Evidence Hub

Long-Term Prospective Outcomes of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Lung Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Stephen Chun, Chen Hu, R. Komaki, R. D. Timmerman, S. E. Schild, J. Bogart, M. Dobelbower, W. Bosch et al.

JAMA Oncology, 2024

617 participants · 35 citations

Abstract

Importance

The optimal radiotherapy technique for unresectable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is controversial, so evaluating long-term prospective outcomes of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is important.

Objective

To compare long-term prospective outcomes of patients receiving IMRT and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with concurrent carboplatin/paclitaxel for locally advanced NSCLC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A secondary analysis of a prospective phase 3 randomized clinical trial NRG Oncology-RTOG 0617 assessed 483 patients receiving chemoradiotherapy (3D-CRT vs IMRT) for locally advanced NSCLC based on stratification.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Long-term outcomes were analyzed, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to local failure, development of second cancers, and severe grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3. The percentage of an organ volume (V) receiving a specified amount of radiation in units of Gy is reported as V(radiation dose).

Results

Of 483 patients (median [IQR] age, 64 [57-70] years; 194 [40.2%] female), 228 (47.2%) received IMRT, and 255 (52.8%) received 3D-CRT (median [IQR] follow-up, 5.2 [4.8-6.0] years). IMRT was associated with a 2-fold reduction in grade 3 or higher pneumonitis AEs compared with 3D-CRT (8 [3.5%] vs 21 [8.2%]; P = .03). On univariate analysis, heart V20, V40, and V60 were associated with…

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: 617 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