Background: The role of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) for patients with stage III thymoma after complete resection is not definite. Some authors have advocated postoperative RT after complete tumor resection, but some others suggested observation. In this study, we retrospectively evaluated the effect of postoperative RT on survival as well as tumor control in patients with Masaoka stage III thymoma. Methods: Between June 1982 and December 2010, 65 patients who underwent complete resection of stage III thymoma entered the study. Fifty-three patients had adjuvant RT after surgery (S + R) and 12 had surgery only (S alone). Of patients who had adjuvant RT, 28 had three-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT)/intensity modulated RT (IMRT) and 25 had conventional RT. A median prescribed dose of 56 Gy (range, 28–60 Gy) was given. Results: The median follow-up time was 50 months (range, 5–360 months). Five- and 10-year overall survival (OS) rates were 91.7% and 71.6%, respectively, for S + R and 81.5% and 65.2% for S alone (P = 0.5), respectively. In the subgroup analysis, patients with 3D-CRT/IMRT showed a trend of improved 5-year OS rate compared with conventional RT (100% vs. 86.9%, P =0.12). Compared with S alone, the 5-year OS rate was significantly improved (100% vs. 81.5%, P = 0.049). Relapses occurred in 15 patients (23.1%). There was a trend of lower crude local recurrence rates for S + R (3.8%) compared with S alone (16.7%) (P = 0.09), whereas the crude regional recurrence rates were similar (P = 0.9). No clear dose–response relationship was found according to prescribed doses. Conclusions: Adjuvant 3D-CRT/IMRT showed potential advantages in improving survival and reducing relapse in patients with stage III thymoma after complete resection, whereas adjuvant RT did not significantly improve survival or reduce recurrence for the cohort as a whole. Doses of ≤ 50 Gy may be effective and could be prescribed for adjuvant RT. To confirm the role of adjuvant 3D-CRT/IMRT in patients who undergo a complete resection of thymoma, a multicenter randomized study should be performed.

To investigate the safety and tolerability of simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique concurrent with elective nodal irradiation (ENI) and dual-drug chemotherapy for patients with unresectable esophageal cancer. In phase I, the prophylactic PTV received a stable dose of 50.40Gy/1.80Gy/28f while the boost area was planned with 3 consecutive dose levels: the first dose level was 60.76Gy/2.17Gy/28f, and then escalated approximately every 2 Gy. ENI was incorporated in Clinical Target Volume (CTV), and paclitaxel and nedaplatin were given concurrently for at least 5 weeks. In phase II, enrolled patients were treated with Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) obtained in phase I and the compliance rate, survival results and toxicities were evaluated. From December 2014 to April 2017, 53 patients were enrolled. In phase I, 2 out of 6 patients developed Dose-Limiting Toxicity (DLT) at dose level 1. Due to excessive treatment-related toxicities, the escalation process was suspended and de-escalated to 59.92Gy /2.14Gy /28 f. Three patients were treated at this dose level, all of whom completed at least 5 weeks of chemotherapy and none of whom reached a DLT, determining the newly added dose level to be the MTD. In phase II, 44 patients were treated with MTD, 31 of them (70.0%) completed at least 5 weeks of chemotherapy. The most common Grade 3 or 4 toxicities in phase II included leukopenia (21%) and esophagitis (15%). With a median follow-up time of 16.9 months, 1-y OS, DFS and local failure-free survival were 76.9, 63.6 and 78.8% respectively. The SIB technique was feasible and safe at the MTD (95% PGTV/PTV 59.92/50.40Gy/28f) concurrent with ENI and dual-drug chemotherapy for patients with unresectable esophageal cancer. clinicaltrials.gov NCT02429622 . Retrospectively registered on April 24, 2015.

Consistent results are lacking as regards the comparative effectiveness of simultaneous integrated boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy (SIB-IMRT) versus conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC). Therefore, we conducted a retrospective analysis to demonstrate the role of SIB-IMRT for patients. Patients who had histologically confirmed NSCLC, stage III disease and received thoracic IMRT between 2014 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. The survival, toxicities and dose to organs at risk (OAR) were compared among patients irradiated with different techniques. The SIB-IMRT plans were designed to deliver 45–59.4Gy (median: 50.4Gy) to PTV while simultaneously delivering 50-70Gy (median: 59.92Gy) to PGTV. As for conventional IMRT plans, a total dose of 50-70Gy (median: 60Gy) was delivered to PTV. 426 patients with stage III NSCLC were eligible for analysis, including 128 with SIB-IMRT and 298 with conventional IMRT. The SIB-IMRT group had more stage IIIB disease (69.5% vs. 53%, P = 0.002), larger planning treatment volumes (median: 504 ml vs. 402 ml, P<0.001), and a larger planning treatment volume/volume of lung ratio (median, 0.18 vs. 0.12, P<0.001). The median OS of the SIB-IMRT and conventional IMRT groups were 34.5 and 31.7 months, with the 2-year rate of 60.4 and 59%, respectively (P = 0.797). No difference in PFS, LRFS or DMFS was observed between the two techniques. Patients treated with SIB-IMRT got similar lung and esophageal toxicities versus those with conventional IMRT. SIB-IMRT may be an effective and safe option for patients with locally advanced NSCLC, especially for those with large mass or wide lymph node metastasis.