Introduction. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is now an accepted and patient friendly treatment, but still controversy exists about its comparability to conventional radiation therapy (RT). The purpose of this single-institutional report is to describe survival outcome for medically inoperable patients with early stage NSCLC treated with SBRT compared with high dose conventional RT. Material and methods. From August 2005 to June 2012, 100 medically inoperable patients were treated with SBRT at Odense University Hospital. The thoracic RT consisted of 3 fractions (F) of 15–22 Gy delivered in nine days. For comparison a group of 32 medically inoperable patients treated with conventional RT with 80 Gy/35–40 F (5 F/week) in the period of July 1998 to August 2011 were analyzed. All tumors had histological or cytological proven NSCLC T1-2N0M0. Results. The median overall survival was 36.1 months versus 24.4 months for SBRT and conventional RT, respectively (p = 0.015). Local failure-free survival rates at one year were in SBRT group 93% versus 89% in the conventional RT group and at five years 69% versus 66%, SBRT and conventional RT respectively (p = 0.99). On multivariate analysis, female gender and performance status of 0–1 and SBRT predicted improved prognosis. Conclusion. In a cohort of patients with NSCLC there was a significant difference in overall survival favoring SBRT. Performance status of 0–1, female gender and SBRT predicted improved prognosis. However, staging procedure, confirmation procedure of recurrence and technical improvements of radiation treatment is likely to influence outcomes. However, SBRT seems to be as efficient as conventional RT and is a more convenient treatment for the patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic is an international public health crisis. The risk of getting an infection with COVID-19 might impact the emotional well-being in patients with cancer. The aim of this study w...

The aim was to investigate if oncologic treatment decision based on G8 screening followed by comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and a multidisciplinary team conference in patients with G8 ≤ 14 was better than treatment decision based on standard assessment. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02671994. From January 2016 to June 2018, 96 patients with cancer, aged ≥70 years, were included. Patients were randomized to treatment decision based on the oncologist's clinical judgement (control) or based on screening with G8. If G8 > 14 treatment decision was made as in the control group and if G8 ≤ 14, patients were referred to CGA including intervention as needed and treatment decision after a multidisciplinary team conference (MDT). The study was closed early. 47 patients were randomized to the control group and 49 to the intervention group; 28 had a G8 ≤ 14, 24 of whom attended CGA. In the intervention group 48% completed treatment as planned compared to 54% in the control group (p = .208). Thirty-eight percent experienced grade 3-4 toxicity in the control group compared with only 20% in the intervention group (p = .055). Median overall survival (OS) was 14.2 months in the control group and 19.1 months in the intervention group (p = .911). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.0 months in the control group and 7.8 months for the intervention group (p = .838). Treatment decision based on G8 screening followed by CGA had no impact on completion rate of planned oncologic treatment, OS or PFS, but resulted in a borderline significant lower incidence of grade 3-4 toxicity.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, high-risk patient groups might have practiced social distancing and sheltering, and hospitals may have changed or postponed treatments and examinations. We aimed to ex...