stage I/II non-small cell lung cancer in patients not sufficiently fit for or declining surgery (medically inoperable): a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of radical radiotherapy in medically inoperable stage I/II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and the extent of treatment related morbidity.

METHODS

Randomised trials were sought by electronically searching the Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, and both randomised and non-randomised trials were sought by searching Medline and Excerpta Medica (Embase). Further studies were identified from references cited in those papers already identified by electronic searching. The studies included were those of patients of any age with stage I/II NSCLC receiving radiotherapy at a dose of >40 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or its radiobiological equivalent.

RESULTS

Two randomised and 35 non-randomised studies were identified. One randomised and nine non-randomised studies did not meet the selection criteria, leaving one randomised and 26 non-randomised studies for analysis. In the randomised trial 2 year survival was higher following continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (CHART; 37%) than following 60 Gy in 30 fractions over 6 weeks (24%). An estimated 2003 patients were included in the 26 non-randomised studies; overall survival was 22–72% at 2 years, 17–55% at 3 years, and 0–42% at 5 years. Following treatment, 11–43% of patients died from causes other than cancer. Cancer specific survival was 54–93% at 2 years, 22–56% at 3 years, and 13–39% at 5 years. Complete response rates were 33–61% and local failure rates were 6–70%. Distant metastases developed in approximately 25% of patients. Better response rates and survival were seen in those with smaller tumours and in those receiving higher doses although the reasons for prescribing higher doses were not clearly stated. The outcome was worse in those with prior weight loss or poor performance status. Assessment of treatment related morbidity and effects on quality of life and symptom control were inconclusive because of the lack of prospective evaluation and paucity of data.

CONCLUSIONS

No randomised trials compared a policy of immediate radical radiotherapy with palliative radiotherapy given when patients develop symptoms. In the absence of such trials, radical radiotherapy appears to result in a better survival than might be expected had treatment not been given. A substantial, though variable, proportion of patients died during follow up from causes other than cancer. The optimal radiation dose and treatment technique (particularly with respect to mediastinal irradiation) remain uncertain.

Radical radiotherapy for stage I/II non-small cell lung cancer in patients not sufficiently fit for or declining surgery (medically inoperable)

BACKGROUND

In general, surgery is believed to offer the best prospects for cure for early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In spite of the intention to consider all patients with stage I-II disease for surgery, there are those who, although technically operable, either refuse surgery or are considered inoperable because of insufficient respiratory reserve, cardiovascular disease or general frailty. This group may therefore be considered "medically inoperable". Some respiratory physicians refer these patients for radical radiotherapy whilst others believe that radiotherapy has little to offer and adopt a watch policy, referring patients for palliative radiotherapy only when they become symptomatic. Although there is little evidence from randomised trials to support the use of radical radiotherapy for stage I/II NSCLC, it is the perception of most clinical oncologists (radiotherapists) that patients should receive radical, as opposed to palliative, treatment (COIN 1999).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and the morbidity of radical radiotherapy for medically inoperable NSCLC.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised trials were sought by electronic searching the Cochrane Clinical Trials Register and both randomised and non-randomised trials sought by searching Medline and Excerpta Medica (Embase). Further studies were identified from references cited in those papers already identified by electronic searching.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies of patients of any age with stage I/II NSCLC receiving radiotherapy at a dose greater than 40Gy in 20 fractions over four weeks or its radiobiological equivalent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two randomised and thirty-five non-randomised studies were identified. One randomised and nine non-randomised studies did not meet the selection criteria and were not included in the review.

MAIN RESULTS

In the randomised trial comparing two radiotherapy schedules, two-year survival was superior following continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (CHART; 37%) compared to 60Gy in 30 fractions over six weeks (24%). There were 26 non-randomised retrospective studies including an estimated 2003 patients, in which overall survival results varied between 33-72% at two years, 17-55% at three years and 0-42% at five years. The proportion of deaths not due to cancer was 11-43%. Cancer-specific survival was between 54-93% at two years, 22-56% at three years and 13-39% at five years. Complete response rates were 33-61% and local failure rates between 6-70%. Distant metastases developed in approximately 25% of patients. Better response rates and survival were seen in those with smaller tumours and in those receiving higher doses though the reasons for prescribing higher doses were not clearly stated. Worse outcome was seen in those with prior weight loss or poor performance status. Assessment of treatment-related morbidity and effects on quality of life and symptom control were inconclusive because of the lack of prospective evaluation and paucity of data.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There were no randomised trials that compared a policy of immediate radical radiotherapy with palliative radiotherapy given when patients develop symptoms. In the absence of such trials, radical radiotherapy appears to result in a better survival than might be expected had treatment not been given. A substantial, though variable, proportion of patients died during follow-up from causes other than cancer. The optimal radiation dose and treatment technique (particularly with respect to mediastinal irradiation) remain uncertain.