Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Display session

334P - Outcomes according to dosimetric factors: A secondary analysis of CALGB 30610 (Alliance)/RTOG 0538 (NRG)

Date

28 Mar 2025

Session

Poster Display session

Presenters

Michael Mix

Citation

Journal of Thoracic Oncology (2025) 20 (3): S181-S207. 10.1016/S1556-0864(25)00632-X

Authors

M.D. Mix1, M.K. Farris2, X. Wang3, B. Jaszewski4, G. Mao3, N. Foster4, G. Masters5, F. Laurie6, K. Smith6, N.B. Razavian7, R. Alden1, R. Komaki8, T. Stinchcombe9, J.D. Bradley10, E.E. Vokes11, J. Bogart12

Author affiliations

  • 1 SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse/US
  • 2 Wake Forest University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem/US
  • 3 Duke University School of Medicine, Durham/US
  • 4 Mayo Clinic - Rochester, Rochester/US
  • 5 Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute, Newark/US
  • 6 University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester/US
  • 7 Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa/US
  • 8 The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston/US
  • 9 Duke Cancer Center, Durham/US
  • 10 University Of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia/US
  • 11 University of Chicago – Department of Medicine, Chicago/US
  • 12 SUNY Upstate Medical University, 13210 - Syracuse/US

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 334P

Background

A secondary analysis was performed to evaluate the association of radiotherapy (RT) parameters (RTP) with outcomes in limited stage small cell lung cancer.

Methods

Central review of RT plans and diagnostic imaging was completed. Clinical variables and RTP were analyzed with univariable (UVA) and multivariable analyses (MVA) for association with adverse events (AE) using logistic regression models and overall survival (OS) using Cox proportional hazards models. Baseline variables and RTP were compared between study arms and treatment types using Kruskall-Wallace tests and the Chi-square test for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. All findings identified as statistically significant (SS) represent two-sided p-values ≤0.05.

Results

507 patients (of 638 in primary anlaysis) were included (Table). Those treated with intensity modulated RT (IMRT) vs 3D (3D conformal RT) were more likely to have N3 stage and a higher number of involved nodal stations (NINS) (SS). With twice daily (BID): IMRT was associated with lower heart V30 (volume receiving X Gy), V40, V45, lung mean, V20, and larger lung V5, esophageal (eso) max dose (SS). With daily (QD): IMRT was associated with lower heart V30, V40, V45, V60 and larger lung V5, V10, and eso max (SS).With BID: NINS, eso V45, and N stage were associated with grade 2+ (G2+) and grade 3+ (G3+) esophagitis on UVA (SS). The association persisted with V45, N stage (G2+) and NINS (G3+) on MVA (SS).With QD: NINS, eso V60, V70, and N stage were associated with G2+ and G3+ esophagitis on UVA (SS). With BID: RTP were not associated with pulmonary AE. With QD: Lung V10 and V20 were associated with G2+ pneumonitis on UVA (SS). RTP were not found to correlate with cardiac AE or OS in either arm (BID or QD).

Table 334P

Key baseline characteristics and funding

BIDQD
Patients treated with 3DCRT125106
Patients treated with IMRT136140
Patients with N1 stage3853
Patients with N2 stage161140
Patients N3 stage6253
Median NINS (number of involved nodal stations) per patient33

Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; U10CA180868. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org

Conclusions

Despite increased disease burden, IMRT was associated with similar survival and improved cardiac, pulmonary, and eso dose sparing. Clinically relevant esophagitis and pneumonitis correlated with RTP and NINS.

Clinical trial identification

NCT00632853.

Legal entity responsible for the study

Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology.

Funding

This study was supported by grants U10CA180821 and U10CA180882 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology); by grants UG1CA189824, UG1CA233247, UG1CA233253, UG1CA233327, UG1CA233329, and U10CA180868 from the NIH (NRG); by Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Grant U24 CA180803; and by grant KL2TR001421 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the NIH). In addition, the study was supported by Alliance National Clinical Trials Network grants U10 CA180821 (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Operation) and U10 CA180882 (Statistics and Data Management Center for the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology).

Disclosure

K. Smith: Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares, Spouse participates in Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP): Varian. J.D. Bradley: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, Mevion, Genentech; Non-Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consultant (honorariums waived): AstraZeneca. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.

  • Analytics cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage.

  • We use marketing cookies to build a profile of you as a user through your actions on our site in order to better understand your interests and provide you with pertinent suggestions.