Stereotactic body radiotherapy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: a multicentre study by the Oncologic Group for the Study of Lung Cancer (Spanish Radiation Oncology Society).

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S): Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has become the standard of care for patients with medically inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and for patients who refuse surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of primary SBRT in patients with early-stage NSCLC. MATERIALS/METHODS: Retrospective multicenter study of 397 patients (416 primary lung tumours) treated with SBRT at 18 centres in Spain. 83.2% were men. The median age was 74.4 years. In 94.4% of cases, the tumour was inoperable. The pathological report was available in 54.6% of cases. SPSS vs 22.0. was used to perform all statistical analyses. RESULTS: Complete response was obtained in 53.6% of cases. Significant prognostic factors were standard CT planning (p = 0.014) and 4D cone beam CT (p = 0.000). Acute and chronic toxicity ≥ grade 3 was observed in 1.2% of cases. At a median follow-up of 30 months, local relapse was 9.6%, lymph node relapse 12.8%, distant metastasis 16.6%, and another lung tumour 11.5%. Complete response was the only significant prognostic factor for local relapse (p = 0.012) and distant metastasis (p = 0.001). The local relapse-free survival was 88.7%. The overall survival was 75.7%. The cancer-specific survival was 92.7%. The disease-free survival was 78.7%. CONCLUSION: SBRT is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with early-stage lung cancer who are not suitable for surgery. The most important prognostic factor for local and distant recurrence was complete response, which in our sample depended on the type of CT planning and the IGRT technique.

100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible?

PURPOSE: Peer review has been proposed as a strategy to ensure patient safety and plan quality in radiation oncology. Despite its potential benefits, barriers commonly exist to its optimal implementation in daily clinical routine. Our purpose is to analyze peer-review process at our institution. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Based on our group peer-review process, we quantified the rate of plan changes, time and resources needed for this process. Prospectively, data on cases presented at our institutional peer-review conference attended by physicians, resident physicians and physicists were collected. Items such as time to present per case, type of patient (adult or pediatric), treatment intent, dose, aimed technique, disease location and receipt of previous radiation were gathered. Cases were then analyzed to determine the rate of major change, minor change and plan rejection after presentation as well as the median time per session. RESULTS: Over a period of 4 weeks, 148 cases were reviewed. Median of attendants was six physicians, three in-training-physicians and one physicist. Median time per session was 38 (4-72) minutes. 59.5% of cases presented in 1-4 min, 32.4% in 5-9 min and 8.1% in ≥ 10 min. 79.1% of cases were accepted without changes, 11.5% with minor changes, 6% with major changes and 3.4% were rejected with indication of new presentation. Most frequent reason of change was contouring corrections (53.8%) followed by dose or fractionation (26.9%). CONCLUSION: Everyday group consensus peer review is an efficient manner to recollect clinical and technical data of cases presented to ensure quality radiation care before initiation of treatment as well as ensuring department quality in a feedback team environment. This model is feasible within the normal operation of every radiation oncology Department.