{"title":"Impact of omitting clinical target volume in radiotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.","authors":"Liang Liu, Wen Bao, Xiaoshuai Yuan, Yaoyao Zhu, Ying Zhang, Petros Christopoulos, Baptiste Abbar, Cheng Qian, Shuangyan Yang, Yaping Xu","doi":"10.21037/tlcr-2025-409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Determining the planned target volume (PTV) for locally advanced (LA) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is often a challenging task for radiation oncologists. Due to advances in effective multidisciplinary treatments, the necessity to reconcile the clinical target volume (CTV) with the gross tumor volume (GTV) and the PTV presents an ongoing controversy. This study sought to analyze the effects of omitting the CTV on the clinical outcomes of patients with LA-NSCLC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were retrospectively collected from all consecutive patients with histologically confirmed LA-NSCLC treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) at Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital from January 2019 to December 2020. The patients were divided into two groups based on different radiotherapy planning techniques: (I) the planning target volume-gross target (PTV-G) group; and (II) the planning target volume-clinical target (PTV-C) group. The PTV-G was directly based on the GTV, while the PTV-C was based on the simulated CTV. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to enhance the comparability of the clinical data between the two groups. The primary endpoint of the study was the occurrence of radiotherapy-associated adverse events. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), post-treatment tumor recurrence patterns, and variations in peripheral blood cell characteristics pre- and post-radiotherapy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 255 patients were identified from our local database. After matching on propensity score with a 1:2 ratio, 156 patients were included in the final analysis, with 52 in the PTV-G group and 104 in the PTV-C group. The incidence of ≥ grade 3 radiation pneumonitis (RP) was significantly higher in the PTV-C group than in the PTV-G group (12.5% <i>vs.</i> 5.7%, P=0.03). Similarly, the incidence of ≥ grade 3 radiation esophagitis was higher in the PTV-C group than the PTV-G group (15.4% <i>vs.</i> 3.8%, P=0.02). However, no statistically significant differences were found between the PTV-G and PTV-C groups in terms of the objective response rate (ORR) and the disease control rate (DCR) (1-year ORR: 57.7% <i>vs.</i> 55.8%, P=0.37; 1-year DCR: 78.8% <i>vs.</i> 84.6%, P=0.16). No differences were found in median PFS (15.4 months for PTV-G <i>vs.</i> 14.8 months for PTV-C, P=0.28) or median OS (26.8 months for PTV-G <i>vs.</i> 25.4 months for PTV-C, P=0.06).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Omitting the CTV was associated with a decrease of grade ≥3 radiation-induced toxicities without pejorative impact on PFS or OS in LA-NSCLC patients treated with IMRT. Furthermore, no increase in regional or metastatic recurrence rates were observed. This radiotherapy strategy may be a viable option for selected LA-NSCLC patients, reducing toxicities without compromising outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":23271,"journal":{"name":"Translational lung cancer research","volume":"14 5","pages":"1770-1785"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12170249/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational lung cancer research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-2025-409","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Determining the planned target volume (PTV) for locally advanced (LA) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is often a challenging task for radiation oncologists. Due to advances in effective multidisciplinary treatments, the necessity to reconcile the clinical target volume (CTV) with the gross tumor volume (GTV) and the PTV presents an ongoing controversy. This study sought to analyze the effects of omitting the CTV on the clinical outcomes of patients with LA-NSCLC.
Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from all consecutive patients with histologically confirmed LA-NSCLC treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) at Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital from January 2019 to December 2020. The patients were divided into two groups based on different radiotherapy planning techniques: (I) the planning target volume-gross target (PTV-G) group; and (II) the planning target volume-clinical target (PTV-C) group. The PTV-G was directly based on the GTV, while the PTV-C was based on the simulated CTV. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to enhance the comparability of the clinical data between the two groups. The primary endpoint of the study was the occurrence of radiotherapy-associated adverse events. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), post-treatment tumor recurrence patterns, and variations in peripheral blood cell characteristics pre- and post-radiotherapy.
Results: A total of 255 patients were identified from our local database. After matching on propensity score with a 1:2 ratio, 156 patients were included in the final analysis, with 52 in the PTV-G group and 104 in the PTV-C group. The incidence of ≥ grade 3 radiation pneumonitis (RP) was significantly higher in the PTV-C group than in the PTV-G group (12.5% vs. 5.7%, P=0.03). Similarly, the incidence of ≥ grade 3 radiation esophagitis was higher in the PTV-C group than the PTV-G group (15.4% vs. 3.8%, P=0.02). However, no statistically significant differences were found between the PTV-G and PTV-C groups in terms of the objective response rate (ORR) and the disease control rate (DCR) (1-year ORR: 57.7% vs. 55.8%, P=0.37; 1-year DCR: 78.8% vs. 84.6%, P=0.16). No differences were found in median PFS (15.4 months for PTV-G vs. 14.8 months for PTV-C, P=0.28) or median OS (26.8 months for PTV-G vs. 25.4 months for PTV-C, P=0.06).
Conclusions: Omitting the CTV was associated with a decrease of grade ≥3 radiation-induced toxicities without pejorative impact on PFS or OS in LA-NSCLC patients treated with IMRT. Furthermore, no increase in regional or metastatic recurrence rates were observed. This radiotherapy strategy may be a viable option for selected LA-NSCLC patients, reducing toxicities without compromising outcomes.
背景:对于放射肿瘤学家来说,确定局部晚期(LA)非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的计划靶体积(PTV)通常是一项具有挑战性的任务。由于有效的多学科治疗的进步,是否有必要将临床靶体积(CTV)与总肿瘤体积(GTV)和PTV相协调是一个持续的争论。本研究旨在分析忽略CTV对LA-NSCLC患者临床结局的影响。方法:回顾性收集2019年1月至2020年12月在上海肺科医院接受调强放疗(IMRT)治疗的所有连续组织学证实的LA-NSCLC患者的数据。根据放疗计划技术的不同将患者分为两组:(I)计划靶体积-总靶(PTV-G)组;(II)规划靶体积-临床靶(PTV-C)组。PTV-G直接基于GTV,而PTV-C则基于模拟CTV。采用倾向评分匹配(PSM)分析,提高两组临床资料的可比性。研究的主要终点是放疗相关不良事件的发生。次要终点包括无进展生存期(PFS)、总生存期(OS)、治疗后肿瘤复发模式以及放疗前后外周血细胞特征的变化。结果:从本地数据库中共识别出255例患者。倾向评分按1:2比例匹配后,156例患者纳入最终分析,其中PTV-G组52例,PTV-C组104例。≥3级放射性肺炎(RP)在PTV-C组的发生率明显高于PTV-G组(12.5% vs. 5.7%, P=0.03)。同样,≥3级放射性食管炎在PTV-C组的发生率高于PTV-G组(15.4%比3.8%,P=0.02)。PTV-G组与PTV-C组在客观缓解率(ORR)和疾病控制率(DCR)方面差异无统计学意义(1年ORR: 57.7% vs. 55.8%, P=0.37;1年DCR: 78.8% vs. 84.6%, P=0.16)。中位PFS (PTV-G组为15.4个月,PTV-C组为14.8个月,P=0.28)或中位OS (PTV-G组为26.8个月,PTV-C组为25.4个月,P=0.06)无差异。结论:在接受IMRT治疗的LA-NSCLC患者中,省略CTV与≥3级辐射诱导毒性的降低相关,而对PFS或OS没有负面影响。此外,没有观察到区域或转移性复发率的增加。这种放疗策略对于特定的LA-NSCLC患者可能是一种可行的选择,在不影响预后的情况下减少毒性。
期刊介绍:
Translational Lung Cancer Research(TLCR, Transl Lung Cancer Res, Print ISSN 2218-6751; Online ISSN 2226-4477) is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access journal, which was founded in March 2012. TLCR is indexed by PubMed/PubMed Central and the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Databases. It is published quarterly the first year, and published bimonthly since February 2013. It provides practical up-to-date information on prevention, early detection, diagnosis, and treatment of lung cancer. Specific areas of its interest include, but not limited to, multimodality therapy, markers, imaging, tumor biology, pathology, chemoprevention, and technical advances related to lung cancer.