Patient's quality of life after high-dose radiation therapy for thoracic carcinomas : Changes over time and influence on clinical outcome.

PURPOSE: Quality of life (QoL) is an important factor in patient care. This analysis is focused on QoL before and after radio(chemo)therapy in patients with thoracic carcinomas, as well as on its influence on clinical follow-up and survival, and the correlation with treatment-related toxicities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The analysis included 81 patients with intrathoracic carcinoma receiving radio(chemo)therapy. For analysis of QoL, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the lung cancer-specific supplement (EORTC QLQ-LC13) were used. QoL data were collected before radiation treatment (RT), and 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after RT. Other factors were additionally analyzed, including clinical outcome, survival, and side effects. RESULTS: The functional scales showed maximum values or at least a recovery 12 weeks after RT. Symptoms with a high mean symptom score (> 40) at all appointments were fatigue, dyspnea, and coughing. Insomnia, peripheral neuropathy, appetite loss, dyspnea (from QLQ-LC13), and all pain parameters had an intermediate mean score (10-40). There were low mean scores of < 10 for nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, sore mouth, and hemoptysis. There was a significant correlation between clinical dysphagia and radiation pneumonitis with the associated symptom scales. None of the QoL scores had a significant influence on local and distant control or survival. CONCLUSION: 12 weeks after RT the QLQ-C30 functional scales show the highest scores or at least a temporary recovery. The symptom scales accurately reflect the common symptoms and treatment-related toxicities. QoL did not prove to be a significant predictor for local and distant control or survival.

Changes in pulmonary function and influencing factors after high-dose intrathoracic radio(chemo)therapy.

PURPOSE: Using prospectively collected patient-related, dose-related, and pulmonary function test (PFT) data before radiotherapy (RT) and at several follow-up visits after RT, the time course of PFT changes after high-dose radio(chemo)therapy and influencing factors were analyzed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From April 2012 to October 2015, 81 patients with non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC), or esophageal carcinoma where treated with high-dose radio(chemo)therapy. PFT data were collected before treatment and 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months after RT. The influence of patient- and treatment-related factors on PFT was analyzed. RESULTS: Mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) constantly declined during follow-up (p = 0.001). In total, 68% of patients had a reduced FEV1 at 6 months. Mean vital capacity (VC) didn't change during follow-up (p > 0.05). Mean total lung capacity (TLC) showed a constant decline after RT (p = 0.026). At 6 months, 60% of patients showed a decline in VC and 73% in TLC. The mean diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) declined at 6 and 12 weeks, but recovered slightly at 6 months (p < 0.0005). At 6 months, 86% of patients had a reduced DLCO. After treatment, the partial pressure of CO2 in the blood (pCO2) was increased and pO2 was decreased (p > 0.05). Only the pretreatment PFT classification had a significant influence on the post-RT FEV1. CONCLUSION: DLCO seems to be the most reliable indicator for lung tissue damage after thoracic RT. Ventilation parameters appear to be less reliable. Concerning patient- or treatment-related factors, no reliable conclusion can be drawn regarding which factors may be relevant.

A lot to a little or a little to a lot-which dose-volume relationship ensures the best clinical outcome in the high dose radiation therapy of thoracic tumors? A prospective approach.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this prospective randomized trial is to determine which constellation of dose and corresponding volume of the lung tissue-either a lot to a little or a little to a lot-should be preferred to ensure the best possible outcome for patients with thoracic carcinomas. METHODS: From Apr 2012 to Oct 2015, 81 patients with NSCLC, SCLC or esophageal carcinoma were randomized and treated with either a 4-field-IMRT or a VMAT technique with or without additional chemotherapy. Data regarding clinical outcome, pulmonary function tests (PFT) and quality of life (QoL) was collected before RT, 6 weeks, 12 weeks and 6 months after treatment, QoL data additionally 1 year post RT. Follow up CTs were done 12 weeks and 6 months after RT. RESULTS: There is no significant difference regarding the local (P=0.954) and distant (P=0.206) outcome, side effects (all P>0.05) or survival (P=0.633) at any follow-up appointment. The comparison of the PFT shows a statistically significant difference for the DLCO 6 weeks post RT (P=0.028). All other parameters do not differ significantly at any follow up appointment. Regarding the QoL there is no statistically significant difference at any follow up appointment (P>0.1). There is a statistically significant difference between the mean density of the lung parenchyma at 12 weeks (P<0.0005) and 6 months post RT (P<0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Since there is no significant and relevant difference between both treatment arms regarding PFT, clinical outcome and QoL it does not seem to relevant how the DVH is shaped exactly as long as established dose constraints for the organs at risk are respected. As to whether the difference between the CT density changes is clinically relevant further analysis is needed.