Patients had numerically better but statistically similar five-year overall survival rates for IMRT (30.8 per cent) compared to 3D-CRT (26.6 per cent), as well as progression-free survival rates (16.
5 per cent vs. 14.6 per cent).
Taken together, these results favored IMRT, even though patients on the IMRT arm had significantly larger tumors and more tumors in unfavorable locations near the heart. For patients with locally advanced, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), standard use of the more accurate intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is recommended over the alternative 3D-conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). This conclusion is based on the findings of a recent study conducted by researchers at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Centre.
The research, which was just published in JAMA Oncology, showed that IMRT had comparable survival rates while having fewer adverse effects. A prospective secondary analysis of long-term outcomes from 483 patients on the Phase III NRG Oncology-RTOG 0617 randomized trial demonstrated those treated with 3D-CRT were significantly more likely to experience severe pneumonitis - inflammation of the lungs - than patients treated with IMRT, with rates of 8.2 percent and 3.
5 percent, respectively. According to lead author Stephen Chun, M.D.
, associate professor of Radiation Oncology, this study should bring finality to what has been a long-standing debate over optimal radiation technique for locally advanced NSCLC. "3D-CR.
)
