Search

Background Thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) with concurrent chemotherapy is standard for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC). However, the optimal dosing and fractionation remain unclear. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines have recommended either 45 Gy delivered twice daily (BID) or 60 to 70 Gy delivered once daily (QD). However, the current practice patterns among US radiation oncologists are unknown. Materials and Methods We surveyed US radiation oncologists using an institutional review board-approved questionnaire. The questions covered demographic data, self-rated knowledge of key trials, and treatment recommendations. Results We received 309 responses from radiation oncologists. Of the 309 radiation oncologists, 60% preferred TRT QD and 76% acknowledged QD to be more common in their practice. The respondents in academic settings were more likely to endorse BID treatment by both preference (P = .001) and actual practice (P = .009). The concordance between preferring QD and administering QD in practice was 100%. In contrast, 40% of respondents who preferred BID actually administered QD more often. Also, 15% of physicians would be unwilling to switch from QD to BID and 3% would be unwilling to switch from BID to QD, even on patient request. Most respondents (88%) recommended a dose of 45 Gy for BID treatment. For QD treatment, the division was greater, with 54% recommending 60 Gy, 30% recommending 63 to 66 Gy, and 10% recommending 70 Gy. Conclusion Substantial variation exists in how US radiation oncologists approach TRT dosing and fractionation for LS-SCLC. Three quarters of our respondents reported administering TRT QD most often. The most common doses were 60 Gy QD and 45 Gy BID. The results of the present survey have provided the most up-to-date information on US practice patterns for LS-SCLC.

Background Palliative thoracic radiotherapy is a common treatment for patients with incurable lung cancer. A recent study suggested that a prognostic score based on performance status and N and M stage predicts survival and might support decision-making (eg, when deciding about fractionation). Our aim was to perform a validation study in an independent, larger dataset. Patients and Methods This was a retrospective single-institution study of 232 patients with small- or non–small-cell lung cancer, with methodology comparable with that of the original study. Three subgroups were created, based on the point sum resulting from assessment of performance status and N and M stage (10-11, 12-14, 15-17 points). Results Performance status and N and M stage were significantly associated with overall survival after palliative radiotherapy in uni- and multivariate analyses. An unfavorable prognosis (10-11 points) was predicted in 56 patients (24%). Their median survival was 1.2 months. The intermediate group consisted of 137 patients (59%) with a median survival of 5.3 months. A favorable prognosis (15-17 points) was predicted in 39 patients (17%), whose median survival was 8.2 months. The difference between the intermediate and favorable subgroups did not reach statistical significance ( P = .1, as compared with P = .0001 for the remaining 2 comparisons). Conclusion In the original study, the median survival of patients in the 3 different prognostic strata was 2, 6, and 38 months. Except for the favorable subgroup, the validation study confirmed these results. Given the large, clinically highly relevant discrepancy (8 vs. 38 months), additional studies are needed in order to inform therapeutic decisions in patients with favorable point sum of 15 to 17.

This analysis was performed to describe the outcome of very elderly (≥ 80 years) patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) as there is no published data regarding these patients.One hundred forty-six very elderly patients with SCLC were identified from the Institutional Lung Cancer Database ranging in age from 80 to 92 years (median, 82 years). Of these, 47 (32%) patients had limited-stage SCLC (L-SCLC), and 99 (68%) had extensive-stage SCLC (E-SCLC). All were Caucasian, and the majority (64%) were female. Sixty-seven (46%) patients had Zubrod performance status (PS) of 0 to 1.Of the 146 patients, 44 (30%) received no therapy, 65 (45%) received chemotherapy alone, 27 (19%) received chemotherapy plus local therapy (thoracic radiotherapy [TRT] or surgery), and 10 (7%) received local therapy alone. The median survival was 5.4 months. On univariable analysis, age (P = .019), stage (L-SCLC vs. E-SCLC; P = .0002), PS (P .0001), and treatment option (P .0001) were associated with survival. On multivariable analysis, stage (P = .011), PS (P = .029), and treatment option (P .0001) maintained significance. For entire cohort, the median survival was 1.3 months without active therapy, 6 months with local therapy alone, 7.2 months with chemotherapy alone, and 14.4 months with chemotherapy plus local therapy (P .0001, univariable and multivariable). Similar survival findings in response to treatment were found when the L-SCLC and E-SCLC cohorts were separately analyzed.The survival of very elderly patients with SCLC was associated with stage (L-SCLC vs. E-SCLC), PS, and treatment option. Very elderly patients with SCLC often have limited functional reserve required to tolerate aggressive multimodality therapy but appeared to benefit from it. Geriatric assessments, careful monitoring, and extra support are warranted in elderly patients. Care should be individualized based on the desires and needs of each patient.

Traditionally, elective nodal irradiation (ENI) has been used in clinical trials that have established thoracic radiotherapy as instrumental in improving survival for patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC). However, several reports have suggested that the omission of ENI might be appropriate. Current US practice patterns are unknown regarding ENI for patients with LS-SCLC.We surveyed US radiation oncologists via an institutional review board-approved questionnaire. The questions covered demographics, treatment recommendations, and self-assessed knowledge of key clinical trials. χWe received 309 responses. Of the respondents, 21% recommended ENI for N0 LS-SCLC, 29% for N1, and 30% for N2; 64% did not recommend ENI for any of these clinical scenarios. The respondents who recommended ENI were more likely to have been practicing for 10 years (P .001), more likely to be in private practice (P = .04), and less likely to be familiar with the ongoing Cancer and Leukemia Group B 30610 trial (P = .04). Almost all respondents (93%) prescribed the same radiation dose to the primary disease and involved lymph nodes. When delivering ENI, 36% prescribed the same dose to the involved and elective nodes, and 64% prescribed a lower dose to the elective nodes.Nearly two thirds of respondents did not recommend ENI, which represents a shift in practice. A recent large clinical trial that omitted ENI reported greater overall survival than previously reported and lower-than-expected radiation toxicities, lending further evidence that omitting ENI should be considered a standard treatment strategy.

Purpose Despite the recent CREST trial demonstrating a survival benefit to thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) with response to chemotherapy, as well as endorsement by current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, TRT may not be uniformly delivered in clinical practice across all circumstances. Methods and Materials We surveyed US academic thoracic radiation oncologists regarding their practice patterns for TRT and assessed conditions in which withholding TRT could be warranted. A 27-question survey of demographics and practice patterns, including 5 clinical cases, was sent to 111 physicians. Results Response rate was 39% (43/111). Among respondents, 60% have at least 6 years of work experience following residency; 77% and 71% respectively see > 50 lung cancer and > 11 SCLC cases annually. Regarding practice patterns, 74% use TRT in 26% to 75% of patients with ES-SCLC. Respondents would withhold TRT in cases with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 3 (91%), when pulmonary function necessitates continuous oxygen via nasal cannula (62%), for postchemotherapy tumor progression (58%), and if > 4 postchemotherapy extrathoracic metastases were present (58%). The 5 clinical cases highlighted practice variability, although 1 case had 100% agreement among respondents. Conclusions Despite support of TRT administration from the CREST trial, there are several conditions associated with frequently withholding TRT. The most common reasons include performance status, postchemotherapy extent of disease, and pulmonary function; age and prechemotherapy extent of disease were least associated. Further research should aim to identify which subgroups of ES-SCLC benefit most from TRT.

Dr. Murray has compiled an excellent review of the current literature, and his interpretations of the available literature are insightful. However, we would like to add to Dr. Murray’s interpretation of the literature in two areas: first, the optimization of the timing of thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) and second, the interpretation of the two recently published trials of twice-daily TRT (TD-TRT) vs. once-daily TRT (OD-TRT) in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LSCLC). First, the optimization of the timing of thoracic radiotherapy in combination with multi-agent chemotherapy has been the subject of much investigation. Dr. Murray hypothesizes that the randomized studies that have failed to show a survival advantage for the use of early TRT (cycle 1 or 2) vs. late TRT (after cycle 2) have generally displayed overall lower survival rates, compared to studies displaying the opposite finding. He suggests that early TRT (compared to late TRT) may only show a detectable advantage for patients with favorable LSCLC and a low likelihood of gross metastatic disease. His hypothesis is intriguing, and may be valid, but caution should be exercised when comparing subpopulations