Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus conventional fractionated radiotherapy for clinical early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: a population-based study.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Thoracic Cancer Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-16 DOI:10.1111/1759-7714.15404
Hung-Jen Chen, Wen-Chien Cheng, Chih-Yen Tu, Te-Chun Hsia, Yu-Sen Lin, Hsin-Yuan Fang, Chia-Chin Li, Chun-Ru Chien
{"title":"Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus conventional fractionated radiotherapy for clinical early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: a population-based study.","authors":"Hung-Jen Chen, Wen-Chien Cheng, Chih-Yen Tu, Te-Chun Hsia, Yu-Sen Lin, Hsin-Yuan Fang, Chia-Chin Li, Chun-Ru Chien","doi":"10.1111/1759-7714.15404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The use of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) over conventional fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been advocated, but is also debated in the literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective cohort study, we adopted a target trial emulation framework to identify eligible patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2021 using the Taiwan Cancer Registry. In the primary analysis, the overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint, whereas incidences of lung cancer mortality and radiation pulmonary toxicity were the secondary endpoints. Extensive supplementary analyses were also conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 351 patients in the primary analysis and found that the OS was not significantly different between the SABR (n = 290) and CFRT (n = 61) groups. The propensity score weighting adjusted hazard ratio of death was 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.53-1.07, p = 0.118). The secondary endpoints and supplementary analyses showed no significant differences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The OS of patients with early-stage NSCLC treated with SABR was not significantly different from that of patients treated with CFRT alone. The results of the relevant ongoing clinical trials are eagerly awaited.</p>","PeriodicalId":23338,"journal":{"name":"Thoracic Cancer","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11333301/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thoracic Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.15404","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The use of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) over conventional fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been advocated, but is also debated in the literature.

Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we adopted a target trial emulation framework to identify eligible patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2021 using the Taiwan Cancer Registry. In the primary analysis, the overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint, whereas incidences of lung cancer mortality and radiation pulmonary toxicity were the secondary endpoints. Extensive supplementary analyses were also conducted.

Results: We included 351 patients in the primary analysis and found that the OS was not significantly different between the SABR (n = 290) and CFRT (n = 61) groups. The propensity score weighting adjusted hazard ratio of death was 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.53-1.07, p = 0.118). The secondary endpoints and supplementary analyses showed no significant differences.

Conclusions: The OS of patients with early-stage NSCLC treated with SABR was not significantly different from that of patients treated with CFRT alone. The results of the relevant ongoing clinical trials are eagerly awaited.

临床早期非小细胞肺癌立体定向消融放疗与传统分次放疗的比较:一项基于人群的研究。
导言:在早期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)治疗中,使用立体定向消融放疗(SABR)而非传统的分次放疗(CFRT)一直被提倡,但在文献中也存在争议:在这项回顾性队列研究中,我们采用了目标试验仿真框架,利用台湾癌症登记处的资料确定了2011年至2021年间确诊的符合条件的患者。在主要分析中,总生存期(OS)是主要终点,肺癌死亡率和辐射肺毒性发生率是次要终点。此外还进行了广泛的补充分析:我们在主要分析中纳入了 351 名患者,发现 SABR 组(n = 290)和 CFRT 组(n = 61)的 OS 无明显差异。倾向得分加权调整后的死亡危险比为 0.75(95% 置信区间为 0.53-1.07,P = 0.118)。次要终点和补充分析结果显示无明显差异:结论:接受SABR治疗的早期NSCLC患者的OS与单独接受CFRT治疗的患者没有明显差异。我们翘首以待正在进行的相关临床试验的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Thoracic Cancer
Thoracic Cancer ONCOLOGY-RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.40%
发文量
439
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Thoracic Cancer aims to facilitate international collaboration and exchange of comprehensive and cutting-edge information on basic, translational, and applied clinical research in lung cancer, esophageal cancer, mediastinal cancer, breast cancer and other thoracic malignancies. Prevention, treatment and research relevant to Asia-Pacific is a focus area, but submissions from all regions are welcomed. The editors encourage contributions relevant to prevention, general thoracic surgery, medical oncology, radiology, radiation medicine, pathology, basic cancer research, as well as epidemiological and translational studies in thoracic cancer. Thoracic Cancer is the official publication of the Chinese Society of Lung Cancer, International Chinese Society of Thoracic Surgery and is endorsed by the Korean Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and the Hong Kong Cancer Therapy Society. The Journal publishes a range of article types including: Editorials, Invited Reviews, Mini Reviews, Original Articles, Clinical Guidelines, Technological Notes, Imaging in thoracic cancer, Meeting Reports, Case Reports, Letters to the Editor, Commentaries, and Brief Reports.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信