Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus lobectomy for operable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of two randomised trials

BACKGROUND

The standard of care for operable, stage I, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is lobectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection or sampling. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for inoperable stage I NSCLC has shown promising results, but two independent, randomised, phase 3 trials of SABR in patients with operable stage I NSCLC (STARS and ROSEL) closed early due to slow accrual. We aimed to assess overall survival for SABR versus surgery by pooling data from these trials.

METHODS

Eligible patients in the STARS and ROSEL studies were those with clinical T1-2a (<4 cm), N0M0, operable NSCLC. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to SABR or lobectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection or sampling. We did a pooled analysis in the intention-to-treat population using overall survival as the primary endpoint. Both trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (STARS: NCT00840749; ROSEL: NCT00687986).

FINDINGS

58 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (31 to SABR and 27 to surgery). Median follow-up was 40·2 months (IQR 23·0-47·3) for the SABR group and 35·4 months (18·9-40·7) for the surgery group. Six patients in the surgery group died compared with one patient in the SABR group. Estimated overall survival at 3 years was 95% (95% CI 85-100) in the SABR group compared with 79% (64-97) in the surgery group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·14 [95% CI 0·017-1·190], log-rank p=0·037). Recurrence-free survival at 3 years was 86% (95% CI 74-100) in the SABR group and 80% (65-97) in the surgery group (HR 0·69 [95% CI 0·21-2·29], log-rank p=0·54). In the surgery group, one patient had regional nodal recurrence and two had distant metastases; in the SABR group, one patient had local recurrence, four had regional nodal recurrence, and one had distant metastases. Three (10%) patients in the SABR group had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (three [10%] chest wall pain, two [6%] dyspnoea or cough, and one [3%] fatigue and rib fracture). No patients given SABR had grade 4 events or treatment-related death. In the surgery group, one (4%) patient died of surgical complications and 12 (44%) patients had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events. Grade 3 events occurring in more than one patient in the surgery group were dyspnoea (four [15%] patients), chest pain (four [15%] patients), and lung infections (two [7%]).

INTERPRETATION

SABR could be an option for treating operable stage I NSCLC. Because of the small patient sample size and short follow-up, additional randomised studies comparing SABR with surgery in operable patients are warranted.

FUNDING

Accuray Inc, Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, NCI Cancer Center Support, NCI Clinical and Translational Science Award.

Evaluation of 4D CT acquisition methods designed to reduce artifacts

Four-dimensional computed tomography (4D CT) is used to account for respiratory motion in radiation treatment planning, but artifacts resulting from the acquisition and postprocessing limit its accuracy. We investigated the efficacy of three experimental 4D CT acquisition methods to reduce artifacts in a prospective institutional review board approved study. Eighteen thoracic patients scheduled to undergo radiation therapy received standard clinical 4D CT scans followed by each of the alternative 4D CT acquisitions: 1) data oversampling, 2) beam gating with breathing irregularities, and 3) rescanning the clinical acquisition acquired during irregular breathing. Relative values of a validated correlation-based artifact metric (CM) determined the best acquisition method per patient. Each 4D CT was processed by an extended phase sorting approach that optimizes the quantitative artifact metric (CM sorting). The clinical acquisitions were also postprocessed by phase sorting for artifact comparison of our current clinical implementation with the experimental methods. The oversampling acquisition achieved the lowest artifact presence among all acquisitions, achieving a 27% reduction from the current clinical 4D CT implementation (95% confidence interval = 34-20). The rescan method presented a significantly higher artifact presence from the clinical acquisition (37%; p < 0.002), the gating acquisition (26%; p < 0.005), and the oversampling acquisition (31%; p < 0.001), while the data lacked evidence of a significant difference between the clinical, gating, and oversampling methods. The oversampling acquisition reduced artifact presence from the current clinical 4D CT implementation to the largest degree and provided the simplest and most reproducible implementation. The rescan acquisition increased artifact presence significantly, compared to all acquisitions, and suffered from combination of data from independent scans over which large internal anatomic shifts occurred.

Patient-specific quantification of respiratory motion-induced dose uncertainty for step-and-shoot IMRT of lung cancer

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to quantify respiratory motion-induced dose uncertainty at the planning stage for step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using an analytical technique.

METHODS

Ten patients with stage II∕III lung cancer who had undergone a planning four-dimensional (4D) computed tomographic scan and step-and-shoot IMRT planning were selected with a mix of motion and tumor size for this retrospective study. A step-and-shoot IMRT plan was generated for each patient. The maximum and minimum doses with respiratory motion were calculated for each plan, and the mean deviation from the 4D dose was calculated, taking delivery time, fractionation, and patient breathing cycle into consideration.

RESULTS

For all patients evaluated in this study, the mean deviation from the 4D dose in the planning target volume (PTV) was <2.5%, with a standard deviation <1.2%, and maximum point dose variation from the 4D dose was <6.2% in the PTV assuming delivery dose rate of 200 MU∕min and patient breathing cycle of 8 s. The motion-induced dose uncertainty is a function of motion, fractionation, MU (plan modulation), dose rate, and patient breathing cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

Respiratory motion-induced dose uncertainty varies from patient to patient. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the dose uncertainty on a patient-specific basis, which could be useful for plan evaluation and treatment strategy determination for selected patients.