Kim Hwan-Ik, Noh O Kyu, Oh Young-Taek, Chun Mison, Kim Sang-Won, Cho Oyeon, Heo Jaesung
Department of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea.
Department of Biomedical Informatics, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea.
Radiat Oncol J. 2016 Sep;34(3):202-208. doi: 10.3857/roj.2016.01802. Epub 2016 Sep 28.
Our institution has implemented two different adjuvant protocols in treating patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CT-CCRT) and sequential postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) followed by postoperative chemotherapy (POCT). We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between the two adjuvant protocols.
From March 1997 to October 2012, 68 patients were treated with CT-CCRT (n = 25) and sequential PORT followed by POCT (RT-CT; n = 43). The CT-CCRT protocol consisted of 2 cycles of cisplatin-based POCT followed by PORT concurrently with 2 cycles of POCT. The RT-CT protocol consisted of PORT followed by 4 cycles of cisplatin-based POCT. PORT was administered using conventional fractionation with a dose of 50.4-60 Gy. We compared the outcomes between the two adjuvant protocols and analyzed the clinical factors affecting survivals.
Median follow-up time was 43.9 months (range, 3.2 to 74.0 months), and the 5-year overall survival (OS), locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were 53.9%, 68.2%, and 51.0%, respectively. There were no significant differences in OS (p = 0.074), LRFS (p = 0.094), and DMFS (p = 0.490) between the two protocols. In multivariable analyses, adjuvant protocol remained as a significant prognostic factor for LRFS, favouring CT-CCRT (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.506, p = 0.046) over RT-CT, not for OS (HR = 0.647, p = 0.229).
CT-CCRT protocol increased LRFS more than RT-CT protocol in patients with completely resected NSCLC, but not in OS. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the benefit of CCRT strategy compared with sequential strategy.
我们机构在治疗非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者时实施了两种不同的辅助治疗方案:化疗后序贯同步放化疗(CT-CCRT)以及术后序贯放疗(PORT)后再进行术后化疗(POCT)。我们旨在比较这两种辅助治疗方案的临床疗效。
1997年3月至2012年10月,68例患者接受了CT-CCRT治疗(n = 25)以及PORT序贯POCT治疗(RT-CT;n = 43)。CT-CCRT方案包括2个周期的铂类术后化疗,随后同步进行PORT及2个周期的术后化疗。RT-CT方案包括PORT,随后进行4个周期的铂类术后化疗。PORT采用常规分割,剂量为50.4 - 60 Gy。我们比较了两种辅助治疗方案的疗效,并分析了影响生存的临床因素。
中位随访时间为43.9个月(范围3.2至74.0个月),5年总生存(OS)率、局部区域无复发生存(LRFS)率和远处转移无复发生存(DMFS)率分别为53.9%、68.2%和51.0%。两种方案在OS(p = 0.074)、LRFS(p = 0.094)和DMFS(p = 0.490)方面无显著差异。在多变量分析中,辅助治疗方案仍是LRFS的一个显著预后因素,与RT-CT相比,CT-CCRT更具优势(风险比[HR] = 3.506,p = 0.046),但对OS并非如此(HR = 0.647,p = 0.229)。
在完全切除的NSCLC患者中,CT-CCRT方案比RT-CT方案更能提高LRFS,但对OS无此效果。有必要进一步研究以评估同步放化疗策略与序贯策略相比的益处。