• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• 제15권15호
• /
• pp.6263-6267
• /
• 2014

Background: It is standard treatment to combine chemotherapy (CT) and thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) in treating patients with limited stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC). However, optimal timing of TRT is unclear. We here evaluated the survival impact of early versus late TRT in patients with LS-SCLC. Materials and Methods: Follow-up was retrospectively analyzed for seventy consecutive LS-SCLC patients who had successfully completed chemo-TRT between January 2006 and January 2012. Patients received TRT after either 1 to 2 cycles of CT (early TRT) or after 3 to 6 cycles of CT (late TRT). Survival and response rates were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparisons were made using the multivariate Cox regression test. Results: Median follow-up was 24 (5 to 57) months. Carboplatin+etoposide was the most frequent induction CT (59%). Median overall, disease free, and metastasis free survivals in all patients were 15 (5 to 57), 5 (0 to 48) and 11 (3 to 57) months respectively. Late TRT was superior to early TRT group in terms of response rate (p=0.05). 3 year overall survival (OS) rates in late versus early TRT groups were 31% versus 17%, respectively (p=0.03). Early TRT (p=0.03), and incomplete response to TRT (p=0.004) were negative predictors of OS. Significant positive prognostic factors for distant metastasis free survival were late TRT (p=0.03), and use of PCI (p=0.01). Use of carboplatin versus cisplatin for induction CT had no significant impact on OS (p=0.634), DFS (p=0.727), and MFS (p=0.309). Conclusions: Late TRT appeared to be superior to early TRT in LS-SCLC treatment in terms of complete response, OS and DMFS. Carboplatin or cisplatin can be combined with etoposide in the induction CT owing to similar survival outcomes.

• Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases
• /
• 제43권6호
• /
• pp.903-915
• /
• 1996

Background: Combination chemotherapy is now considered to be the cornerstone of small cell lung cancer (SCLC). management but the optimal management of limited SCLC is not well defined. The role of thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) is less well established. Recent meta-analyses reports revealed that TRT combined with chemotherapy produce "good" local control and prolonged survival. But other reports that survival was not changed. The liming, dose, volume and fractionation for TRT with the combined chemotherapy of SCLC remains unsettled. In this study, we analyzed the effects according to the timing of thoracic radiotherapy in limited SCLC. Method: All fifty one patients received cytoxan, adriamycin and vincristine(CAV) alternating with etoposide and cisplatin(VPP) every 3 weeks for 6 cycles were randomized prospectively into two groups: concurrent and sequential. 27 patients received 4500cGy in 30 fractions(twice daily 150cGy fractional dose) over 3 weeks 10 the primary site concurrent with the first cycle of VPP(concurrent gorup). 24 patients received 4000 to 5000cGy over 5 or 6 weeks after completion of sixth cycles of chemotherapy(sequential group). Results: 1. Response rates and response duration : Response rates were not significantly different between two groups(p=0.13). But response duration was superior in the concurrent group(p=0.03). 2. Survival duration was nor different between two groups(p=0.33). 3. Local control rate was superior in the concurrent group(p=0.00). 4. Side effects and toxicities: Hematologic toxicities, especially leukopenia, infection and frequency of radiation esophagitis were higher in the concurrent group (p=0.00, 0.03, 0.03). Conclusion: The concurrent use of TRT with chemotherapy failed to improve the survival of limited stage SCLC patients compared with the sequential use of TRT but response duration and local control rate were superior in the concurrent group. Frequency of radiation esophagitis, life threatening hematologic toxicities and infection were more frequent in the concurrent group than sequential group. So, the selection of an optimal schedule of chemotherapy combined with TRT that would lead to a major increase in survival with minimal toxicity is remained to be validated in large scale study in the future.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• 제37권3호
• /
• pp.185-192
• /
• 2019

Purpose: The effectiveness of thoracic radiation therapy (TRT) in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) patients is increasingly reported, but there is no definite consensus on its application. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with better outcomes of TRT among patients with ES-SCLC, focusing on whether a higher TRT dose could improve treatment outcome. Materials and Methods: The medical records of 85 patients with ES-SCLC who received TRT between January 2008 and June 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Eligibility criteria were a biological effective dose with α/β = 10 (BED) higher than 30 Gy₁₀ and completion of planned radiotherapy. Results: During a median follow-up of 5.3 months, 68 patients (80.0%) experienced disease progression. In univariate analysis, a BED >50 Gy₁₀ was a significant prognostic factor for overall survival (OS; 40.8% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.006), progression-free survival (PFS; 15.9% vs. 9.6%, p = 0.004), and intrathoracic PFS (IT-PFS; 39.3% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.004) at 1 year. In multivariate analysis, a BED >50 Gy₁₀ remained a significant prognostic factor for OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.502; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.287-0.876; p = 0.015), PFS (HR = 0.453; 95% CI, 0.265-0.773; p = 0.004), and IT-PFS (HR = 0.331; 95% CI, 0.171-0.641; p = 0.001). Response to the last chemotherapy was also associated with better OS in both univariate and multivariate analysis. Conclusion: A TRT dose of BED >50 Gy₁₀ may be beneficial for patients with ES-SCLC. Further studies are needed to select patients who will most benefit from high-dose TRT.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• 제16권3호
• /
• pp.291-301
• /
• 1998

목적 : 국한성 병기 소세포폐암으로 복합 화학요법과 방사선치료를 받은 환자들에서 통상적 방사선치료와 다분할 방사선치료 간의 종양 관해율, 생존율, 재발율 및 부작용에 대해 비교분석하고자 하였다. 대상 및 방법 : 1989년 11월부터 1996년 12월까지 충남대학교 병원 치료방사선과에서 국한성병기 소세포폐암으로 치료받았던 78명 환자 중 고식적 방사선치료 및 재발성 병변으로 치료받았던 10명을 제외한 68명을 대상으로 후향성 분석을 하였다. 대상환자 중 통상적 방사선치료군(A군)은 26명, 다분할 방사선치료군 (B군)은 42명 이었다. 전체 환자의 연령, 성별 및 ECOG 활동지수는 각각 32-75세 (중앙값 58세), 남자 58명 여자 10명, ECOG 0-1이 58명 2 이상이 10명 이었으며 두군 간에 유사한 분포를 보였다. 방사선치료로서 A군은 총 조사선량 5040-6940 cGy (중앙값 5040 cGy), 180 cGy/fx 로 치료하였고 B군은 총 조사선량 4320-5100 cGy (중앙값 4560 cGy)으로 29명 (69$\%$)은 120 cGy/fx 로, 13명 (31$\%$)은 150 cGy/fx 로 1일 2회 조사하였다. 화학요법은 전체 68명 중 65명에서 VPP (cisplatin 60 mg/$m^2$, etoposide 100 mg/$m^2$) 요법과 CAV (cytoxan 1000 mg/$m^2$, adriamycin 40 mg/$m^2$, vincristine 1 mg/$m^2$) 요법을 교대로 시행하였으며, 화학요법 횟수는 A군 3-10회 (중앙값 6회), B군은 1-11회 (중앙값 6회) 시행하였다. 화학요법 시기는 A군에서 23명이 연속 화학요법을, B군에서는 39명이 동시 화학요법을 시행하였다. 예방적 전뇌조사는 두군 모두에서 완전관해 후 시행하였는데 A군 8명, B군 16명에서 조사선량 2500 cGy/10fx 로 조사하였다. 추적기간은 2-99개월 (중앙값 14개월)였다. 결과 : 종양 관해는 완전관해율, 부분관해율이 각각 A군 35$\%$ (9/26), 54$\%$ (14/26), B군 43$\%$ (18/42), 55$\%$ (23/42)(p=0.119) 였다. 중앙생존기간 및 2년 생존율은 전체환자에서 15개월, 26.8$\%$였고, A군 17개월, 26.9$\%$, B군 15개월, 28$\%$ 0=0.51)였다. 전체환자 중 완전관해 및 부분관해 환자의 2년 생존율은 각각, 35$\%$ 와 24.2$\%$ (p=0.05)였다. 실패양상으로 두 군간에 국소재발 및 원격전이의 통계적인 차이는 없었다 (p=0.125, 0.335). 방사선치료중 발생한 급성합병증으로 RTOG criteria상 중등도 이상의 식도염 및 백혈구 감소가 B 군에서 더 높게 나타났다 (p=0.028, 0.003). 결론 : 국한성 병기 소세포폐암의 복합 화학요법과 방사선치료시 종양의 부분관해 이상의 반응율이 연속화학요법을 받은 통상적 방사선 치료군과 동시화학요법을 받은 다분할 방사선 치료군 모두에서 높게 나타났다. 그러나 두 군간의 생존율에는 통계적인 차이를 보이지 않았다. 급성합병증으로서 식도염과 백혈구 감소가 동시화학요법을 받은 다분할 방사선치료군에서 더 높게났지만, 국한성 병기 소세포폐암에서 동시화학요법과 다분할 방사선치료가 적절한 치료의 한 방법이 될 수 있을 것으로 사료된다. 그러나 국한성 병기 소세포폐암에서 다분할 방사선치료의 장점을 밝히기 위하여 좀더 많은 대상환자와 추적관찰이 필요할 것으로 사료된다.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• 제27권3호
• /
• pp.133-139
• /
• 2009

목 적: 제한병기 소세포암 환자의 흉부방사선치료 및 항암치료의 성적과 부작용을 분석하고자 연구를 진행하였다. 대상 및 방법: 제한병기 소세포암으로 진단받고 동시항암화학방사선요법 혹은 순차적항암화학방사선요법을 받은 35명의 환자를 후향적으로 조사하였다. 방사선치료선량은 하루 1.8~2 Gy 분할선량으로 원발병소에 총 50~66 Gy 조사하였다. 환자군은 4주기 시스플라틴 및 에토포사이드 복합 항암치료를 받았다. 동시항암화학방사선요법군은 항암 제 1주기 첫 날에 흉부방사선치료를 시작하였고 순차적항암화학방사선요법군은 항암 제 4주기를 마친 후 에 흉부방사선치료를 시작하였다. 결 과: 순차적항암화학방사선요법군의 무진행생존시간의 중앙값은 16.5개월이었고 동시항암화학방사선요법군의 무진행생존시간의 중앙값은 26.3개월이었다. 동시항암화학방사선요법군의 2년 무진행생존율은 50.0%이었고 순차적항암화학방사선요법군의 2년 무진행생존율은 16.0%이었다(p=0.0950). 백혈구감소증의 정도와 빈도는 동시 항암화학방사선요법군에서 유의하게 높았다. 하지만, 심한 식도염의 빈도는 양군에서 모두 높지 않았다. 동시항암화학방사선요법군은 순차적항암화학방사선요법군에 비하여 빈번하게 혈액학적독성으로 치료가 중단되었다(p=0.001). 결 론: 본 연구에서는 동시항암화학방사선요법이 제한병기 소세포암 치료에서 순차적항암화학방사선요법보다 효과적이었다. 하지만, 동시항암화학방사선요법은 부작용을 유의하게 증가시켰다.