Background
In stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with concomitant chemoradiotherapy, there is a high rate of relapse. Some of these relapses are only local and can be treated by stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR). Previous studies reporting outcome after SABR reirradiation of the thorax consisted of a heterogeneous population of various lung cancer stages or even different types of cancer. The purpose of study is to evaluate toxicity and outcome of this strategy in locally relapsed stage III NSCLC only.
Methods
From February 2007 to November 2015, 46 Stage III NSCLC patients treated with SABR, for lung recurrence following conventionally fractionated radiation therapy (CFRT), were retrospectively analyzed.
Results
Median follow-up was 47.3 months (1–76.9). The 2 and 4-year progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were of 25.5%/8.6 and 48.9%/30.8%, respectively. Highest presenting toxicity in patients (grade 1 through 5) was: 13 (28.3%), 7 (15.2%), 1 (2.2%), 0 and 2 (4.4%), with deaths due to hemoptysis (
n
= 1) and alveolitis (
n
= 1). Although the Biological Effective Dose (at Planning Tumor Volume isocenter) was lower for central tumors treated for an in-field relapse (
n
= 21, 116 Gy versus 168 Gy,
p
= 0.005), they had no significant difference in OS than the remaining cohort, but with a higher rate of grade 2–5 toxicities (OR = 0.22, [0.06–0.8],
p
= 0.02).
Conclusion
Reirradiation with SABR for local relapse in patients previously treated for stage III NSCLC, is feasible and associated with good outcome. This is also true for central tumors treated for an in-field relapse, but should be radiated with caution to mitigate toxicity.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5542-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Phalanx bone metastasis as the initial presenting sign of lung cancer is a rare presentation. Lung cancer is known to metastasize to the bone, but rarely to the fingers. A 61-year-old male smoker presented with pain in the left ring finger. Severe pain discouraged the patient from using his left hand. An X-ray of the left hand showed a lytic bone lesion. The patient was treated with finger radiotherapy. Analgesics were no longer needed and the patient was able to reuse his left hand in his everyday life. Palliative radiotherapy relieved our patient and improved his quality of life.
Purpose: Management of head and neck cancers of unknown primary (HNCUP) combines neck dissection (ND) and radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy. The prognostic value of ND has hardly been studied in HNCUP. Methods: A retrospective multicentric study assessed the impact of ND extent (adenectomy, selective ND, radical/radical-modified ND) on nodal relapse, progression-free survival (PFS) or survival, taking into account nodal stage. Results: 53 patients (16.5%) had no ND, 33 (10.2%) had lymphadenectomy, 116 (36.0%) underwent selective ND and 120 underwent radical/radical-modified ND (37.3%), 15 of which received radical ND (4.7%). With a 34-month median follow-up, the 3-year incidence of nodal relapse was 12.5% and progression-free survival (PFS) 69.1%. In multivariate analysis after adjusting for nodal stage, the risk of nodal relapse or progression was reduced with lymphadenectomy, selective or radical/modified ND, but survival rates were similar. Patients undergoing lymphadenectomy or ND had a better PFS and lowered nodal relapse incidence in the N1 + N2a group, but the improvement was not significant for the N2b or N2 + N3c patients. Severe toxicity rates exceeded 40% with radical ND. Conclusion: In HNCUP, ND improves PFS, regardless of nodal stage. The magnitude of the benefit of ND does not appear to depend on ND extent and decreases with a more advanced nodal stage.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.