Search

Abstract: Background and purpose: This prospective study investigated the impact of radiotherapy (RT)-planning FDG-PET/CT on management of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and methods: Patients still eligible for radical RT after conventional staging underwent RT-planning PET/CT and, if disease was still treatable to 60Gy, they entered our planning study, where visually-contoured tumour volumes derived with and without PET information were compared. If PET/CT detected advanced disease, palliative therapy was given. Overall survival (OS) for palliative and curative patients was compared. Results: Of 76 eligible patients, only 50 (66%) received radical chemoRT after PET/CT while 26 (34%) received palliative therapies because PET/CT detected advanced disease. Without PET, FDG-avid tumour would reside outside the planning target volume (PTV) in 36% of radical cases and in 25% <90% of the PTV would have received >95% prescribed dose. OS for all patients was 56.8% and 24.9% at 1 and 4years, respectively. OS for patients given chemoRT was 77.5% and 35.6% at 1 and 4years, respectively and was 32% for stage IIIA patients at 4years. OS for patients treated palliatively was inferior (P <0.001); 16.3% and 4.1% at 1 and 4years, respectively. Conclusions: Planning PET/CT frequently changed management and was associated with excellent survival. Survival data from this study were presented in part at the 2011 World Lung Cancer Conference, Amsterdam and planning data at the 2010 Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, Chicago. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: The use of prophylactic radiotherapy to prevent procedure-tract metastases (PTMs) in malignant pleural mesothelioma remains controversial, and clinical practice varies worldwide. We aimed to compare prophylactic radiotherapy with deferred radiotherapy (given only when a PTM developed) in a suitably powered trial.Methods: We did a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial in 22 UK hospitals of patients with histocytologically proven mesothelioma who had undergone large-bore pleural interventions in the 35 days prior to recruitment. Eligible patients were randomised (1:1), using a computer-generated sequence, to receive immediate radiotherapy (21 Gy in three fractions within 42 days of the pleural intervention) or deferred radiotherapy (same dose given within 35 days of PTM diagnosis). Randomisation was minimised by histological subtype, surgical versus non-surgical procedure, and pleural procedure (indwelling pleural catheter vs other). The primary outcome was the incidence of PTM within 7 cm of the site of pleural intervention within 12 months from randomisation, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN72767336.Findings: Between Dec 23, 2011, and Aug 4, 2014, we randomised 203 patients to receive immediate radiotherapy (n=102) or deferred radiotherapy (n=101). The patients were well matched at baseline. No significant difference was seen in PTM incidence in the immediate and deferred radiotherapy groups (nine [9%] vs 16 [16%]; odds ratio 0·51 [95% CI 0·19-1·32]; p=0·14). The only serious adverse event related to a PTM or radiotherapy was development of a painful PTM within the radiotherapy field that required hospital admission for symptom control in one patient who received immediate radiotherapy. Common adverse events of immediate radiotherapy were skin toxicity (grade 1 in 50 [54%] and grade 2 in four [4%] of 92 patients vs grade 1 in three [60%] and grade 2 in two [40%] of five patients in the deferred radiotherapy group who received radiotherapy for a PTM) and tiredness or lethargy (36 [39%] in the immediate radiotherapy group vs two [40%] in the deferred radiotherapy group) within 3 months of receiving radiotherapy.Interpretation: Routine use of prophylactic radiotherapy in all patients with mesothelioma after large-bore thoracic interventions is not justified.Funding: Research for Patient Benefit Programme from the UK National Institute for Health Research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]