Skip to main content

Table 2 Treatment delivery and reasons for treatment discontinuation

From: Efficacy and safety of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in ECOG 2 patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a subgroup analysis of a randomized phase III trial

VariableECOG 2 groupECOG 0–1 group pb
EP arm (n = 31)PC arm (n = 40)paEP arm (n = 64)PC arm (n = 56)pa
Radiotherapy
 Radiotherapy  0.747  0.2680.113
  ≥ 60 Gy25 (80.6%)31 (77.5%) 54 (84.4%)51 (91.1%)  
  < 60 Gy6 (19.4%)9 (22.5%) 10 (15.6%)5 (8.9%)  
 GTV (cm3) c98.0 (27.3–383.3)123.1 (56.4–298.6)0.859123.9 (20.6—307.7)111.1 (8.6–485.4)0.8090.797
 Mean lung dose (cGy) c1591 (900–1891)1550 (970–2004)0.6571576 (957–2100)1588 (969–1895)0.5310.908
 V20 of the both lungs (%) c26 (20–32)27 (13–35)0.29227 (14–35)25.5 (14–31)0.1270.176
 Reason for radiotherapy discontinuation
  Unacceptable toxicity01 10  
  Comorbidity00 00  
  Patients request10 01  
Chemotherapy       
 Concurrent chemotherapy  0.004  0.0110.788
  EP = 2 cycles or PC ≥ 5 weeks28 (90.3%)24 (60.0%) 54 (84.4%)36 (64.3%)  
  EP < 2 cycles or PC < 5 weeks3 (9.7%)16 (40.0%) 10 (15.6%)20 (35.7%)  
 Reason for concurrent chemotherapy discontinuation
  Unacceptable toxicity213 1019  
  Comorbidity01 00  
  Patients request12 01  
 Consolidation Chemotherapy  0.594  0.080< 0.001
  Yes7 (22.6%)7 (17.5%) 41 (64.1%)27 (48.2%)  
  No24 (77.4%)33 (82.5%) 23 (35.9%)29 (51.8%)  
  1. Abbreviations: EP etoposide/cisplatin, PC paclitaxel/carboplatin, ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, GTV gross tumor volume
  2. ap value for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between patients receiving EP and PC chemotherapy
  3. bp value for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between ECOG 2 group and ECOG 0–1 group
  4. c Median (range)