A comparison of two modalities of stereotactic body radiation therapy for peripheral early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: results of a prospective French study

Lung stereotactic radiation therapy: Intercomparison of irradiation devices in terms of outcome and predictive factors

PURPOSE

To compare three different radiotherapy devices able to perform pulmonary stereotactic radiotherapy: CyberKnife® (CK), Helical Tomotherapy® (HT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). This study aims to define the patients' outcome in terms of SBRT efficacy and toxicities depending of the device choice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical, radiological, and dosimetric data of patients treated with lung SBRT between 2016 and 2020 at Lausanne University Hospital, using the Chi² test for proportions, the t-test for means comparisons, the Kaplan-Meier method for survival, and the Log-rank test and Cox-regression for intergroups comparisons.

RESULTS

We identified 111 patients treated by either CK (59.9%), VMAT (38.0%), or HT (2.1%). Compared to other techniques, CK treated comparable gross tumor volume (GTV; 2.1 vs. 1.4cm³, P=0.84) with smaller planning treatment volume (PTV; 12.3 vs. 21.9cm³, P=0.013) and lower V5 (13.5 vs. 19.9cm³, P=0.002). Local control rates at 2years were not different whatever the irradiation device, respectively of 96.2% (range, 90.8-100) and 98.1% (range, 94.4-100), P=0.68. Toxicity incidence significantly increased with V5 value>17.2% (56.0 vs. 77.4%, P=0.021).

CONCLUSION

Compared to other SBRT techniques, CK treatments permitted to treat comparable GTV with reduced PTV and V5. Toxicity incidence was less frequent when reducing the V5. CK is particularly attractive in case of multiple courses of lung SBRT or lung reirradiation.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 4: systematic review of evidence involving SBRT and ablation

Background

Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options [lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), thermal ablation], weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making.

Methods

A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after SBRT or thermal ablation vs. resection is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons with at least some adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved.

Results

Short-term outcomes are meaningfully better after SBRT than resection. SBRT doesn't affect quality-of-life (QOL), on average pulmonary function is not altered, but a minority of patients may experience gradual late toxicity. Adjusted non-randomized comparisons demonstrate a clinically relevant detriment in long-term outcomes after SBRT vs. surgery. The short-term benefits of SBRT over surgery are accentuated with increasing age and compromised patients, but the long-term detriment remains. Ablation is associated with a higher rate of complications than SBRT, but there is little intermediate-term impact on quality-of-life or pulmonary function tests. Adjusted comparisons show a meaningful detriment in long-term outcomes after ablation vs. surgery; there is less difference between ablation and SBRT.

Conclusions

A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy or thermal ablation vs. resection with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation for a framework for individualized decision-making.

Multi-institutional phase II study on the safety and efficacy of dynamic tumor tracking-stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung tumors

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dynamic tumor tracking-stereotactic body radiotherapy (DTT-SBRT) for lung tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with cStage I primary lung cancer or metastatic lung cancer with an expected range of respiratory motion of ≥10 mm were eligible for the study. The prescribed dose was 50 Gy in four fractions. A gimbal-mounted linac was used for DTT-SBRT delivery. The primary endpoint was local control at 2 years.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients from four institutions were enrolled in this study. Forty-two patients had primary non-small-cell lung cancer, and six had metastatic lung tumors. DTT-SBRT was delivered for 47 lesions in 47 patients with a median treatment time of 28 min per fraction. The median respiratory motion during the treatment was 13.7 mm (range: 4.5-28.1 mm). The motion-encompassing method was applied for the one remaining patient due to the poor correlation between the abdominal wall and tumor movement. The median follow-up period was 32.3 months, and the local control at 2 years was 95.2% (lower limit of the one-sided 85% confidence interval [CI]: 90.3%). The overall survival and progression-free survival at 2 years were 79.2% (95% CI: 64.7%-88.2%) and 75.0% (95% CI: 60.2%-85.0%), respectively. Grade 3 toxicity was observed in one patient (2.1%) with radiation pneumonitis. Grade 4 or 5 toxicity was not observed.

CONCLUSION

DTT-SBRT achieved excellent local control with low incidences of severe toxicities in lung tumors with respiratory motion.

Translation and adaptation of the EORTC QLQ-LC 29 for use in Chinese patients with lung cancer

Background

The latest European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 29 (QLQ-LC29) has been translated and validated in several languages but not yet in simplified Chinese. This study aimed to translate this questionnaire into simplified Chinese and adapt it for use in Chinese patients with lung cancer.

Methods

The translation and adaptation process followed the EORTC translation procedure, and consisted of eight steps, namely, translation preparation, forward translations, reconciled translation, back translations, a back translation report, proofreading, pilot testing, and finalisation. The pilot testing included 10 patients with lung cancer.

Results

We obtained the permission to perform the EORTC QLQ-LC29 translation work on November 17, 2020. Thereafter, it took 3 weeks to complete the forward translations, reconciled translation, and back translations. After several rounds of discussion with the EORTC Translation Unit, 19 items used the existing translations from the EORTC Item Library (a database of EORTC questionnaire items and their translations), and 10 items were translated from scratch. The 10 patients included in the pilot testing phase had a median age of 64 years (range 31–69 years); five were male, five had an educational level of high school or above, and six had undergone surgery. Eight items received comments from patients (six items by one patient alone and the other two items by three patients). No patients commented on the instructions or the format used for responses. After discussion with the EORTC Translation Unit, we modified the Chinese wording in item 50 to ensure that the meaning of “lifeless” was clear. No changes were made to the remaining items.

Conclusions

The simplified Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-LC29 is now available on the EORTC website. This translation may contribute to the application of the EORTC QLQ-LC29 scale in both research and clinical practice in the Chinese population with lung cancer. Further evaluation of the psychometric properties of the translated EORTC QLQ-LC29 is warranted.

Tumour motion management in lung cancer: a narrative review

Respiratory motion is one of the geometrical uncertainties that may affect the accuracy of thoracic radiotherapy in the treatment of lung cancer. Accounting for tumour motion may allow reducing treatment volumes, irradiated healthy tissue and possibly toxicity, and finally enabling dose escalation. Historically, large population-based margins were used to encompass tumour motion. A paradigmatic change happened in the last decades led to the development of modern imaging techniques during the simulation and the delivery, such as the 4-dimensional (4D) computed tomography (CT) or the 4D-cone beam CT scan, has contributed to a better understanding of lung tumour motion and to the widespread use of individualised margins (with either an internal tumour volume approach or a mid-position/ventilation approach). Moreover, recent technological advances in the delivery of radiotherapy treatments (with a variety of commercial solution allowing tumour tracking, gating or treatments in deep-inspiration breath-hold) conjugate the necessity of minimising treatment volumes while maximizing the patient comfort with less invasive techniques. In this narrative review, we provided an introduction on the intra-fraction tumour motion (in both lung tumours and mediastinal lymph-nodes), and summarized the principal motion management strategies (in both the imaging and the treatment delivery) in thoracic radiotherapy for lung cancer, with an eye on the clinical outcomes.