User login
Failure Patterns After Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Early Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Their Implications for Future Management
Objective: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an effective modality for patients with early stage nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are unsuitable for surgical management. We performed a retrospective review to evaluate the clinical outcomes and patterns of failure of patients who completed SBRT for early stage NSCLC.
Methods: Twenty-five veteran patients from G.V. Sonny Montgomery VA Medical Center, Jackson, MS (G.V. VAMC) with T1-3N0 NSCLC were referred to the neighboring University of Mississippi Medical Center for treatment with SBRT between July 2010 and June 2014. After completion of therapy, the patient’s care was then transferred back to G.V. VAMC for subsequent follow-up visits and surveillance imaging. All patients received a prescription of > 100 Gy biologically effective dose (BED). Fifty Gray (Gy) in 5 fractions was prescribed to 19 (76%) of the patients, while 3 (12%) patients received 60 Gy in 3 fractions, and another 3 (12%) patients received 48 Gy in 4 fractions. Clinical response was evaluated using RECIST 1.1 criteria. The primary endpoints included assessment of overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), local control (LC), regional failure (RF), and distant failure (DF) rates.
Results: The median follow-up was 37 months and the median OS and DFS rates were 50 months and 45.3 months, respectively. The three-year OS, DFS, LC, RF, and DF rates were 68.2%, 64.7%, 78.6%, 35.3%, and 8.3%, respectively. Eleven (44%) patients failed. Two (8%) with LF alone, 4 (16%) with RF, and 3 (12%) patients had LR, RF and DF. Of the 5 LFs, 2 of the patients failed within the planning target volume (PTV), while 3 patients had failures outside the PTV. There were a total of 12 deaths at last follow-up. Three patients died due to the malignancy, while 1 patient died from complications with radiation-related pneumonitis.
Conclusions: Our results were comparable to several larger reported series. While LC is excellent, failure within the same lobe is a problem with SBRT. Strategies such as tighter constraints of normal structures need to be applied, as about a third of these patients will require retreatment of a new lesion in the same lobe that was outside the previously irradiated field.
Objective: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an effective modality for patients with early stage nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are unsuitable for surgical management. We performed a retrospective review to evaluate the clinical outcomes and patterns of failure of patients who completed SBRT for early stage NSCLC.
Methods: Twenty-five veteran patients from G.V. Sonny Montgomery VA Medical Center, Jackson, MS (G.V. VAMC) with T1-3N0 NSCLC were referred to the neighboring University of Mississippi Medical Center for treatment with SBRT between July 2010 and June 2014. After completion of therapy, the patient’s care was then transferred back to G.V. VAMC for subsequent follow-up visits and surveillance imaging. All patients received a prescription of > 100 Gy biologically effective dose (BED). Fifty Gray (Gy) in 5 fractions was prescribed to 19 (76%) of the patients, while 3 (12%) patients received 60 Gy in 3 fractions, and another 3 (12%) patients received 48 Gy in 4 fractions. Clinical response was evaluated using RECIST 1.1 criteria. The primary endpoints included assessment of overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), local control (LC), regional failure (RF), and distant failure (DF) rates.
Results: The median follow-up was 37 months and the median OS and DFS rates were 50 months and 45.3 months, respectively. The three-year OS, DFS, LC, RF, and DF rates were 68.2%, 64.7%, 78.6%, 35.3%, and 8.3%, respectively. Eleven (44%) patients failed. Two (8%) with LF alone, 4 (16%) with RF, and 3 (12%) patients had LR, RF and DF. Of the 5 LFs, 2 of the patients failed within the planning target volume (PTV), while 3 patients had failures outside the PTV. There were a total of 12 deaths at last follow-up. Three patients died due to the malignancy, while 1 patient died from complications with radiation-related pneumonitis.
Conclusions: Our results were comparable to several larger reported series. While LC is excellent, failure within the same lobe is a problem with SBRT. Strategies such as tighter constraints of normal structures need to be applied, as about a third of these patients will require retreatment of a new lesion in the same lobe that was outside the previously irradiated field.
Objective: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an effective modality for patients with early stage nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are unsuitable for surgical management. We performed a retrospective review to evaluate the clinical outcomes and patterns of failure of patients who completed SBRT for early stage NSCLC.
Methods: Twenty-five veteran patients from G.V. Sonny Montgomery VA Medical Center, Jackson, MS (G.V. VAMC) with T1-3N0 NSCLC were referred to the neighboring University of Mississippi Medical Center for treatment with SBRT between July 2010 and June 2014. After completion of therapy, the patient’s care was then transferred back to G.V. VAMC for subsequent follow-up visits and surveillance imaging. All patients received a prescription of > 100 Gy biologically effective dose (BED). Fifty Gray (Gy) in 5 fractions was prescribed to 19 (76%) of the patients, while 3 (12%) patients received 60 Gy in 3 fractions, and another 3 (12%) patients received 48 Gy in 4 fractions. Clinical response was evaluated using RECIST 1.1 criteria. The primary endpoints included assessment of overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), local control (LC), regional failure (RF), and distant failure (DF) rates.
Results: The median follow-up was 37 months and the median OS and DFS rates were 50 months and 45.3 months, respectively. The three-year OS, DFS, LC, RF, and DF rates were 68.2%, 64.7%, 78.6%, 35.3%, and 8.3%, respectively. Eleven (44%) patients failed. Two (8%) with LF alone, 4 (16%) with RF, and 3 (12%) patients had LR, RF and DF. Of the 5 LFs, 2 of the patients failed within the planning target volume (PTV), while 3 patients had failures outside the PTV. There were a total of 12 deaths at last follow-up. Three patients died due to the malignancy, while 1 patient died from complications with radiation-related pneumonitis.
Conclusions: Our results were comparable to several larger reported series. While LC is excellent, failure within the same lobe is a problem with SBRT. Strategies such as tighter constraints of normal structures need to be applied, as about a third of these patients will require retreatment of a new lesion in the same lobe that was outside the previously irradiated field.
Adjuvant and Salvage Radiation Therapy Following Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy: A Retrospective Review of a Single Institution
Purpose: To evaluate failure rates of patients from a single institution who underwent salvage and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) following radical retropubic prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate.
Methods: Between 2002 and 2015, 62 patients were treated with Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy following Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy (RRP). Of these, 45 (72.6%) patients received salvage therapy, all of whom had a Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) of > 0.2; while 17 (27.4%) patients underwent adjuvant RT at a median of 5 months following RRP, due to having either positive extracapsular extension (ECE) (65%), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) (29%), and/or positive margins (65%). The median dose delivered to the prostate fossa, as per the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group guidelines for post-prostatectomy radiation therapy, was 6600c Gy at 180-200 cGy a fraction. In the salvage group, 9 patients ended up receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) at some point following RRP, while 7 patients were prescribed ADT in the adjuvant group.
Results: With the median follow-up of 62 months, the median disease free survival rates were 10.8 and 4.3 years (P < 0.011) for the salvage and adjuvant groups, respectively. Biochemical progression free survival (bPFS) for the adjuvant groups was statistically significant (78.9%), when compared to 40% in the salvage group (P < 0.011). The patterns of failure in the salvage group were 9 patients had local failure (LF), 2 distant metastases (DM), and 3 patients had both LF and DM in the salvage group. On the other hand, in the adjuvant treatment group there was 1 patient with LF, 1 with DM and 1 patient with both LF and DM. Of those who failed following RT, the median time to failure was 25 and 99 months in the salvage and adjuvant groups, respectively. No patient experienced any sort of grade 3 toxicity following RT in either of the groups, per the CTCAE v3.0 criteria.
Conclusion: A retrospective review of 62 patients who received radiation therapy in either the salvage or adjuvant setting following prostatectomy revealed that adjuvant patients were with superior local control rates than salvage patients. We conclude that patients with high-risk features following prostatectomy receive adjuvant therapy and not delay radiation therapy until there is biochemical failure.
Purpose: To evaluate failure rates of patients from a single institution who underwent salvage and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) following radical retropubic prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate.
Methods: Between 2002 and 2015, 62 patients were treated with Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy following Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy (RRP). Of these, 45 (72.6%) patients received salvage therapy, all of whom had a Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) of > 0.2; while 17 (27.4%) patients underwent adjuvant RT at a median of 5 months following RRP, due to having either positive extracapsular extension (ECE) (65%), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) (29%), and/or positive margins (65%). The median dose delivered to the prostate fossa, as per the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group guidelines for post-prostatectomy radiation therapy, was 6600c Gy at 180-200 cGy a fraction. In the salvage group, 9 patients ended up receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) at some point following RRP, while 7 patients were prescribed ADT in the adjuvant group.
Results: With the median follow-up of 62 months, the median disease free survival rates were 10.8 and 4.3 years (P < 0.011) for the salvage and adjuvant groups, respectively. Biochemical progression free survival (bPFS) for the adjuvant groups was statistically significant (78.9%), when compared to 40% in the salvage group (P < 0.011). The patterns of failure in the salvage group were 9 patients had local failure (LF), 2 distant metastases (DM), and 3 patients had both LF and DM in the salvage group. On the other hand, in the adjuvant treatment group there was 1 patient with LF, 1 with DM and 1 patient with both LF and DM. Of those who failed following RT, the median time to failure was 25 and 99 months in the salvage and adjuvant groups, respectively. No patient experienced any sort of grade 3 toxicity following RT in either of the groups, per the CTCAE v3.0 criteria.
Conclusion: A retrospective review of 62 patients who received radiation therapy in either the salvage or adjuvant setting following prostatectomy revealed that adjuvant patients were with superior local control rates than salvage patients. We conclude that patients with high-risk features following prostatectomy receive adjuvant therapy and not delay radiation therapy until there is biochemical failure.
Purpose: To evaluate failure rates of patients from a single institution who underwent salvage and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) following radical retropubic prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate.
Methods: Between 2002 and 2015, 62 patients were treated with Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy following Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy (RRP). Of these, 45 (72.6%) patients received salvage therapy, all of whom had a Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) of > 0.2; while 17 (27.4%) patients underwent adjuvant RT at a median of 5 months following RRP, due to having either positive extracapsular extension (ECE) (65%), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) (29%), and/or positive margins (65%). The median dose delivered to the prostate fossa, as per the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group guidelines for post-prostatectomy radiation therapy, was 6600c Gy at 180-200 cGy a fraction. In the salvage group, 9 patients ended up receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) at some point following RRP, while 7 patients were prescribed ADT in the adjuvant group.
Results: With the median follow-up of 62 months, the median disease free survival rates were 10.8 and 4.3 years (P < 0.011) for the salvage and adjuvant groups, respectively. Biochemical progression free survival (bPFS) for the adjuvant groups was statistically significant (78.9%), when compared to 40% in the salvage group (P < 0.011). The patterns of failure in the salvage group were 9 patients had local failure (LF), 2 distant metastases (DM), and 3 patients had both LF and DM in the salvage group. On the other hand, in the adjuvant treatment group there was 1 patient with LF, 1 with DM and 1 patient with both LF and DM. Of those who failed following RT, the median time to failure was 25 and 99 months in the salvage and adjuvant groups, respectively. No patient experienced any sort of grade 3 toxicity following RT in either of the groups, per the CTCAE v3.0 criteria.
Conclusion: A retrospective review of 62 patients who received radiation therapy in either the salvage or adjuvant setting following prostatectomy revealed that adjuvant patients were with superior local control rates than salvage patients. We conclude that patients with high-risk features following prostatectomy receive adjuvant therapy and not delay radiation therapy until there is biochemical failure.