Submit Your Article CMED MEACR meeting
Home Print this page Email this page Users Online: 247
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 36-41

“A comparative study using conventional concomitant chemoradiotherapy (using cisplatin-based chemotherapy) with accelerated (six fractions a week) chemoradiotherapy in inoperable or nonresectable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancers:” A prospective randomized trial

1 Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, IGMC, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India
2 Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, M.M.U, Ambala, Haryana, India
3 Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, AIIMS, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India
4 Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India

Correspondence Address:
Shabnum Thakur
Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, IGMC, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ccij.ccij_127_20

Rights and Permissions

Context: The conventional concomitant chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the standard treatment for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Accelerated CCRT results in shortening of overall treatment time which can contribute in controlling accelerated tumor repopulation. The increase in tumor control probability (TCP) can be expected with no or little effect on late normal tissue injury for a given total dose. Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the disease response, toxicity profile, quality of life (QoL), and overall survival in accelerated versus conventional CCRT. Subjects and Methods: Total 42 patients were randomized into two groups – study group (n = 21): Accelerated CCRT, radiation was given as 6 fractions per week (60 Gy/5 weeks/30#) with injection cisplatin 20 mg/m2 intravenous (iv) days 1–5 and days 29–33 + injection etoposide 50 mg/m2 iv days 1–5 and days 29–33 and control group (n = 21): Conventional CCRT, radiation was given as 5 fractions per week (60 Gy/6 weeks/30#) along with the same chemotherapy. External beam radiation therapy was delivered by cobalt-60 machines. Results: The overall response rate (complete and partial response) for all patients was 66.6%. In the control group, it was 66.2%, and in the study group, it was 66.6%. Grade ≥II pulmonary, hematological, and esophageal toxicities were seen in 57%, 43%, and 24% in patients of the control group and 53%, 53%, and 33% in the study group, respectively. In QoL analysis, maximum improvement was noted for hemoptysis, arm/shoulder pain, dyspnea, and chest pain in both the groups. Statistical Analysis Used: The data were analyzed by Student's t-test and Chi-square test. P < 0.05 was taken as statistically significant. Conclusion: As response rates and disease progression were similar in both the groups, accelerated chemoradiotherapy can be considered as an alternate therapy, especially in high-volume centers.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded0    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal