A population-based study of the effectiveness of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus conventional fractionated radiotherapy for clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer patients

$A population-based study of the effectiveness of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus conventional fractionated radiotherapy for clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer patients Cover$

A population-based study of the effectiveness of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus conventional fractionated radiotherapy for clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer patients

Radiology and Oncology

Volume 52 (2018): Issue 2 (June 2018)

By:

Chih-Yen Tu, Te-Chun Hsia, Hsin-Yuan Fang, Ji-An Liang, Su-Tso Yang, Chia-Chin Li and Chun-Ru Chien

Open Access

|Dec 2017

Figures & Tables

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) study flowchart and the number of individuals at each stage of the study.
1 We only included those treated (class 1–2) at a single institution to ensure data consistency.
2 Sixth (2007–2009) or Seventh (2010–2013) American Joint Committee on Cancer.
3 60–70 Gy in 1.8–2 Gy/fraction, ±10% in dose.
4 Dose/fraction compatible with National Comprehensive Cancer Network non-small cell lung cancer guideline 2017 v8 (i.e., 25–34 Gy/1 fraction, or 45–60 Gy/3 fractions, or 48–50 Gy/4 fractions, or 50–55 Gy/5 fractions, or 60–70 Gy/8–10 fractions), ±10% in dose.
5Adenocarcinoma or non-adenocarcinoma.
6 Without missing information in the Taiwan cancer registry and death registry. — The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) study flowchart and the number of individuals at each stage of the study. 1 We only included those treated (class 1–2) at a single institution to ensure data consistency. 2 Sixth (2007–2009) or Seventh (2010–2013) American Joint Committee on Cancer. 3 60–70 Gy in 1.8–2 Gy/fraction, ±10% in dose. 4 Dose/fraction compatible with National Comprehensive Cancer Network non-small cell lung cancer guideline 2017 v8 (i.e., 25–34 Gy/1 fraction, or 45–60 Gy/3 fractions, or 48–50 Gy/4 fractions, or 50–55 Gy/5 fractions, or 60–70 Gy/8–10 fractions), ±10% in dose. 5Adenocarcinoma or non-adenocarcinoma. 6 Without missing information in the Taiwan cancer registry and death registry.

Kaplan-Meier survival curve for the whole study population.
CFRT = conventional fractionated radiotherapy; SABRT = stereotactic ablative radiotherapy — Kaplan-Meier survival curve for the whole study population. CFRT = conventional fractionated radiotherapy; SABRT = stereotactic ablative radiotherapy

Kaplan-Meier survival curve for the first supplementary analysis.
CFRT = conventional fractionated radiotherapy; SABRT = stereotactic ablative radiotherapy — Kaplan-Meier survival curve for the first supplementary analysis. CFRT = conventional fractionated radiotherapy; SABRT = stereotactic ablative radiotherapy

Kaplan-Meier survival curve for the second supplementary analysis.
CFRT = conventional fractionated radiotherapy; SABRT = stereotactic ablative radiotherapy — Kaplan-Meier survival curve for the second supplementary analysis. CFRT = conventional fractionated radiotherapy; SABRT = stereotactic ablative radiotherapy

Patient characteristics in the second supplementary analysis

		SABR		CFRT		Standardized difference (rounded) rounded at the second

		Number or mean (sd) rounded at the second	(%) rounded at the second	Number or mean (sd) rounded at the second	(%) rounded at the second
Age		76.92 (8.84)		77.73 (9.19)		0.09
Sex	Female	8	(31)	7	(27)	0.09
Sex	Male	18	(69)	19	(73)	0.09
Residency	Non-north	16	(62)	18	(69)	0.16
Residency	North	10	(38)	8	(31)	0.16
Comorbidity	Without	#		#		0.13
Comorbidity	With modified Carlson comorbidity score ≥ 1	#		#		0.13
Histology	Adenocarcinoma	14	(54)	15	(58)	0.08
Histology	Non-adenocarcinoma	12	(46)	11	(42)	0.08
T stage	T1	11	(42)	11	(42)	0.00
T stage	T2	15	(58)	15	(58)	0.00
Use of PET	Yes	13	(50)	12	(46)	0.08
Use of PET	No	13	(50)	14	(54)	0.08
Use of systemic therapy	Yes	#		#		0.13
Use of systemic therapy	No	#		#		0.13
Previous cancer	Yes	3	(12)	3	(12)	0.00
Previous cancer	No	23	(88)	23	(88)	0.00
Performance status	ECOG (0–2)	#		#		0.00
Performance status	ECOG (3–4)	#		#		0.00

Patient characteristics for the whole study population

		SABR		CFRT		Standardized difference (rounded) rounded at the second

		Number or mean (sd) rounded at the second	(%) rounded at the second	Number or mean (sd) rounded at the second	(%) rounded at the second	Before IPW	After
Age		77.81 (7.85)		75.40 (9.96)		0.27	0.24
Sex	Female	20	(29)	44	(26)	0.07	0.07
Sex	Male	49	(71)	125	(74)	0.07	0.07
Residency	Non-north	32	(46)	93	(55)	0.17	0.19
Residency	North	37	(54)	76	(45)	0.17	0.19
Comorbidity	Without	9	(13)	43	(25)	0.32	0.25
Comorbidity	With modified Carlson comorbidity score ≥ 1	60	(87)	126	(75)	0.32	0.25
Histology	Adenocarcinoma	40	(58)	82	(49)	0.19	0.24
Histology	Non-adenocarcinoma	29	(42)	87	(51)	0.19	0.24
T stage	T1	38	(55)	49	(29)	0.55	0.08
T stage	T2	31	(45)	120	(71)	0.55	0.08
Period	2007–2009	15	(22)	65	(38)	0.37	0.22
Period	2010–2013	54	(78)	104	(62)	0.37	0.22
Use of PET	Yes	37	(54)	55	(33)	0.44	0.09
Use of PET	No	32	(46)	114	(67)	0.44	0.09
Use of systemic therapy	Yes	10	(14)	73	(43)	0.67	0.17
Use of systemic therapy	No	59	(86)	96	(57)	0.67	0.17
Previous cancer	Yes	9	(13)	16	(9)	0.11	0.06
Previous cancer	No	60	(87)	153	(91)	0.11	0.06

Patient characteristics in the first supplementary analysis

		SABR		CFRT
						Standardized difference (rounded) rounded at the second
		Number or mean (sd) rounded at the second	(%) rounded at the second	Number or mean (sd) rounded at the second	(%) rounded at the second
Age		77.47 (8.26)		77.75 (9.79)		0.03
Sex	Female	18	(30)	24	(40)	0.21
Sex	Male	42	(70)	36	(60)	0.21
Residency	Non-north	29	(48)	30	(50)	0.03
Residency	North	31	(52)	30	(50)	0.03
Comorbidity	Without	9	(15)	8	(13)	0.05
Comorbidity	With modified Carlson comorbidity score ≥ 1	51	(85)	52	(87)	0.05
Histology	Adenocarcinoma	37	(62)	41	(68)	0.14
Histology	Non-adenocarcinoma	23	(38)	19	(32)	0.14
T stage	T1	30	(50)	31	(52)	0.03
T stage	T2	30	(50)	29	(48)	0.03
Period	2007–2009	15	(25)	15	(25)	0.00
Period	2010–2013	45	(75)	45	(75)	0.00
Use of PET	Yes	30	(50)	31	(52)	0.03
Use of PET	No	30	(50)	29	(48)	0.03
Use of systemic therapy	Yes	10	(17)	13	(22)	0.13
Use of systemic therapy	No	50	(83)	47	(78)	0.13
Previous cancer	Yes	8	(13)	7	(12)	0.05
Previous cancer	No	52	(87)	53	(88)	0.05

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/raon-2017-0058 | Journal eISSN: 1581-3207 | Journal ISSN: 1318-2099

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 181 - 188

Submitted on: Jul 28, 2017

Accepted on: Sep 18, 2017

Published on: Dec 7, 2017

Published by: Association of Radiology and Oncology

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 4 times per year

Keywords:

stereotactic ablative radiotherapy,

conventional fractionated radiotherapy,

non-small cell lung cancer

Related subjects:

Medicine,

Clinical medicine,

Internal medicine,

Haematology, oncology,

Radiology

© 2017 Chih-Yen Tu, Te-Chun Hsia, Hsin-Yuan Fang, Ji-An Liang, Su-Tso Yang, Chia-Chin Li, Chun-Ru Chien, published by Association of Radiology and Oncology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Previous article Volume 52 (2018): Issue 2 (June 2018)Next article

A population-based study of the effectiveness of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus conventional fractionated radiotherapy for clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer patients

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Patient characteristics in the second supplementary analysis

Patient characteristics for the whole study population

Patient characteristics in the first supplementary analysis

Paradigm

My account