Retrospective analysis illustrates single-fraction SBRT improves local control and survival in NSCLC, suggesting individualized treatment is crucial.
Background Single-fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an effective treatment option for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are ineligible for surgery. This study investigates long-term clinical outcomes, prognostic factors, and toxicity associated with high-dose single-fraction SBRT. Materials and methods We retrospectively analyzed 110 patients with 116 NSCLC lesions treated with single-fraction SBRT between 2000 and 2023. Histologic subtypes included adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, large cell carcinoma, and CT-defined suspicious lesions without histological confirmation. Local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models. Toxicity was evaluated using CTCAE v4.0. Results The most common dose was 30 Gy, prescribed in 76.7% of lesions. Among patients who received ≥ 30 Gy, LC at 2, 3, and 5 years was 78%, 74%, and 68%; PFS was 63%, 49%, and 37%; and OS was 84%, 83%, and 60%, respectively. LC and PFS were significantly higher in patients treated with ≥ 30 Gy ( p < 0.05). Acute pneumonitis occurred in 2 patients (1.8%), and 22 patients (20.0%) developed late-onset pneumonitis. Pneumonitis incidence was 26.8% in patients planned with 3D-CT, compared to 12.8% with DIBH or 4D-CT. No grade ≥ 3 toxicity was observed. Conclusion High-dose (≥ 30 Gy) single-fraction SBRT provides excellent long-term tumor control with minimal toxicity with NSCLC. Advanced motion management techniques were associated with reduced pulmonary toxicity. A ≥ 30 Gy dose significantly improved LC, PFS, and OS. Higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was associated with worse OS. These findings support the use of high-dose SF-SBRT in selected patients and highlight the need for individualized treatment planning. Prospective validation is warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tas et al. (2025) studied this question.