Search

BackgroundPostoperative radiotherapy (PORT) is an important treatment for lung cancer patients with poor prognostic features, but accurate delineation of the clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs) is challenging and time-consuming. Recently, deep learning-based artificial intelligent (AI) algorithms have shown promise in automating this process.ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical utility of a deep learning-based auto-segmentation model for AI-assisted delineating CTV and OARs in patients undergoing PORT, and to compare its accuracy and efficiency with manual delineation by radiation oncology residents from different levels of medical institutions.MethodsWe previously developed an AI auto-segmentation model in 664 patients and validated its contouring performance in 149 patients. In this multi-center, validation trial, we prospectively involved 55 patients and compared the accuracy and efficiency of 3 contouring methods: (i) unmodified AI auto-segmentation, (ii) fully manual delineation by junior radiation oncology residents from different medical centers, and (iii) manual modifications based on AI segmentation model (AI-assisted delineation). The ground truth of CTV and OARs was delineated by 3 senior radiation oncologists. Contouring accuracy was evaluated by Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance (HD), and mean distance of agreement (MDA). Inter-observer consistency was assessed by volume and coefficient of variation (CV).ResultsAI-assisted delineation achieved significantly higher accuracy compared to unmodified AI auto-contouring and fully manual delineation by radiation oncologists, with median HD, MDA, and DCS values of 20.03 vs. 21.55 mm, 2.57 vs. 3.06 mm, 0.745 vs. 0.703 (all P

BackgroundThe oesophageal carcinoma patients show high incidence of malnutrition, which negatively affects their therapy outcome. Moreover, benefits of enteral nutrition remain to be studied in details in these patients. Therefore, we set to assess the effects of enteral nutrition on the nutritional status, treatment toxicities and survival in the oesophageal carcinoma patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).Materials and MethodsEligible patients were randomly assigned to either the experimental or control group. The patients in the experimental group were treated with a whole-course enteral nutrition management, while the control group were provided a unsystematic nutrition without setting intake goals for energy and protein. The primary endpoint was a change in body weight, while the secondary endpoints included nutrition-related haematological indicators, toxicities, completion rate of treatment and survival.ResultsA total of 222 patients were randomised to either the experimental (n=148) or control (n=74) group. Patients in the experimental group showed significantly less decrease in body weight, serum albumin and haemoglobin levels, a lower incidence rates of grade ≥3 myelosuppression and infection, and a higher completion rate of CCRT than those in the control group. While analyses of the 2 and 3 year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) did not reveal differences between these groups, we observed a significantly higher OS at 1 year (83.6% vs. 70.0%). In the subgroup analysis, patients with patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA)=C were likely to have better OS and PFS with enteral nutrition.ConclusionsIn EC patients treated with CCRT, enteral nutrition conferred positive effects on the nutritional status, treatment toxicities and prognosis, which mandate its inclusion in clinical practice.Clinical Trial RegistrationThis prospective trial has been registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02399306.

BackgroundHypofractionated radiotherapy (HypoRT) has been used to pursue an alternative treatment regimen for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are not eligible for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), surgery or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) and has shown good local control and safety. We analyzed the feasibility of using volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) with the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique to achieve high local control with few treatment-related toxicities.Patients and MethodsA total of 55 patients with stage I-IV NSCLC who were not candidates for SABR, surgery or CCRT were included in the present study. All patients received a prescribed dose of 60 to 66 Gy in 15 fractions. Local progression-free survival (LPFS), PFS, overall survival (OS), and toxicities were retrospectively analyzed.ResultsThirty-three patients (60.0%) had stage IV or recurrent disease in this study. The median follow-up time was 8 months (interquartile range: 5.0-16.3 months). The 1-year and 2-year OS rates were 84.3% and 69.9%, and the 1-year and 2-year LPFS rates were 91.0% and 63.0%. The median OS (mOS) and median LPFS (mLPFS) were not reached, and median PFS (mPFS) was 15 months. Twenty-eight (51.9%) patients had disease progression at the time of analysis. Of these, 7 (13.0%), 7 (13.0%) and 21 (38.9%) had local recurrence, locoregional failure and distant metastasis, respectively. All cases of local recurrence were found within the SIB region. Four patients had grade 2-3 pneumonitis, and 8 patients had grade 2-3 esophagitis. Patients with grade 2-3 esophagitis had significantly higher maximum dose and dose to 5 cm3 volume to esophagus than those with grade 0-1 esophagitis. No grade 4 or higher toxicity was observed.ConclusionThe 60 to 66 Gy in 15 fractions RT regimen provides favorable local control and survival with well-tolerated toxicities. Hypofractionated VMAT+SIB is an alternative treatment option for patients with NSCLC who cannot tolerate standard definitive therapy.

PurposeTo identify cytokines in plasma that may predict objective response and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with chemoradiotherapy.Materials and MethodsFrom April 2016 to May 2017, thirty-one patients with locally advanced inoperable/unresectable NSCLC were included, and treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). No immune checkpoint inhibitors were administered after CCRT. Plasma from each patient was collected before radiotherapy, and 25 cytokines in the plasma were measured by Luminex or U-PLEX assays. Logistic regression and COX regression were performed to identify the predictive factors for objective response and PFS, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to compare the PFS between the groups.ResultsHigh levels of IL-13 and TNF-α, and low levels of ICAM-1, IFN-γ, and soluble PD-L1 (sPD-L1) were significantly associated with objective response (P

Introduction: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the standard treatment for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), but is associated with poor chest tumor control. Here we report results of a randomized phase 3 study comparing two CCRT regimens in improving chest tumor control by low-dose paclitaxel chemoradiation for LA-NSCLC. Methods: Due to the logistics of local referral pattern, the study was designed to enroll patients with stage III LA-NSCLC who had completed 2-4 cycles of full-dose chemotherapy. One hundred thirty four were randomized to either Arm 1 (paclitaxel at 15 mg/m2, three times/wk [M, W, F] for 6 weeks, n=74), or Arm 2 (weekly paclitaxel at 45 mg/m2 for 6 weeks, n=60). Chest RT was 60-70 Gy in standard fractionation. Response rate was the primary endpoint, with recurrence-free survival (RFS) as the secondary endpoint. Results: From March 2006 to February 2013, seventy-one patients completed Arm 1 treatment, and 59 completed Arm 2 treatment. The response rate for Arm 1 was significantly higher (83.1%) than Arm 2 (54.2%) (p＝0.001). RFS was superior in Arm 1: median 14.6 months vs. 9.4 months, p=0.005, Hazard ratio (HR) 1.868 (95% CI 1.203, 2.901). Overall survival was not significantly different: median 32.6 months in Arm 1 vs. 31.3 months in Arm 2, p = 0.91, HR 0.969 (95% CI 0.552, 1.703). Toxicity was significantly lower in Arm 1 for grade 3 and 4 leucopenia/neutropenia (p