[an error occurred while processing this directive]|[an error occurred while processing this directive]
局部无进展生存评价射波刀治疗外周型肺肿瘤局部疗效价值
庄洪卿, 袁智勇, 王平, 宋勇春, 董洋, 李丰彤, 王境生
300060 天津医科大学附属肿瘤医院放疗科 天津市肿瘤防治重点实验室 天津市肺癌诊治中心
Value of local progression-free survival for evaluating local outcome of peripheral lung cancer treated by cyberknife
ZHUANG Hong-qing, YUAN Zhi-yong, WANG Ping, SONG Yong-chung, DONG Yang, LI Feng-tong, WANG Jing-sheng
Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Hospital of Tianjin Medical university, Tianjin Lung Cancer Center, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin 300060, ChinaCorresponding author:YUAN Zhi-yong, Email:zhiyong0524@163.com
Abstract：Objective To investigate the value of local progression-free survival (LPFS) for evaluating the local long-term outcome of peripheral lung cancer treated by cyberknife. Methods Retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical records of 81 cyberknife-treated lung cancer patients (90 foci), including 43 primary lung cancer patients (43 foci) and 38 metastatic lung cancer patients (47 foci). Of all the patients, 58(63 foci) were treated at a dose of 60 Gy/3 fractions (20 Gy/fraction), and 23(27 foci) at a dose of 54 Gy/3 fractions (18 Gy/fraction). The short-term treatment outcome and LPFS were used as the indices for observation;a logistic regression was used for analyzing the predictive value of LPFS for local long-term treatment outcome. Results After the evaluation of short-term treatment outcome, 63% of all the foci needed further evaluation. As the follow-up lasted, the number of foci which needed further evaluation decreased, most rapidly during 0.5—2 years after treatment. Re-evaluation results had predictive value for the treatment outcome in the subsequent follow-up, but the predictive value declined as the follow-up lasted. Conclusions LPFS is a recommendable index for evaluating the local outcome of primary or metastatic lung cancer treated by cyberknife, and it also has predicative value for local long-term treatment outcome.
ZHUANG Hong-qing,YUAN Zhi-yong,WANG Ping et al. Value of local progression-free survival for evaluating local outcome of peripheral lung cancer treated by cyberknife[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology, 2013, 22(2): 115-117.
[1] Mintz A, Heron DE. CyberKnife (R) robotic stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiation therapy. Technol Cancer Res Treat,2010,9:539-540. [2] Gibbs IC, Loo BW Jr. CyberKnife stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for lung tumors. Technol Cancer Res Treat,2010,9:589-596. [3] Nomura R, Suzuki I. CyberKnife radiosurgery—present status and future prospect. Brain Nerve,2011,63:195-202. [4] Bibault JE, Prevost B, Dansin E, et al. Stereotactic radiotherapy for lung cancer:non-invasive real-time tumor tracking. Cancer Radiother,2010,14:690-697. [5] Nishino M, Jagannathan JP, Ramaiya NH, et al. Revised RECIST guideline version 1.1:what oncologists want to know and what radiologists need to know. Am J Roentgenol,2010,195:281-289. [6] Nishino M, Jackman DM, Hatabu H, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) guidelines for advanced non-small cell lung cancer:comparison with original RECIST and impact on assessment of tumor response to targeted therapy. Am J Roentgenol,2010,195:221-228. [7] Chalian H, Tre HG, Horowitz JM, et al. Radiologic assessment of response to therapy:comparison of RECIST versions 1.1 and 1.0. Radiographics,2011,31:2093-2105. [8] Binns DS, Pirzkall A, Yu W, et al. Compliance with PET acquisition protocols for therapeutic monitoring of erlotinib therapy in an international trial for patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging,2011,38:642-650. [9] Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, et al. From RECIST to PERCIST:evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med,2009,50:122-150. [10] Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours:revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer,2009,45:228-247. [11] Watanabe H, Okada M, Kaji Y, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours-revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Gan To Kagaku Ryoho,2009,36:2495-2501. [12] Liu S, Cheng H, Yao S, et al. The clinical application value of PET/CT in adenocarcinoma with bronchioloalveolar carcinoma features. Ann Nucl Med,2010,24:541-547. [13] Kim TJ, Park CM, Goo JM, et al. Is there a role for FDG PET in the management of lung cancer manifesting predominantly as ground-glass opacity?Am J Roentgenol,2012,198:83-88. [14] Lee HY, Lee KS, Han J, et al. Mucinous versus nonmucinous solitary pulmonary nodular bronchioloalveolar carcinoma:CT and FDG PET findings and pathologic comparisons. Lung Cancer,2009,65:170-175. [15] Balogova S, Huchet V, Kerrou K, et al. Detection of bronchioloalveolar cancer by means of PET/CT and 18F-fluorocholine, and comparison with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose. Nucl Med Commun,2010,31:389-397. [16] Soloviev D, Lewis D, Honess D, et al.[(18) F] FLT:an imaging biomarker of tumour proliferation for assessment of tumour response to treatment. Eur J Cancer,2012,48:416-424. [17] Oh D, Ahn YC, Seo JM, et al. Potentially curative stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for single or oligometastasis to the lung. Acta Oncol,2012,51:596-602.
2013, Vol. 22 
