Evidence Hub

Dose and Fractionation in Radiation Therapy of Curative Intent for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

J. Ramroth, D. Cutter, S. Darby, G. Higgins, P. McGale, M. Partridge, C. Taylor

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2016

3,795 participants · 86 citations

Abstract

Purpose The optimum dose and fractionation in radiation therapy of curative intent for non-small cell lung cancer remains uncertain. We undertook a published data meta-analysis of randomized trials to examine whether radiation therapy regimens with higher time-corrected biologically equivalent doses resulted in longer survival, either when given alone or when given with chemotherapy. Methods and Materials Eligible studies were randomized comparisons of 2 or more radiation therapy regimens, with other treatments identical. Median survival ratios were calculated for each comparison and pooled. Results 3795 patients in 25 randomized comparisons of radiation therapy dose were studied. The median survival ratio, higher versus lower corrected dose, was 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.22) when radiation therapy was given alone and 0.83 (95% CI 0.71-0.97) when it was given with concurrent chemotherapy (P for difference=.001). In comparisons of radiation therapy given alone, the survival benefit increased with increasing dose difference between randomized treatment arms (P for trend=.004). The benefit increased with increasing dose in the lower-dose arm (P for trend=.01) without reaching a level beyond which no further survival benefit was achieved. The survival benefit did not differ significantly between randomized comparisons where the higher-dose arm was hyperfractionated and those where it was not. There was heterogeneity in the median survival ratio by geographic…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 3,795 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