nach oben

Erschienen in:

Open Access 01.12.2020 | Research

Whole brain radiation therapy plus focal boost may be a suitable strategy for brain metastases in SCLC patients: a multi-center study

verfasst von: Meng Ni, Aijun Jiang, Wenju Liu, Yanxing Sheng, Haiyan Zeng, Ning Liu, Qingxiao Gao, Yong Wang, Jinming Yu, Shuanghu Yuan

Erschienen in: Radiation Oncology | Ausgabe 1/2020

Abstract

Background

The treatment for brain metastases in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare different brain radiotherapy treatments on SCLC patients with brain metastases.

Methods

In this multi-center retrospective study, SCLC patients who had undergone whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases from January 2012 to December 2018 were retrospectively screened.

Results

A total of 263 eligible SCLC patients were included in this study, among whom, 73 were women and 190 were men. According to accepted brain radiotherapy, the remaining patients were divided into WBRT plus focal radiation boost (WBRT+boost), WBRT, and SRS groups. In pairwise comparisons of the overall survival (OS), WBRT+boost group led to longer survival than did WBRT both in all patients (17.9 vs 8.7 months; P < 0.001) and 140 matched patients (17.9 vs 11.7 months; P = 0.045). There were no significant differences in OS between WBRT+boost and SRS groups in all patients (17.9 vs 14.5 months; P = 0.432). Among 74 matched patients between WBRT+boost and SRS groups, however, patients who received WBRT+boost led to a longer survival than did SRS alone (21.8 vs 12.9 months; P = 0.040). In pairwise comparison of the intracranial progression-free survival time (iPFS), WBRT+boost group also showed survival advantages over WBRT (10.8 vs 6.5 months; P = 0.005) and SRS groups (10.8 vs 7.5 months; P = 0.032).

Conclusion

Due to the SCLC-derived multiple brain metastases and better survival time, focal radiation boost combined with adjuvant WBRT may be a preferred strategy for SCLC patients with brain metastases.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

3D-CRT

3D conformal radiotherapy

CTV

Clinical target volume

GTV

Gross tumor volume

IMRT

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy

iPFS

Intracranial progression-free survival time.

Overall survival

PCI

Prophylactic cranial irradiation

PTV

Planning tumor volume

SCLC

Small cell lung cancer

SRS

Stereotactic radiosurgery

WBRT

Whole brain radiotherapy

WBRT+boost

WBRT plus focal radiation boost

Introduction

Brain metastases are the most common central nervous system tumors, and the most common primary site is lung cancer [1]. Among them, the most common pathological type of brain metastases is small cell lung cancer (SCLC) [2, 3]. Due to advanced diagnostic imaging technology and effective treatment, the incidence of brain metastases in SCLC has increased correspondingly [4, 5]. About 10–21% of SCLC patients are diagnosed with brain metastases initially, and 50–80% will develop brain metastases during the course of the disease [6‐9]. In addition, SCLC patients are often accompanied by multiple brain metastases and poor prognosis, with the median overall survival (OS) of 3 months (from the diagnosis of brain metastases to death) [2, 3]. According to the NCCN Guidelines for Small Cell Lung Cancer Version 2.2020, whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is recommended as a standard treatment for brain metastases in patients with SCLC [10]. However, the optimal strategy for brain metastases in SCLC patients still remains controversial. Previous randomized clinical trials suggested that stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) can be used for 1–3 brain metastases [11], and even for 5–10 brain metastases [12]. Randomized controlled trial is also conducted to investigate the efficacy of SRS alone in SCLC patients with 1–10 brain metastases [13]. Some studies suggested that WBRT plus a radiation boost increased the survival benefit for brain metastases in a specific situation [14‐16]. The purpose is to compare three different radiotherapy methods currently used clinically for brain metastases in SCLC patients in this study.

Methods

This multicenter study included patients from three medical institutions in China.

SCLC patients who had undergone WBRT or SRS for brain metastases were retrospectively retrieved from January 2012 to December 2018. Eligible criteria included patients who had pathologically-proven SCLC and imaging-proven brain metastases. In addition, all patients underwent brain radiotherapy. Those patients who underwent prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) or WBRT previously were excluded. Those patients who had incomplete medical records at diagnosis or treatment were also excluded. The screening process of patients was listed in Fig. 1. The general characteristics of the patients were recorded, including age, gender, KPS score, number and maximum size of brain metastasis, systemic treatment, type of radiotherapy, and extracranial metastases.

Treatment

All patients underwent brain radiotherapy after diagnosis of brain metastases. Of these, 79 patients received WBRT plus focal radiation boost (WBRT+boost), 140 patients received WBRT, and 44 patients received SRS. WBRT or focal boost was performed using 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and was administered using linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems). In WBRT, the clinical target volume (CTV) was contoured as the region of the whole brain, with a total dose of 25–45 Gy (2–3 Gy per fraction administered in 10–15 fractions). An extension of 3 mm on CTV was defined as planning tumor volume (PTV). In additional focal boost, the gross tumor volume (GTV) was contoured as contrast-enhanced MRI, with a total dose of 10–20 Gy (2–3 Gy per fraction administered in 5–10 fractions). An expansion of the GTV by 2–3 mm was used as the PTV. SRS was administered using the gamma knife, with a 40–60% isodose line. According to location of the brain metastases, prescribed radiation dose was 10.5–20.5 Gy in 1–3 fractions with 8.5–18.0 Gy per fraction. Due to the condition of patients and the experience of the clinician, the prescribed dose in our study was lower than previously set by the RTOG [17].

According to the condition of patients and the clinical experience of the physician, 80 patients did not receive systemic chemotherapy, and 183 patients received more than 2 cycles of chemotherapy.

Statistical method

The primary endpoint was OS (death or final follow-up), and the secondary study endpoint was intracranial progression-free survival time (iPFS, the progression of intracranial metastases at the first time or death or final review). IPFS was defined as local failure or the appearance of new metastases. Local failure was assessed by the RECIST version 1.1 criteria [18]. Time to overall survival or intracranial progression-free survival was calculated by Kaplan–Meier method. The 1: 1 optimal propensity score matching method was used between WBRT+boost (treatment) and WBRT (control) or SRS (control) groups to control confounding factors of patients, and the purpose of the matching was to reduce bias in the estimation of treatment effect [19]. Propensity score estimation was calculated by logistic regression analysis. Covariates (ie, extracranial metastases, age, KPS score, symptoms, gender, and maximum size and number of brain metastases) were used to calculate propensity scores. The general characteristics of the patients were calculated by χ2 test before or after matching. Prognostic factors were performed using univariate or multivariate analyses, which was based on Cox models (done at the level of α = 0.05 and forward stepwise likelihood ratio method) [20]. P < 0.05 (two-sided) was considered statistically significant in all analyses. All analyses were performed by IBM SPSS 22.0 (IBM Corp).

Results

Patient characteristics

A total of 263 eligible patients were included in this study (Fig. 1). Among of them, 185 (70.3%) patients died, 42 (16.0%) patients were lost to follow-up, and 36 (13.7%) patients survived. Of 263 patients (median age, 61 years), 73 (27.8%) were women and 190 (72.2%) were men. The general characteristics of the all patients were listed in Table 1 and were not balanced between the groups.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of patients before propensity score matching

	WBRT + boost	WBRT Alone	SRS Alone	P Value
	(n = 79)	(n = 140)	(n = 44)	P Value
Age, No. (%)				0.563
< 60	36	67	17
≥60	43	73	27
Sex, No. (%)				0.819
Male	55	103	32
Female	24	37	12
KPS, No. (%)				0.931
≤80	47	84	25
> 80	32	56	19
Number of BMs, No. (%)				< 0.001
1–3	51	34	39
> 3	28	106	5
Maximum size of BM, No. (%)				0.170
< 20 mm	36	81	26
≧20 mm	43	59	18
Extracranial metastases, No. (%)				0.009
Yes	17	53	6
None	14	20	6
Unknown	48	67	32
Symptoms of BM, No. (%)				0.123
Yes	37	69	14
None	42	71	30
Systematic treatment				0.833
CTx	55	99	29
No-CTx	24	41	15

Abbreviations: WBRT+boost whole brain radiotherapy plus focal radiation boost, WBRT whole brain radiation therapy, SRS stereotactic radiosurgery, KPS Karnofsky Performance Status, BM brain metastasis, CTx chemotherapy, No-CTx no chemotherapy

Analyses of overall survival time in all patients before propensity score matching

The final follow-up date was December 30, 2019, with the median follow-up time was 10.1 months. There were significant differences in OS time between WBRT+boost, WBRT, and SRS groups (17.9 vs 8.7 vs 14.5 months; P = 0.001). In pairwise comparison of the OS, patients in WBRT+boost group had significantly longer survival than did WBRT (17.9 vs 8.7 months; P < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in OS between WBRT+boost and SRS groups (17.9 vs 14.5 months; P = 0.432) or WBRT and SRS groups (8.7 vs 14.5 months; P = 0.090) (Fig. 2).

Analyses of overall survival time after propensity score matching

Optimal propensity score matching was used to further compare the survival time between WBRT+boost and WBRT or SRS alone groups to balance the confounding. The general characteristics of the patients between the two groups were balanced after propensity score matching (Tables 2, and 3). Patients who received WBRT+boost also led to significantly longer survival than did WBRT among 140 matched patients between WBRT+boost and WBRT alone groups (17.9 vs 11.7 months; Fig. 3a). Among 74 matched patients between WBRT+boost and SRS alone groups, patients who treated with WBRT+boost also led to a longer survival than did SRS alone (21.8 vs 12.9 months; P = 0.040; Fig. 3b).

Table 2

Baseline characteristics of patients between WBRT+boost and WBRT alone after propensity score matching

	WBRT + boost	WBRT Alone	P-Value
	(n = 70)	(n = 70)	P-Value
Age, No. (%)			0.611
< 60	34	31
≥60	36	39
Sex, No. (%)			0.577
Male	48	51
Female	22	19
KPS, No. (%)			0.294
≤80	41	47
> 80	29	23
Number of BMs, No. (%)			0.175
1–3	42	34
> 3	28	36
Maximum size of BM, No. (%)			0.176
< 20 mm	33	41
≧20 mm	37	29
Extracranial metastases, No. (%)			0.092
Yes	16	21
None	12	4
Unknown	42	45
Symptoms of BM, No. (%)			0.735
Yes	35	33
None	35	37
Systematic treatment			0.237
CTx	50	56
No-CTx	20	14

Table 3

Baseline characteristics of patients between WBRT+boost and SRS alone after propensity score matching

	WBRT + boost	SRS Alone	P-Value
	(n = 37)	(n = 37)	P-Value
Age, No. (%)			1.00
< 60	14	14
≥60	23	23
Sex, No. (%)			0.407
Male	27	30
Female	10	7
KPS, No. (%)			0.815
≤80	20	21
> 80	17	16
Number of BMs, No. (%)			0.744
1–3	31	32
> 3	6	5
Maximum size of BM, No. (%)			0.642
< 20 mm	18	20
≧20 mm	19	17
Extracranial metastases, No. (%)			0.317
Yes	2	6
None	6	6
Unknown	29	25
Symptoms of BM, No. (%)			0.809
Yes	14	13
None	23	24
Systematic treatment			0.802
CTx	26	25
No-CTx	11	12

Abbreviations: WBRT+boost whole brain radiotherapy plus focal radiation boost, SRS stereotactic radiosurgery, KPS Karnofsky Performance Status, BM brain metastasis, CTx chemotherapy, No-CTx no chemotherapy

Analyses of intracranial progression-free survival time

The 1-year iPFS rates of the WBRT+boost group, WBRT group, and SRS group were 36.7, 25.7, and 20.5%, respectively. Similarly, there were significant differences in iPFS between WBRT+boost, WBRT, and SRS groups (10.8 vs 6.5 vs 7.5 months; P = 0.020). In pairwise comparison of the iPFS, WBRT+boost also had survival advantages over WBRT (10.8 vs 6.5 months; P = 0.005) and SRS (10.8 vs 7.5 months; P = 0.032) (Fig. 4).

Univariate and multivariate analyses of overall survival

In univariate analyses, age, sex, number of brain metastases, extracranial metastases, systemic therapy, and radiotherapy were significant prognostic factors associated with OS. Multivariate analysis showed no or unknown extracranial metastases (HR, 0.63; HR, 0.61; P = 0.011), and female sex (HR, 0.58; P = 0.002) were related to increased survival. Multivariate analysis also showed patients with multiple brain metastases (> 3) (HR, 1.88; P < 0.001) or those who did not receive systemic chemotherapy (HR, 2.08; P < 0.001) had a poorer OS (Table 4).

Table 4

Univariate and multivariate analyses of factors influencing OS of lung cancer patients with brain metastases

Factors		Median OS, months	Univariate		Multivariate
Factors		Median OS, months	HR (95% CI)	P Value	HR (95% CI)	P Value
Age, years	< 60	15.9		0.019
Age, years	≥60	10.8	1.42 (1.06–1.91)
Sex	Male	10.0		0.016		0.002
Sex	Female	17.2	0.67 (0.48–0.93)		0.58 (0.41–0.81)
KPS	≤80	11.0		0.059
KPS	> 80	14.8	0.75 (0.56–1.01)
Number of BMs	1–3	19.5		< 0.001		< 0.001
Number of BMs	> 3	8.9	2.00 (1.48–2.71)		1.88 (1.36–2.59)
Maximum size of	< 20	11.7		0.173
BM, mm	≥20	12.9	1.22 (0.91–1.63)
Symptoms of BM	Yes	12.3		0.198
Symptoms of BM	None	12.9	0.83 (0.62–1.11)
Extracranial metastases	Yes	7.5		0.003		0.011
	None	18.3	0.68 (0.43–1.06)		0.63 (0.40–0.99)
	Unknown	15.0	0.57 (0.42–0.79)		0.61 (0.43–0.85)
Systematic Tx	CTx	14.9		< 0.001		< 0.001
Systematic Tx	No-CTx	6.0	1.83 (1.35–2.49)		2.08 (1.53–2.84)
Radiotherapy	WBRT+boost	17.9		0.002
	WBRT	8.7	1.82 (1.30–2.55)
	SRS	14.5	1.23 (0.75–2.02)

Abbreviations: OS overall survival, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, KPS Karnofsky Performance Status, BM brain metastasis, CTx chemotherapy, No-CTx no chemotherapy, WBRT whole brain radiation therapy, SRS stereotactic radiosurgery, WBRT+boost whole brain radiotherapy plus focal radiation boost

Discussion

This multi-center retrospective study evaluated different radiotherapy treatments for brain metastases in SCLC patients. Compared to WBRT alone, WBRT+boost was associated with superior OS and iPFS both in the entire cohort (n = 263) and matched cohort (n = 140). Patients who treated with WBRT+boost also experienced a longer OS than did SRS in matched cohort (n = 74).

Due to the properties of multiple metastases, WBRT was considered the standard treatment for brain metastases from SCLC patients. However, the optimal treatment for brain metastases remained controversial. Some published studies suggested that WBRT plus radiation boost was more suitable for the treatment of brain metastases in SCLC patients than WBRT alone. Sun et al. reported that, compared with WBRT alone, a longer survival was observed in patients who received WBRT plus radiation boost than did WBRT alone (13.4 vs 8.5 months; p = 0.004). To minimize the difference in the number of BMs between the two groups, a subgroup analysis was performed. Among patients with 1–3 brain metastases, WBRT plus radiation boost was also associated with longer OS than WBRT alone (13.4 vs 9.6 months; p = 0.022) [14]. Their findings were similar to ours. Wegner et al. reported that the longer OS was observed in SCLC patients who received WBRT plus SRS than did SRS alone (14 vs 6 months, p = 0.040). Of note, only 6 patients received WBRT plus SRS in their study [21]. Andrews et al. found that WBRT plus SRS group showed an improved KPS score and better OS than WBRT alone group in patients with single brain metastasis (6.5 vs 4.9 months; P = 0.0393). They also found that better control rates at 1 year in the WBRT plus SRS group (82%) vs 71%, P = 0.01). Of note, only 24 (7.2%) SCLC patients were included in their study [16].

Some studies suggested that SRS alone may be appropriate treatment for brain metastases in SCLC patients [13, 22]. Robin et al. reported SCLC patients who treated with upfront SRS was associated with longer OS than did WBRT ± SRS (10.8 vs 7.1 months, p < 0.001). However, in the subgroup analysis, there was no survival difference between SRS alone and WBRT plus SRS (p = 0.601) [22]. Bernhardt et al. also conducted a randomized controlled trial to investigate the treatment response of WBRT or SRS alone in SCLC patients. However, the final conclusions have not yet been published [13]. In a randomized controlled clinical trial published in JAMA, Brown et al. reported that WBRT plus SRS group had no survival difference compared with SRS alone group in patients with 1–3 brain metastases (7.4 vs 10.4 months; P = 0.92). However, the higher intracranial tumor control rates at 3 months was observed in patients who treated with WBRT plus SRS (93.7% vs 75.3%, P < 0.001) [11]. Of note, only 88 (66.7%) patients were lung cancer in their study. Therefore, their findings may not apply to SCLC patients. Aoyama et al. enrolled 132 patients with 1–4 brain metastases, among them, only 88 (66.7%) were lung cancer. They found that patients who treated with WBRT plus SRS group did not improve the survival time than did SRS alone (7.5 vs 8.0 months; P = 0.42), but significantly avoided the risk of intracranial recurrence [23]. Although previous studies were consistent with our findings, most of the above studies did not enroll SCLC patients alone. Combined with the characteristics of multiple metastases from SCLC and the better local control rates of WBRT, adjuvant WBRT combined with focal boost was necessary and indispensable for brain metastases from SCLC.

Our data also showed that the 1–3 brain metastases, and without extracranial metastases were prognostic factor for increased survival, which was similar to previous findings [24, 25]. We also found that gender and systemic treatment were prognostic factors for OS.

Our study also has several limitations. Firstly, the general characteristics of patients are not balanced. Of course, we performed propensity score matching to control the confounding between the WBRT+boost and WBRT or SRS groups. Secondly, RT-related neurotoxicity was not evaluated. Thirdly, the inherent characteristics of retrospective research and patient heterogeneity may bias the results.

Conclusions

Among SCLC patients, the use of WBRT+boost resulted in both longer iPFS and OS than did WBRT or SRS alone. Due to the SCLC-derived intracranial dissemination and better intracranial control, WBRT+boost may be a preferred strategy for brain metastases in SCLC patients.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Schouten LJ, et al. Incidence of brain metastases in a cohort of patients with carcinoma of the breast, colon, kidney, and lung and melanoma. Cancer. 2002;94(10):2698–705.CrossRef

Nussbaum ES, et al. Brain metastases. Histology, multiplicity, surgery, and survival. Cancer. 1996;78(8):1781–8.CrossRef

Newman SJ, Hansen HH. Proceedings: frequency, diagnosis, and treatment of brain metastases in 247 consecutive patients with bronchogenic carcinoma. Cancer. 1974;33(2):492–6.CrossRef

Ostrom QT, Wright CH, Barnholtz-Sloan JS. Brain metastases: epidemiology. Handb Clin Neurol. 2018;149:27–42.CrossRef

Hochstenbag MM, et al. Asymptomatic brain metastases (BM) in small cell lung cancer (SCLC): MR-imaging is useful at initial diagnosis. J Neuro-Oncol. 2000;48(3):243–8.CrossRef

Nugent JL, et al. CNS metastases in small cell bronchogenic carcinoma: increasing frequency and changing pattern with lengthening survival. Cancer. 1979;44(5):1885–93.CrossRef

Seute T, et al. Neurologic disorders in 432 consecutive patients with small cell lung carcinoma. Cancer. 2004;100(4):801–6.CrossRef

Hirsch FR, et al. Intracranial metastases in small cell carcinoma of the lung: correlation of clinical and autopsy findings. Cancer. 1982;50(11):2433–7.CrossRef

Quan AL, Videtic GM, Suh JH. Brain metastases in small cell lung cancer. Oncology (Williston Park). 2004;18(8):961–72 discussion 974, 979–80, 987.

10.

Tsao MN, et al. Whole brain radiotherapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple brain metastases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;1:CD003869.PubMed

11.

Brown PD, et al. Effect of radiosurgery alone vs radiosurgery with whole brain radiation therapy on cognitive function in patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316(4):401–9.CrossRef

12.

Yamamoto M, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for patients with multiple brain metastases (JLGK0901): a multi-institutional prospective observational study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(4):387–95.CrossRef

13.

Bernhardt D, et al. Whole brain radiation therapy alone versus radiosurgery for patients with 1-10 brain metastases from small cell lung cancer (ENCEPHALON trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2018;19(1):388.CrossRef

14.

Sun H, et al. Additional radiation boost to whole brain radiation therapy may improve the survival of patients with brain metastases in small cell lung cancer. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13(1):250.CrossRef

15.

Khan M, et al. Whole brain radiation therapy plus stereotactic radiosurgery in the treatment of brain metastases leading to improved survival in patients with favorable prognostic factors. Front Oncol. 2019;9:205.CrossRef

16.

Andrews DW, et al. Whole brain radiation therapy with or without stereotactic radiosurgery boost for patients with one to three brain metastases: phase III results of the RTOG 9508 randomised trial. Lancet. 2004;363(9422):1665–72.CrossRef

17.

Shaw E, et al. Single dose radiosurgical treatment of recurrent previously irradiated primary brain tumors and brain metastases: final report of RTOG protocol 90-05. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;47(2):291–8.CrossRef

18.

Eisenhauer EA, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–47.CrossRef

19.

Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Stat Sci. 2010;25(1):1–21.CrossRef

20.

Gill RD. Multistate life-tables and regression models. Math Popul Stud. 1992;3(4):259–76.CrossRef

21.

Wegner RE, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for patients with brain metastases from small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81(3):e21–7.CrossRef

22.

Robin TP, et al. Radiosurgery alone is associated with favorable outcomes for brain metastases from small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2018;120:88–90.CrossRef

23.

Aoyama H, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery plus whole-brain radiation therapy vs stereotactic radiosurgery alone for treatment of brain metastases: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2006;295(21):2483–91.CrossRef

24.

Sperduto PW, et al. Diagnosis-specific prognostic factors, indexes, and treatment outcomes for patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases: a multi-institutional analysis of 4,259 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77(3):655–61.CrossRef

25.

Sperduto PW, et al. Summary report on the graded prognostic assessment: an accurate and facile diagnosis-specific tool to estimate survival for patients with brain metastases. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(4):419–25.CrossRef

Titel: Whole brain radiation therapy plus focal boost may be a suitable strategy for brain metastases in SCLC patients: a multi-center study
verfasst von: Meng Ni
Aijun Jiang
Wenju Liu
Yanxing Sheng
Haiyan Zeng
Ning Liu
Qingxiao Gao
Yong Wang
Jinming Yu
Shuanghu Yuan
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2020
Verlag: BioMed Central
Erschienen in: Radiation Oncology / Ausgabe 1/2020
Elektronische ISSN: 1748-717X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-020-01509-3

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Umsetzung der POMGAT-Leitlinie läuft

03.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Seit November 2023 gibt es evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen zum perioperativen Management bei gastrointestinalen Tumoren (POMGAT) auf S3-Niveau. Vieles wird schon entsprechend der Empfehlungen durchgeführt. Wo es im Alltag noch hapert, zeigt eine Umfrage in einem Klinikverbund.

Springer Medizin

Whole brain radiation therapy plus focal boost may be a suitable strategy for brain metastases in SCLC patients: a multi-center study