| Home | E-Submission | Sitemap | Contact Us |  
Radiation Oncology Journal > Volume 39(1); 2021 > Article
Shin, Noh, Pyo, Ahn, and Oh: Salvage proton beam therapy for locoregional recurrence of non-small cell lung cancer



This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and toxicities of salvage proton beam therapy (PBT) in patients with locoregional recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 53 patients who received salvage PBT for locoregionally recurrent NSCLC between January 2016 and December 2019. The median clinical target volume (CTV) was 71.2 cm3 (range, 13.3 to 1,200.7 cm3). The median prescribed dose was 64.0 cobalt gray equivalent (CGE) (range, 45.0 to 70.0 CGE). One-third of the patients (32.1%) received concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).


The patients’ median age was 67 years (range, 44 to 86 years). The initial treatments were surgery in 31 (58.5%), definitive CCRT in 12 (22.6%), and definitive radiotherapy in 10 (18.9%) patients. The median disease-free interval (DFI) was 14 months (range, 3 to 112 months). Thirty-seven patients (69.8%) had a previous radiotherapy history. Among them, 18 patients (48.7%) had in-field recurrence. The median follow-up time after salvage PBT was 15.0 months (range, 3.5 to 49.3 months). During the follow-up period, 26 patients (49.1%) experienced disease progression: local in 13 (24.5%), regional in 14 (26.5%), and distant metastases in 15 (26.5%). The 2-year overall survival (OS) rate, local control rate, and progression-free survival rate were 79.2%, 68.2%, and 37.1%, respectively. Shorter DFI (≤12 months; p = 0.015) and larger CTV (>80 mL; p = 0.014) were associated with poor OS. Grade 3 toxicities occurred in 8 patients (15.1%): esophagitis in 2, dermatitis in 3, and pulmonary toxicities in 4.


Salvage PBT for locoregionally recurrent NSCLC was effective, and treatment-related toxicities were tolerable.


Lung cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer-related death not only in Korea but worldwide, and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately 85% of all lung cancer cases [1-4]. Several modalities are currently used to treat NSCLC. Surgical resection is the treatment of choice for early-stage NSCLC, while adjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is recommended for selected patients [5-7]. For locally advanced NSCLC, multimodality treatments including definitive CRT and surgical resection with neoadjuvant CRT are usually adopted [8-11]. After undergoing these curative approaches, 3%–20% of patients have been reported to develop locoregional recurrence (LRR) without distant metastases [5-11]. Salvage radiotherapy (RT) with or without concurrent chemotherapy has been used to treat patients with postsurgical LRR of NSCLC [12-14]. However, some patients receive RT during the initial treatment course, and re-irradiation in this patient group may be challenging as overlapping re-irradiation volumes could potentially cause severe radiation injury [15].
Technological advances in radiotherapy, including three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), have enabled the delivery of high-dose re-irradiation, and several studies have reported the efficacy and toxicity after re-irradiation for LRR of NSCLC. In these studies, the 2-year overall survival (OS) rate ranged from 32.6% to 39.4%, while the incidence of pulmonary toxicity of ≥grade 3 ranged from 0% to 10% [16-18]. Furthermore, proton beam therapy (PBT) can offer clinical advantages compared with conventional photon therapy. It has a unique depth-dose curve with a dose peak (Bragg peak) at a well-defined depth in tissue. This feature enables substantial reductions in doses delivered to the normal tissues proximal and distal to the target volume, which makes it possible to spare normal tissues that overlap in previously irradiated fields and to deliver escalated doses to tumors during salvage treatment [18-21]. Several studies examined the efficacy of re-irradiation with PBT for NSCLC, and the 2-year OS rate was reported to be 32.6%–43.0%. However, the majority of these studies have been conducted in the United States [18,22-25]. In this study, we aimed to retrospectively analyze our institutional experience of salvage PBT for locoregionally recurrent NSCLC in terms of survival outcomes and toxicity.

Materials and Methods

1. Patients

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with locoregionally recurrent NSCLC treated with salvage PBT between January 2016 and December 2019. A retrospective study of patients with PBT was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Samsung Medical Center (No. 2020-01-034). Patients with initial stages I–III NSCLC who underwent curative intent therapy, with clinically or pathologically confirmed LRR, with no evidence of distant metastasis, and who received PBT for locoregionally recurrent NSCLC with curative intent were considered eligible for the study. LRR was defined as recurrence of tumor in ipsilateral lung or regional lymph nodal area [22,26]. We identified 53 patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria. When recurrence was suspected, the patient underwent chest computed tomography (CT) with or without 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-CT. Pathologic confirmation of recurrence was performed in 24 (45.3%) patients. All patients were re-staged according to the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system. If the patient had a previous history of RT, the failure patterns in the previous RT field were classified into in-field failure, marginal failure, and out-field failure. In-field failure was defined as recurrences in which the geometric center of the mass was within the 50% isodose line. Meanwhile, marginal failure was defined as recurrences in which the geometric center of the mass was between the 25% and 50% isodose line [18,22]. After salvage PBT, patterns of failures were classified into local, marginal, and distant failure. Local failure was defined as a failure within the irradiated volume. Regional failure was defined as recurrence within ipsilateral lung lesion or the regional lymph nodes of the intrapulmonary, peribronchial, hilum, mediastinum or supraclavicular region outside of the original planning target volume (PTV). Failures occurring outside of these defined local and regional failures were considered distant failures [25,27,28].

2. Treatment

All patients underwent CT simulation in the supine position at a thickness of 2.5 mm. The gross tumor volume (GTV) included all recurrent lesions, while the internal target volume (ITV) was delineated based on all respiratory phases using a four-dimensional CT. The clinical target volume (CTV) was delineated by adding a 5- to 7-mm margin from the ITV, and the margins were modified in accordance with the adjacent organs if necessary. The PTV was delineated by adding a 5-mm margin to the CTV to account for setup uncertainties. The median GTV and CTV were 14.9 cm3 (range, 2.3 to 759.5 cm3) and 71.2 cm3 (range, 13.3 to 1,200.7 cm3), respectively. The median total dose was 64.0 cobalt gray equivalent (CGE) (range, 45.0 to 70.0). The median biologically equivalent dose (BED10) was 80.5 Gy10 (range, 58.5 to 115.2 Gy10). RayStation (RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden) was the system used for treatment planning. PBT was delivered using the proton therapy system at Samsung Medical Center (Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Tokyo, Japan). Most of the patients (n = 47; 88.7%) received pencil beam scanning PBT, while the remaining 6 patients (11.3%) received passive scattering PBT. All treatment sessions were delivered under daily image guidance with orthogonal kilo-voltage X-ray imaging or cone-beam CT using VeriSuite (MedCom, Darmstadt, Germany). Concurrent chemotherapy was administered in 17 (32.1%) patients.

3. Endpoints and statistical analyses

Patients underwent regular follow-up examinations, including physical examination, hematologic studies, and chest CT. Tumor response to radiotherapy was evaluated using the revised Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors guidelines (version 1.1). The endpoints included OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and local control (LC). All endpoints were calculated from the start date of salvage PBT to the date of the last follow-up, death, or progression. The failure patterns following salvage PBT were classified into local failure, regional failure, and distant failure. Treatment-related toxicity was graded according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0.
Survival outcomes were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test for univariate analysis. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used for multivariate analysis. Multivariate analysis was performed on variables that showed a probability value of <0.1 or on those that were thought to be relevant. Fisher exact test was used to compare the patterns of failures or toxicities after salvage PBT according to the site of disease recurrence in the previous RT field. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics version 25.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA). A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.


Patients’ baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The median age was 67 years (range, 44 to 86 years), and 47 (88.7%) of the total patients were men. Thirty patients (56.5%) had a smoking history of more than 30 pack-years. With regard to the histologic types, 26 patients (49.0%) had squamous cell carcinoma, 25 (47.2%) had adenocarcinoma, and 2 (3.7%) had large-cell carcinoma. In terms of initial staging, 22 patients (41.5%) had stage I, 8 (15.1%) had stage II, and 23 (43.4%) had stage III. The initial treatments were surgery in 31 (58.5%), definitive CRT in 12 (22.6%), and definitive RT in 10 (18.9%) patients. Among the 31 patients who underwent surgery, 3 (5.7%) received neoadjuvant CRT, while another 3 (5.7%) had adjuvant CRT.
The median disease-free interval (DFI), defined as the period from the start of previous treatment to the period when recurrence was diagnosed, was 14 months (range, 3 to 112 months). With regard to the staging of cancer recurrence, 11 patients (20.8%) had stage I, 11 (20.8%) had stage II, and 31 (58.4%) had stage III. Overall, 41 patients (77.3%) had 1 episode, 11 (20.8%) had 2 episodes, and 1 (1.9%) had 3 episodes of cancer recurrence. Thirty-seven patients (69.8%) had a previous history of RT. Among them, 18 patients (48.7%) had in-field recurrence, 12 (32.4%) had marginal field recurrence, and 7 (18.9%) had out-field recurrence.
The median follow-up time after salvage PBT was 15.0 months (range, 3.5 to 49.3 months). During the follow-up period, 26 patients (49.1%) experienced disease progression. Fig. 1 shows the patterns of failures following salvage PBT. Local failure with or without regional/distant failure was observed in 13 (24.5%) patients. Among the 18 patients who had disease recurrence in the previous RT field (in-field failure), 6 (33.4%) experienced local failure; meanwhile, 7 (20.0%) among the other 35 patients had local failure (p = 0.326, Fisher exact test). In contrast, out-field recurrence was less frequent in patients with disease recurrence in the previous RT-field (in-field failure) than in those with other types of recurrence: 5 (27.8%) vs. 15 (42.9%) (p=0.283, Fisher exact test).
The 2-year OS, PFS, and LC rates were 79.2%, 37.1%, and 68.2%, respectively (Fig. 2). Univariate analysis revealed that shorter DFI (≤12 months vs. >12 months; p = 0.015) and larger CTV (>80 mL vs. ≤80 mL; p = 0.014) were associated with poor OS (Table 2). In patients with disease recurrence in the previous RT field (in-field failure), the 2-year LC rate was 54.8%, which was lower than that of patients with other types of recurrence (74.1%), although the difference was not significant (p = 0.238). In the multivariate analysis, shorter DFI (hazard ratio = 5.876; 95% confidence interval, 1.002–34.448; p = 0.040) and larger CTV (hazard ratio = 7.126; 95% confidence interval, 1.236–41.070; p = 0.028) were independent prognostic factors for OS (Table 3).
Most patients tolerated salvage PBT, except 1 patient (1.9%) who could not complete the planned PBT due to grade 3 radiation esophagitis. None of the patients had grade 4 or 5 toxicity. Pulmonary toxicity was the most common treatment-related toxicity: 9 patients (17.0%) had grade 1, 18 (34.0%) had grade 2, and 4 (7.5%) had grade 3. Grade 3 esophagitis and dermatitis occurred in 2 (3.7%) and 3 (5.7%) patients, respectively (Table 4). Among the 8 patients who experienced grade 3 toxicity, 4 had disease recurrence in the previous RT field (in-field failure), 3 had pulmonary toxicity, and 1 had esophagitis. The remaining 4 patients experienced dermatitis (n = 3), esophagitis (n = 1), and bronchial obstruction (n = 1); 1 patient experienced both grade 3 esophagitis and dermatitis.

Discussion and Conclusion

In this retrospective study, we analyzed the treatment outcomes of salvage PBT with or without chemotherapy for LRR of NSCLC. Several previous studies analyzed the survival outcomes and toxicities after salvage RT in patients with LRR of NSCLC, and the OS in these studies ranged from 32.6% to 73% [12-14,16-18,22-25].
Some studies have demonstrated favorable outcomes after salvage RT in patients with postsurgical LRR of NSCLC [12-14]. In these studies, the 2-year OS rate ranged from 56% to 73%. The current study not only included patients with postsurgical recurrence but also those with post-RT recurrence, with a 2-year OS of 79.2%. Overall, 31 patients underwent surgical resection at initial treatment, and 6 received adjuvant or neoadjuvant CCRT. The 2-year OS rate of the 31 patients was 87.7%, which was higher than that of patients who had undergone definitive CCRT or RT alone at initial treatment (60.6% and 77.8%; p = 0.065).
Meanwhile, in patients with a previous history of RT, high-dose re-irradiation could result in severe treatment-related toxicity or low survival outcomes. As radiotherapeutic techniques have been developed, high-dose re-irradiation is feasible using highly conformal RT [16-18] (Table 5). Hong et al. [16] analyzed the treatment outcomes of 31 patients who received high-dose conformal re-irradiation. The 2-year OS and LC were 39.4% and 43.7%, respectively. In terms of treatment-related toxicity, none of the patients experience ≥grade 3 acute toxicity, while one patient developed grade 3 late pericarditis. Another retrospective study analyzed 102 patients who underwent re-irradiation using IMRT or PBT as treatment for intrathoracic recurrence of NSCLC [18]. In this study, the 2-year OS and local failure-free survival rates were 32.6% and 34.2%, respectively. Grade 3 esophageal and pulmonary toxicities developed in 7 (7%) and 10 (10%) patients, respectively. The study demonstrated that a higher composite dose was associated with greater toxicity in patients who underwent PBT re-irradiation for intrathoracic recurrence of NSCLC [22].
PBT is expected to reduce the overlapped volume in case of re-irradiation, and several studies have reported the treatment outcomes after PBT irradiation. A multi-institutional prospective study enrolled 57 patients who had NSCLC recurrence in or near the previous radiation field from three proton centers [23]. Although the 2-year OS and PFS were 43% and 38%, respectively, this study showed a relatively higher incidence of ≥grade 3 toxicity (n = 24; 42%). The researchers showed that central overlapped volume, mean heart dose, mean esophagus dose, and concurrent chemotherapy were significantly associated with higher rates of ≥grade 3 toxicity. However, another prospective registry study reported that 6% of the total patients who had partial overlap in the previous radiation, and PBT re-irradiation fields showed acute grade 3 toxicity [24]. The study did not indicate the 2-year survival outcomes, while the 18-month OS and local relapse-free survival rates were 34.1% and 30.9%, respectively.
Based on these results, the treatment outcomes after re-irradiation appeared to be somewhat less favorable than those after salvage RT for patients with postsurgical recurrence without previous RT history. But, the current study which included patients with or without previous RT history, has shown no significant difference in the treatment outcomes between these patient groups according to previous RT history (Table 2). Patients with recurrent lesions in the previous RT field (in-field failure) tended to have slightly worse survival outcomes, which was not statistically significant. Nonetheless, the 2-year OS rate of 37 patients with previous RT history was 72.9%, which was higher than that reported in previous re-irradiation studies (33%–43%) [16,18,23,24] (Table 5). Meanwhile, previous re-irradiation studies showed an LC rate of 31%–44% at 1.5–2 years [16,18,24], while the current study reported an LC rate of 65.6% at 2 years (Table 5). Furthermore, patients with recurrent lesions in the previous RT field (in-field failure) had a tendency to experience recurrence in the RT field of salvage PBT, although it was not significant (p = 0.326, Fisher exact test).
Considering the technical aspects, 88.7% of the patients in the present study received pencil beam scanning proton therapy. IMPT, which is based on the scanning beam technique, is expected to further improve the rate of normal organ sparing [19]. The treatment outcomes following IMPT re-irradiation were recently published [25]. Only 2 patients (7%) experienced late grade 3 pulmonary toxicity, and the 18-month OS and freedom from local failure rates were 54% and 78%, respectively, which were comparable with those reported in the present study. In the present study, grade 3 toxicities were observed in 8 patients (15.1%): pulmonary (n = 4; 7.5%), esophagitis (n = 2; 3.7%), and dermatitis (n = 3; 5.7%), respectively (Table 4). In the 18 patients with in-field recurrence, grade 3 toxicity was observed in 4 patients (22.2%); meanwhile, only 11.4% (n = 4) of the other 35 patients experienced grade 3 toxicity (p = 0.299, Fisher exact test). Therefore, the occurrence of severe toxicity must be avoided when re-irradiating the overlapped volume, and an effort must be made to further reduce the risk of toxicity.
In terms of prognosis, several factors such as DFI, recurrent tumor volume, concurrent chemotherapy, and re-irradiation dose including BED have been reported to be associated with survival outcomes [12-14,18,25]. In the present study, CTV of >80 mL and DFI of ≤12 months were independently associated with worse OS.
However, this study has some limitations. First, this was a retrospective study. An intrinsic bias possibly exists in this study. For example, the toxicity rate might be underestimated. Second, the number of patients included was small, and the follow-up period was not long. These factors weakened the statistical power. Therefore, a prospective study with a large sample size is needed. Third, significant heterogeneity was observed in the patient population in terms of initial therapy, salvage therapy, RT technique, and others. Finally, we only included patients treated with PBT; hence, we cannot directly compare the outcomes with those of patients who underwent other modalities such as IMRT, and then we cannot conclude that PBT is superior to IMRT in terms of toxicity profile (Table 5). In this regard, another retrospective study comparing PBT and IMRT as salvage re-irradiation might be helpful, but potential selection bias could still exist.
In conclusion, although some potential limitations were noted, salvage PBT as treatment for LRR of NSCLC showed favorable survival outcomes and treatment-related toxicities. Larger CTV and shorter DFI were independent unfavorable prognostic factors for OS. Even, patients with previous RT history and in-field recurrence also showed comparable survival outcomes and the incidence of ≥grade 3 toxicities, though it was slightly worse. Careful selection of patients considering the risks and benefits should be accompanied to apply PBT for patients with LRR of NSCLC, especially in re-irradiation case.


Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.


This research was supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (No. HI19C0481, HC19C0293).

Fig. 1.
Patterns of failures following salvage proton beam therapy for locoregionally recurrent non-small cell lung cancer.
Fig. 2.
Kaplan-Meier survival curves following salvage proton beam therapy for locoregionally recurrent non-small cell lung cancer: (A) overall survival, (B) progression-free survival, and (C) local control rates.
Table 1.
Patients’ characteristics (n = 53)
Characteristic Value
Median age (yr) 67 (44–86)
 Female 6 (11.3)
 Male 47 (88.7)
ECOG performance status
 0–1 50 (94.3)
 2–3 3 (5.7)
Median smoking history (pack-year) 37.5 (0–120)
 >30 30 (56.6)
 ≤30 23 (43.4)
Median DLCO (% of predicted) 68 (35–120)
Median FEV1 (% of predicted) 74 (34–115)
Median FEV1 (L) 2.31 (1.01–3.65)
 Squamous cell carcinoma 26 (49.0)
 Adenocarcinoma 25 (47.2)
 Large cell carcinoma 2 (3.7)
Initial stagea)
 I 22 (41.5)
 II 8 (15.1)
 III 23 (43.4)
Initial treatment
 Definitive CCRT 12 (22.6)
 Definitive RT 10 (18.9)
 Surgery 31 (58.5)
  None 23 (84.9)
  Neoadjuvant CCRT 3 (5.7)
  Adjuvant CCRT 3 (5.7)
  Adjuvant chemotherapy 2 (3.7)
Previous RT history
  At initial treatment 28 (52.8)
  At prior salvage treatment 9 (17.0)
 No 16 (30.2)
Median disease-free interval (mo) 14 (3-112)
Recur stagea)
 I 11 (20.8)
 II 11 (20.8)
 III 31 (58.4)
Number of relapse at salvage PBT
 1st 41 (77.3)
 2nd 11 (20.8)
 3rd 1 (1.9)
Site of failure regarding previous RT field (n = 37)
 In-field 18 (34.0)
 Marginal 12 (22.6)
 Out-field 7 (13.2)
Concurrent chemotherapy
 Yes 17 (32.1)
 No 36 (67.9)
Median BED10 (Gy) 80.52 (58.5–115.2)
 >80 35 (66.0)
 ≤80 18 (34.0)
Median CTV (cm3) 71.2 (13.3–1,200.7)
PBT technique
 Passive scattering 6 (11.3)
 Pencil beam scanning 47 (88.7)

Values are presented as median (range) or number (%).

ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; DLCO, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in one second; CCRT, concurrent chemoradiotherapy; RT, radiotherapy; PBT, proton beam therapy; BED10, biologically effective dose with a/b ratio of 10 Gy; CTV, clinical target volume.

a) Stage according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition.

Table 2.
Prognostic factors affecting survival outcomes upon univariate analysis
Variable Number of patients Overall survival
Local control
2-yr (%) p-value 2-yr (%) p-value 2-yr (%) p-value
Age (yr) 0.542 0.272 0.856
 >65 33 82.6 44.8 67.8
 ≤65 20 71.3 23.2 67.6
Smoking (pack-year) 0.644 0.660 0.816
 >30 30 76.6 35.9 66.7
 ≤30 23 82.7 40.7 72.0
Histology 0.419 0.908 0.186
 SQ 25 73.9 36.6 50.7
 AD 26 86.9 38.2 81.2
 LC 2 50.0 50.0 100
Initial stagea) 0.820 0.036 0.834
 I 22 78.9 40.9 62.0
 II 8 87.5 72.9 83.3
 III 23 77.7 18.2 67.6
Initial treatment 0.065 0.224 0.290
 Surgery 31 87.7 42.7 72.8
 CCRT 12 60.6 13.3 27.8
 RT 10 77.8 46.7 80.0
Recur stagea) 0.205 0.192 0.065
 I 11 100 46.7 62.2
 II 11 81.8 34.1 47.7
 III 31 71.5 37.0 82.5
DFI (mo) 0.015 0.394 0.176
 >12 30 91.8 35.8 57.6
 ≤12 23 61.1 39.9 89.8
BED10 (Gy) 0.684 0.402 0.845
 >80 35 82.3 40.3 67.0
 ≤80 18 63.3 29.2 77.3
CTV (mL) 0.014 0.585 0.844
 >80 25 63.3 30.5 56.9
 ≤80 28 91.9 41.2 71.4
CCRT 0.497 0.117 0.839
 No 36 75.4 41.7 67.0
 Yes 17 88.2 30.3 70.8
Previous RT 0.154 0.433 0.940
 No 16 92.9 53.6 73.1
 Yes 37 72.9 31.7 65.6
Recur field 0.399 0.794 0.238
 In-field 18 66.0 33.0 54.8
 Others 35 85.0 38.8 74.1

PFS, progression-free survival; SQ, squamous cell carcinoma; AD, adenocarcinoma; LC, large cell carcinoma; CCRT, concurrent chemoradiotherapy; RT, radiotherapy; DFI, disease-free interval; BED10, biologically effective dose with a/b ratio of 10 Gy; CTV, clinical target volume.

a) Stage according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition.

Table 3.
Cox proportional hazards multivariate model for overall survival
Variable HR 95% CI p-value
Initial therapy without surgery 2.651 0.417–16.828 0.301
Disease-free interval <12 months 5.876 1.002–34.448 0.040
Previous RT history 1.205 0.066–21.990 0.900
In-field recurrence 1.062 0.210–5.375 0.942
CTV >80 mL 7.126 1.236–41.070 0.028
BED10 ≤80 Gy 1.592 0.372–6.812 0.531

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; RT, radiotherapy; CTV, clinical target volume; BED10, biologically effective dose with a/b ratio of 10 Gy.

Table 4.
Treatment related toxicities
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
Pulmonary 9 (17.0) 18 (34.0) 4 (7.5) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Dermatitis 1 (1.9) 2 (3.7) 3 (5.7) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Esophagitis 3 (5.7) 21 (38.9) 2 (3.7) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Values are presented as number (%).

Table 5.
Summary of previous re-irradiation series for lung cancer
Study (year) Number of subjects Interval to re-RT (mo) Radiation CCRT (%) Median re-RT dose (Gy) 2-yr rate (%)
≥Grade 3 toxicities
Hong et al. [16] (2019) 31 15.1 (4.4–56.3) X-ray 9.7 50 (35–95) 39.4 - 43.7 None
Griffioen et al. [17] (2014) 24 51 (5–189) X-ray 8 60 (39–66) 32a) 19a) 66.6a) Overall: 16.7%
Pulmonary: 8.3%
Esophagitis: 4.2%
Dermatitis: 4.2%
Trovo et al. [29] (2014) 17 18 (1–60) X-ray 0 30 29 - - Pulmonary: 28%
Esophagitis: 4.2%
Dermatitis: 4.2
McAvoy et al. [18] (2013) 102 17 (1–376) X-ray 33 BED 80.5 32.6 - 34.2 Pulmonary:10%
Proton Esophagitis: 7%
Chao et al. [23] (2017) 57 19 (3.5–151) Proton 32 66.6 (30–74) 43 38 - Overall: 42%
Badiyan et al. [24] (2019) 79 19.9 (2.2–265.2) Proton 30 60 (40–70.2) 34.1a) 18.1a) 30.9a) Overall: 6%
Ho et al. [25] (2018) 29 29.5 (0.1–212.3) Proton 48 EQD2 66 (43.2–84) 54a) 51a) 78a) Pulmonary: 7%
Current study 37b) 14 (3–55) Proton 29.7 60 (45–70) 72.9 31.7 65.6 Overall: 18.9%
Pulmonary: 10.8%
Esophageal: 2.7%
Dermatitis: 5.4%

Values are presented as median (range).

RT, radiotherapy; CCRT, concurrent chemoradiotherapy, OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; LC, local control, LRFS, locoregional failure-free survival; EQD2, equivalent dose in 2 Gy/fx; BED10, biologically effective dose with a/b ratio of 10 Gy.

a) 1.5-year rate.

b) Patients with previous RT history.


1. Travis WD, Brambilla E, Nicholson AG, et al. The 2015 World Health Organization Classification of Lung Tumors: impact of genetic, clinical and radiologic advances since the 2004 classification. J Thorac Oncol 2015;10:1243–60.
crossref pmid
2. Osmani L, Askin F, Gabrielson E, Li QK. Current WHO guidelines and the critical role of immunohistochemical markers in the subclassification of non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC): moving from targeted therapy to immunotherapy. Semin Cancer Biol 2018;52(Pt 1):103–9.
crossref pmid
3. Hong S, Won YJ, Park YR, et al. Cancer Statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2017. Cancer Res Treat 2020;52:335–50.
crossref pmid pmc
4. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 2020;70:7–30.
crossref pmid
5. Kim K, Kim HK, Park JS, et al. Video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy: single institutional experience with 704 cases. Ann Thorac Surg 2010;89:S2118–22.
crossref pmid
6. Douillard JY, Rosell R, De Lena M, et al. Impact of postoperative radiation therapy on survival in patients with complete resection and stage I, II, or IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy: the adjuvant Navelbine International Trialist Association (ANITA) Randomized Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;72:695–701.
crossref pmid
7. Sun JM, Noh JM, Oh D, et al. Randomized phase II trial comparing chemoradiotherapy with chemotherapy for completely resected unsuspected N2-positive non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2017;12:1806–13.
crossref pmid
8. Antonia SJ, Villegas A, Daniel D, et al. Overall survival with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III NSCLC. N Engl J Med 2018;379:2342–50.
crossref pmid
9. Lee J, Kim HK, Park BJ, et al. Recurrence dynamics after trimodality therapy (neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy and surgery) in patients with stage IIIA (N2) lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2018;115:89–96.
crossref pmid
10. Noh JM, Ahn YC, Lee H, et al. Definitive Bimodality concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with inoperable N2-positive stage IIIA non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res Treat 2015;47:645–52.
crossref pmid pmc
11. Noh JM, Kim JM, Ahn YC, et al. Effect of radiation therapy techniques on outcome in N3-positive IIIB non-small cell lung cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Cancer Res Treat 2016;48:106–14.
crossref pmid
12. Kim E, Song C, Kim MY, Kim JS. Long-term outcomes after salvage radiotherapy for postoperative locoregionally recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer. Radiat Oncol J 2017;35:55–64.
13. Lee KH, Ahn YC, Pyo H, et al. Salvage concurrent chemo-radiation therapy for loco-regional recurrence following curative surgery of non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res Treat 2019;51:769–76.
14. Lee NK, Moon SH, Kim TH, et al. Prognostic value of gross tumor volume for definitive radiation therapy in patients with locoregionally recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer after surgical resection. Clin Lung Cancer 2013;14:399–406.
crossref pmid
15. De Ruysscher D, Faivre-Finn C, Le Pechoux C, Peeters S, Belderbos J. High-dose re-irradiation following radical radiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:e620–e624.
crossref pmid
16. Hong JH, Kim YS, Lee SW, et al. High-dose thoracic re-irradiation of lung cancer using highly conformal radiotherapy is effective with acceptable toxicity. Cancer Res Treat 2019;51:1156–66.
crossref pmid
17. Griffioen GH, Dahele M, de Haan PF, van de Ven PM, Slotman BJ, Senan S. High-dose, conventionally fractionated thoracic reirradiation for lung tumors. Lung Cancer 2014;83:356–62.
crossref pmid
18. McAvoy S, Ciura K, Wei C, et al. Definitive reirradiation for locoregionally recurrent non-small cell lung cancer with proton beam therapy or intensity modulated radiation therapy: predictors of high-grade toxicity and survival outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014;90:819–27.
19. Han Y. Current status of proton therapy techniques for lung cancer. Radiat Oncol J 2019;37:232–48.
crossref pmid pmc
20. Hu M, Jiang L, Cui X, Zhang J, Yu J. Proton beam therapy for cancer in the era of precision medicine. J Hematol Oncol 2018;11:136.
crossref pmid pmc
21. Mohan R, Grosshans D. Proton therapy - present and future. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2017;109:26–44.
crossref pmid
22. McAvoy SA, Ciura KT, Rineer JM, et al. Feasibility of proton beam therapy for reirradiation of locoregionally recurrent non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 2013;109:38–44.
crossref pmid
23. Chao HH, Berman AT, Simone CB 2nd, et al. Multi-institutional prospective study of reirradiation with proton beam radiotherapy for locoregionally recurrent non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2017;12:281–92.
crossref pmid
24. Badiyan SN, Rutenberg MS, Hoppe BS, et al. Clinical outcomes of patients with recurrent lung cancer reirradiated with proton therapy on the Proton Collaborative Group and University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute Prospective Registry Studies. Pract Radiat Oncol 2019;9:280–8.
25. Ho JC, Nguyen QN, Li H, et al. Reirradiation of thoracic cancers with intensity modulated proton therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol 2018;8:58–65.
crossref pmid
26. Ma L, Qiu B, Zhang J, et al. Survival and prognostic factors of non-small cell lung cancer patients with postoperative locoregional recurrence treated with radical radiotherapy. Chin J Cancer 2017;36:93.
27. Shin S, Kim HK, Choi YS, Kim K, Kim J, Shim YM. Prognosis of unexpected and expected pathologic N1 non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2013;96:969–76.
crossref pmid
28. Winther-Larsen A, Hoffmann L, Moeller DS, Khalil AA, Knap MM. Evaluation of factors associated with loco-regional failure and survival in limited disease small cell lung cancer patients treated with chemoradiotherapy. Acta Oncol 2015;54:1574–81.
crossref pmid
29. Trovo M, Minatel E, Durofil E, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for re-irradiation of persistent or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014;88:1114–9.
crossref pmid
Editorial Office
Department of Radiation Oncology,
Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine,
81 Irwon-Ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06351, Korea
TEL: +82-2-3410-2612  E-mail: rojeditor@gmail.com
Copyright © The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology. All rights reserved.                      Developed in M2PI
Close layer
prev next