Is there a role for hypofractionated thoracic radiotherapy in limited-stage small cell lung cancer? a propensity score matched analysis.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
e21107 Background: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care for limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC). While conventional fractionation (CF) and hyperfractionation are the most commonly used radiotherapy schedules worldwide, hypofractionation (HF) continues to be a standard radiation regimen used in several countries. In the absence of randomized evidence comparing CF and HF, the aim of this study was to compare overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity outcomes for CF and HF in LS-SCLC. Methods: In this single institution retrospective review, consecutive LS-SCLC patients treated between 2000-2013 with HF (40Gy/15, 45Gy/15, 45Gy/20 fractions) or CF (60Gy/30 or 66Gy/33 fractions) were included. Propensity scores were generated using a multivariable logistic regression model. Patients were matched on a 1:1 ratio with a caliper distance of 0.20. OS and PFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method with differences evaluated using log-rank tests. As a sensitivity analysis, univariable and multivariable Cox regression was performed in all unmatched patients. Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of all pulmonary and esophageal adverse events. Results: In the 117 patients, there were significant baseline differences between the CF and HF cohorts. Patients who received CF were older, smoked more often concurrently with treatment, had higher ECOG performance status, different T and N stage patterns, and more commonly received concurrent chemoradiotherapy and prophylactic cranial irradiation. After propensity score matching, 72 patients were included, 36 in the HF and CF cohorts respectively. No statistically significant difference was noted between matched HF and CF cohorts for OS (P = 0.724) or PFS (P = 0.862). Similarly, multivariable Cox regression revealed no differences in OS (P = 0.886) or PFS (P = 0.717) between HF and CF in all unmatched patients. There was no difference in any pulmonary (P = 0.350) or esophageal (P = 0.097) adverse events between matched HF and CF cohorts. Skin adverse events were significantly higher for CF (41.7%) compared with HF (16.7%, P = 0.020) in matched patients. No grade 5 adverse events were observed. Conclusions: In this propensity score matched comparison of HF and CF in LS-SCLC patients who underwent curative-intent radiation treatment, HF and CF were associated with comparable OS, PFS, and toxicity outcomes. HF may therefore be a reasonable alternative to CF, should its efficacy be confirmed in prospective studies.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».