Evidence Hub

Predicting Radiation Pneumonitis after Chemoradiotherapy for Lung Cancer: An International Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis

D. Palma, S. Senan, K. Tsujino, R. Barriger, R. Rengan, M. Moreno, J. Bradley, T. H. Kim et al.

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2012

836 participants · 634 citations

Abstract

Background Radiation pneumonitis is a dose-limiting toxicity for patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis to determine factors predictive of clinically significant pneumonitis. Methods After a systematic review of the literature, data was obtained on 836 patients who underwent CCRT in Europe, North America and Asia. Patients were randomly divided into training and validation sets (2/3 vs. 1/3 of patients). Factors predictive of symptomatic pneumonitis (grade ≥ 2 by one of several scoring systems) or fatal pneumonitis were evaluated using logistic regression. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to define risk groups. Results The median radiotherapy dose was 60 Gy, and median follow-up was 2.3 years. Most patients received concurrent cisplatin/etoposide (38%) or carboplatin/paclitaxel (26%). The overall rate of symptomatic pneumonitis was 29.8% (n=249), with fatal pneumonitis in 1.9% (n=16). In the training set, factors predictive of symptomatic pneumonitis were lung volume receiving ≥20 Gy (V20) [OR:1.03 per 1% increase, p=0.008], and carboplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy [OR:3.33, p0.65). On RPA, the highest risk of pneumonitis (>50%) was in patients >65 years of age receiving carboplatin/paclitaxel. Predictors of fatal pneumonitis were daily dose >2 Gy, V20, and lower-lobe tumor location. Conclusions Several treatment-related risk factors predict the…

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: 836 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