Treatment Outcomes of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Ground Glass Opacity Nodules and Solid Lung Cancer.

IF 1.6 4区医学 Q4 ONCOLOGY

Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology Pub Date : 2025-05-30 DOI:10.1111/ajco.14194

Yasushi Hamamoto, Kenji Makita, Hiromitsu Kanzaki, Kei Nagasaki, Hiroshi Suehisa, Hisayuki Shigematsu, Tsuyoshi Ueno, Daijiro Harada, Takashi Ninomiya, Toshiyuki Kozuki, Motohiro Yamashita

{"title":"Treatment Outcomes of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Ground Glass Opacity Nodules and Solid Lung Cancer.","authors":"Yasushi Hamamoto, Kenji Makita, Hiromitsu Kanzaki, Kei Nagasaki, Hiroshi Suehisa, Hisayuki Shigematsu, Tsuyoshi Ueno, Daijiro Harada, Takashi Ninomiya, Toshiyuki Kozuki, Motohiro Yamashita","doi":"10.1111/ajco.14194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Disease control outcomes of ground glass opacity nodules (GGNs) treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) were evaluated with comparing to solid lung cancer.Material and methods: Patients who received SBRT for primary lung cancer with maximum tumor diameter of 5 cm or smaller between July 2006 and February 2012 were retrospectively reviewed.Results: A total of 169 primary lung cancer (GGNs, 40; solid lung cancer, 129) in 151 patients (age, 55-92; median, 79) were treated with SBRT of 48-62.5 Gy in 4-5 fractions (mean 50.3 Gy). Median follow-up time was 52 months (3-180 months). For GGNs and solid lung cancer, 5-year local failure free rates (LFF) were 94% and 74% (p = 0.0223), 5-year regional failure free rates (RFF) were 95% and 79% (p = 0.0293), 5-year distant failure free rates (DFF) were 86% and 77% (p = 0.0803), and 5-year overall survival rates (OS) were 73% and 40% (p < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, tumor appearance of solid lung cancer was the significant unfavorable factor for LFF, RFF, and OS. When GGNs were classified into two groups according to consolidation to maximum tumor diameter ratio (CTR), 5-year LFF, RFF, and DFF were 100%, 100%, and 93% for GGNs with CTR < 0.5, and 71%, 78%, and 62% for GGNs with CTR ≥ 0.5.Conclusions: LFF and RFF after SBRT were significantly better in GGNs compared to solid lung cancer. However, local, regional, and distant failure were not uncommon in GGNs with CTR ≥ 0.5, as were solid lung cancer. Disease control outcomes of SBRT was favorable in GGNs with CTR < 0.5.","PeriodicalId":8633,"journal":{"name":"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.14194","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Disease control outcomes of ground glass opacity nodules (GGNs) treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) were evaluated with comparing to solid lung cancer.

Material and methods: Patients who received SBRT for primary lung cancer with maximum tumor diameter of 5 cm or smaller between July 2006 and February 2012 were retrospectively reviewed.

Results: A total of 169 primary lung cancer (GGNs, 40; solid lung cancer, 129) in 151 patients (age, 55-92; median, 79) were treated with SBRT of 48-62.5 Gy in 4-5 fractions (mean 50.3 Gy). Median follow-up time was 52 months (3-180 months). For GGNs and solid lung cancer, 5-year local failure free rates (LFF) were 94% and 74% (p = 0.0223), 5-year regional failure free rates (RFF) were 95% and 79% (p = 0.0293), 5-year distant failure free rates (DFF) were 86% and 77% (p = 0.0803), and 5-year overall survival rates (OS) were 73% and 40% (p < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, tumor appearance of solid lung cancer was the significant unfavorable factor for LFF, RFF, and OS. When GGNs were classified into two groups according to consolidation to maximum tumor diameter ratio (CTR), 5-year LFF, RFF, and DFF were 100%, 100%, and 93% for GGNs with CTR < 0.5, and 71%, 78%, and 62% for GGNs with CTR ≥ 0.5.

Conclusions: LFF and RFF after SBRT were significantly better in GGNs compared to solid lung cancer. However, local, regional, and distant failure were not uncommon in GGNs with CTR ≥ 0.5, as were solid lung cancer. Disease control outcomes of SBRT was favorable in GGNs with CTR < 0.5.

查看原文本刊更多论文

立体定向放射治疗磨玻璃混浊结节及实性肺癌疗效观察。

目的：评价立体定向放疗（SBRT）治疗磨玻璃混浊结节（GGNs）的疾病控制效果，并与实体肺癌进行比较。材料和方法：回顾性分析2006年7月至2012年2月间接受SBRT治疗最大肿瘤直径小于或等于5cm的原发性肺癌患者。结果：原发性肺癌169例(ggn， 40例；实体肺癌，129例，151例(年龄55-92岁；中位数，79)，接受4-5次48-62.5 Gy的SBRT治疗（平均50.3 Gy）。中位随访时间为52个月（3 ~ 180个月）。对于ggn和实体肺癌，5年局部无失败率（LFF）分别为94%和74% (p = 0.0223)， 5年区域无失败率（RFF）分别为95%和79% (p = 0.0293)， 5年远处无失败率（DFF）分别为86%和77% (p = 0.0803)， 5年总生存率（OS）分别为73%和40% （p < 0.0001）。在多变量分析中，实体肺癌的肿瘤外观是影响LFF、RFF和OS的显著不利因素。根据实变与最大肿瘤直径比（CTR）将ggn分为两组，CTR < 0.5的ggn的5年LFF、RFF和DFF分别为100%、100%和93%，CTR≥0.5的ggn的5年LFF、RFF和DFF分别为71%、78%和62%。结论：与实体肺癌相比，SBRT后ggn的LFF和RFF明显更好。然而，在CTR≥0.5的ggn中，局部、区域和远处失败并不罕见，实体肺癌也是如此。在CTR < 0.5的ggn中，SBRT的疾病控制结果较好。

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

Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology 医学-肿瘤学

CiteScore

3.40

自引率

0.00%

发文量

175

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Asia–Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology is a multidisciplinary journal of oncology that aims to be a forum for facilitating collaboration and exchanging information on what is happening in different countries of the Asia–Pacific region in relation to cancer treatment and care. The Journal is ideally positioned to receive publications that deal with diversity in cancer behavior, management and outcome related to ethnic, cultural, economic and other differences between populations. In addition to original articles, the Journal publishes reviews, editorials, letters to the Editor and short communications. Case reports are generally not considered for publication, only exceptional papers in which Editors find extraordinary oncological value may be considered for review. The Journal encourages clinical studies, particularly prospectively designed clinical trials.