Evidence Hub

Impact of estimated dose of radiation to immune cells (EDRIC) in locally advanced Non-Small-Cell lung Cancer: A secondary analysis of the multicenter randomized PET-Plan trial

Cas Stefaan Dejonckheere Nour, Youness Nour, J. Sahlmann, Michael Tobias Engelhart, A. Hammi, S. Barth, T. Schimek-Jasch, Sonja Adebahr et al.

Radiotherapy and Oncology, 2025

153 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE

A higher estimated dose of radiation to immune cells (EDRIC) has been proposed as an explanation for failed attempts at thoracic radiation intensification as a part of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as lymphopenia in particular is a negative prognostic factor in this context. We studied the impact of EDRIC on survival in this secondary analysis of the prospective PET-Plan trial (ARO-2009-09; NCT00697333). Considering the immune system as an organ at risk for radiotherapy is of major importance in the current era of consolidation immunotherapy.

METHODS

Eligible patients had previously received chemoradiotherapy up to 60-74 Gy with radiation treatment planning based on an 18F-FDG PET/CT targeting all CT positive lymph nodes plus 50 Gy elective nodal irradiation (arm A) versus targeting only PET-positive nodes (arm B). EDRIC was calculated with the original model by Jin et al. in addition to a modified score with cohort-specific weight parameters.

RESULTS

Sufficient data were available in 153 patients with a median follow-up time (95 % confidence interval [CI]) of 41.6 (34.6 - 53.7) months. Using the original model, the mean EDRIC (range) was 5.70 (3.23 - 8.44) Gy and showed a strong inverse correlation with PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.77; 95 % CI 1.23-2.54; p = 0.002) and OS (HR = 1.72; 95 % CI 1.12-2.65; p = 0.01). The mean modified EDRIC (range) was 5.30 (3.01 - 8.38) Gy, again with a strong inverse…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 153 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free