Consolidation thoracic radiotherapy after chemoimmunotherapy provides survival benefit in elderly patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a multicenter study

Abstract

Background:

Previous studies have demonstrated that thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) following first-line chemoimmunotherapy improves survival in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). However, its efficacy and safety in elderly patients remain unclear.

Objectives:

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of consolidative TRT in elderly patients with ES-SCLC following first-line chemoimmunotherapy.

Design:

A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

Methods:

Elderly (⩾70 years old) ES-SCLC patients from three large-scale cancer centers who received chemoimmunotherapy in the first line were included, they were divided into two groups according to whether they received TRT. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

Results:

A total of 240 patients who completed four to six of first-line chemoimmunotherapy without progression were included, 83 of whom received consolidative TRT. In the analysis with time zero set at chemoimmunotherapy initiation, TRT was associated with longer median PFS (10.56 vs 8.30 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.71, p = 0.034) and median OS (18.43 vs 14.39 months; HR, 0.64, p = 0.008). Using time-dependent Cox models with time zero reset to cycle 4 completion to address guarantee-time bias, TRT remained significantly associated with improved OS (14.59 vs 10.92 months; HR, 0.64, p = 0.007) and PFS (7.80 vs 5.12 months; HR, 0.72, p = 0.047). The presence of baseline liver metastasis emerged as an independent adverse prognostic factor. No significant increase in grade ⩾3 adverse events was observed in patients receiving TRT.

Conclusion:

In elderly ES-SCLC patients undergoing first-line chemoimmunotherapy, the addition of TRT is associated with a survival benefit and an acceptable safety profile. These results hold significant implications for current clinical practice and may help inform treatment strategies for elderly patients with ES-SCLC.

Plain language summary

Can thoracic radiotherapy provide additional survival benefits for elderly patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer receiving chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy? A multicenter study

Why was this study conducted? Extensive-stage small cell lung cancer is a highly malignant type of lung cancer, often presenting with distant metastases at diagnosis. While chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy has become the standard first-line regimen, the role of thoracic radiotherapy at this stage—particularly its value in elderly patients (⩾70 years)—remains unclear.

What did the researchers do? This retrospective study analyzed patients aged ⩾70 years with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy plus immunotherapy from three cancer centers. Patients were divided into radiotherapy (RT) and non-RT groups based on whether they received consolidation thoracic RT, and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between groups.

What did the researchers find? Results showed that patients receiving thoracic radiotherapy had a median overall survival prolonged by approximately 4 months (18.43 months vs 14.39 months, P = 0.008) and a median progression-free survival prolonged by approximately 2.3 months (10.56 months vs. 8.30 months, P = 0.034). Even after adjusting for time bias using stricter statistical methods, radiotherapy conferred a clear survival benefit. Additionally, patients with baseline liver metastases had poorer outcomes. Regarding safety, no significant increase in severe adverse events was observed among radiotherapy recipients.

What do these findings mean? This study demonstrates that adding chest consolidation radiotherapy to first-line chemotherapy plus immunotherapy in elderly patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer who respond to the initial regimen further prolongs survival with manageable adverse effects. This finding provides new clinical guidance for the treatment of elderly lung cancer patients.

Keywords

elderly patient extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer survival thoracic radiotherapy toxicity

Introduction

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), a neuroendocrine malignancy accounting for 13%–15% of lung cancers,^1,2 is characterized by aggressive behavior, rapid progression, and poor survival, with approximately two-thirds of patients presenting with extensive-stage disease at diagnosis.³ As the population ages, the proportion of elderly patients is increasing every year. Epidemiological data from the past four decades reveal a rising trend in the proportion of elderly patients with SCLC, notably, those aged over 70 now constitute nearly half of all cases.⁴ Moreover, elderly patients often present with poor baseline health and multiple comorbidities. These factors, compounded by heightened susceptibility to significant adverse effects, collectively contribute to poor treatment tolerance, underscoring the imperative for tailored therapeutic strategies in this clinically significant subgroup.

With the advent of the immunotherapy era, chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy has become the standard first-line therapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).⁵ In the IMpower133 trial, atezolizumab in combination with chemotherapy significantly prolonged overall survival (OS; 12.3 vs 10.3 months, hazard ratio (HR), 0.70, p = 0.007) and progression-free survival (PFS; 5.2 vs 4.3 months, HR, 0.77, p = 0.02).⁶ Similarly, the CASPIAN trial demonstrated a significant OS benefit with durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy (13.0 vs 10.3 months, HR, 0.73; p = 0.0047).⁷ Despite high initial objective response rates (ORRs) to chemoimmunotherapy,⁸ ES-SCLC remains an aggressively progressive disease. Only 0.8%–2.5% of patients achieve complete remission,⁹ and metastatic relapse is a primary driver of disease progression and mortality.^10,11 Consequently, controlling thoracic disease is critical for delaying progression and achieving long-term survival. ES-SCLC is highly sensitive to radiotherapy, and prospective studies have indicated that radiotherapy can confer a survival benefit in patients with ES-SCLC who achieve a good response to chemotherapy.^12,13 Accordingly, global guidelines recommend consolidative thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) for selected patients with ES-SCLC who respond favorably to first-line chemotherapy, particularly those with residual intrathoracic disease and limited extrathoracic metastases.^5,14,15 However, a critical evidence gap remains. Neither the IMpower133 nor the CASPIAN trial incorporated TRT into its study designs, leaving the role of TRT in the modern chemoimmunotherapy era undefined.¹⁶ This gap is particularly salient for elderly patients (aged ⩾70 years), a population that is frequently underrepresented in clinical trials due to poorer baseline health and a higher comorbidity burden. No study to date has evaluated the value of TRT following first-line chemoimmunotherapy specifically in this growing and clinically vulnerable subgroup. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of TRT in the elderly patients with ES-SCLC by comparing the outcomes of patients who received TRT after first-line chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy versus those who did not.

Patients and methods

Patients

This retrospective cohort study included treatment records from three large-scale cancer centers, namely, elderly patients diagnosed with ES-SCLC at Shandong Cancer Hospital (from May 20, 2020, to December 28, 2023), Tianjin Cancer Hospital (from March 13, 2020, to July 13, 2023), and Shanghai Chest Hospital (from February 11, 2019, to May 6, 2023) were included. We defined elderly patients as those who were ⩾70 years of age at diagnosis. All participants who met the following criteria were eligible for this study: (a) aged ⩾70 years, (b) newly diagnosed, histologically or cytologically confirmed SCLC, (c) had extensive-stage disease as classified by the Veterans Administration Lung Study Group, (d) received at least four cycles of first-line chemoimmunotherapy with platinum, etoposide, and a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor, and (e) did not progress after chemoimmunotherapy. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (a) patients with a second primary tumor, (b) previously received other treatment for the disease, (c) presence of active immune disease requiring long-term immunosuppression, (d) patients who progressed after first-line chemoimmunotherapy, and (e) incomplete treatment records or follow-up data. The decision to administer consolidative TRT was made by the multidisciplinary tumor board based on the following criteria: (1) completion of four to six cycles of first-line chemoimmunotherapy without progression, (2) residual intrathoracic disease amenable to radiotherapy. Patients with extensive extrathoracic progression or deteriorating performance status were not considered candidates for TRT. Eligible patients were divided into two groups: the TRT group, which included patients who received TRT after receiving chemoimmunotherapy, and the non-TRT group, which included patients who received chemoimmunotherapy but not TRT. Prophylactic cranial irradiation was not routinely administered in this cohort. The number of metastatic sites was defined as the count of distinct organ systems involved at diagnosis, as documented on baseline imaging (chest CT, abdominal CT or ultrasound, and brain MRI).

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, the Medical Ethics Committee of Tianjin Cancer Hospital, and the Ethics Committee of Shanghai Chest Hospital.

Treatment

Patients received first-line treatment with a platinum-etoposide chemotherapy regimen in combination with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor (serplulimab, adebrelimab, durvalumab, or atezolizumab), with platinum in the form of either cisplatin (75 mg/m² on day 1, Q3W) or carboplatin (AUC 5 on day 1, Q3W) and etoposide 100 mg/m² on days 1–3, Q3W, all intravenously. The chemotherapy portion was administered every 21 days as a treatment cycle for four to six cycles. PD-1/L1 was administered on the first day of each cycle at a dose of 4.5 mg/kg for serplulimab, 20 mg/kg for adebrelimab, 1500 mg for durvalumab, atezolizumab 1200 mg, and maintenance therapy continued until disease progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria for Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 criteria, an unacceptable toxicity event, withdrawal of informed consent by the patient, or study closure. Among the 240 patients, 98 (40.8%) received cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and 142 (59.2%) received carboplatin-based chemotherapy. The distribution of immunotherapy agents was as follows: serplulimab (n = 90, 37.5%), adebrelimab (n = 68, 28.3%), durvalumab (n = 47, 19.6%), and atezolizumab (n = 35, 14.6%). The proportion of patients receiving each immunotherapy agent was balanced between the TRT and non-TRT groups (p = 0.42).

All patients in the TRT group were treated with either three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy for thoracic consolidation. TRT was administered as consolidative therapy for patients who have not progressed after first-line chemoimmunotherapy. Patients received four to six cycles of first-line chemoimmunotherapy, followed by consolidative TRT initiated within 3–6 weeks. Immunotherapy was suspended during radiotherapy and resumed post-treatment, continuing as maintenance therapy until disease progression. Organs at risk (OARs) and target volumes were defined according to the radiotherapy and tumor group guidelines for lung cancer. The Gross tumor volume (GTV) included the residual primary tumor and positive lymph nodes after chemoimmunotherapy; the clinical target volume (CTV) consisted of 5 mm of extravasation of the GTV as well as the drainage area of positive lymph nodes; and the planned target volume (PTV) was 5–8 mm of extravasation of the CTV. Daily image guidance with cone-beam CT was performed prior to each fraction to ensure accurate target localization. The radiotherapy plan was validated to ensure that the radiation dose covered 95% of the PTV. Dose constraints for OARs included: mean lung dose <20 Gy, V20 <35%, mean heart dose <26 Gy, maximum spinal cord dose <45 Gy, and mean esophageal dose <34 Gy.

Given the different dose fractionation regimens of radiotherapy, we used the biological effective dose (BED) formula: BED = nd × [1 + d/(α/β)], where n represents the number of fractions of radiotherapy treatments, d represents the dose per fraction, and α/β = 10.¹⁷ Among the 83 patients who received TRT, the total radiation dose ranged from 25 to 60 Gy. These patients were categorized into three groups based on their dose fractionation regimens: conventional (40–60 Gy in 20–30 fractions of 1.8–2 Gy; BED 44.8–72.0 Gy; n = 48), hypofractionated (35–45 Gy in 10–15 fractions of 2.5–3 Gy; BED 31.25–58.5 Gy; n = 17), and hyperfractionated (30–60 Gy in 20–40 fractions of 1.5 Gy; BED 34.5–69.0 Gy; n = 18).

Endpoints and assessments

The primary study endpoints were patient OS and PFS. PFS was defined as the time from the first day of chemoimmunotherapy to disease progression or death or last follow-up. OS was defined as the time from the first day of chemoimmunotherapy to death from any cause or the last follow-up. To address time bias arising from the delayed initiation of TRT, a landmark analysis was performed with time zero redefined at completion of cycle 4. In this analysis, OS and PFS were measured from cycle 4 completion to event or last follow-up, and TRT was modeled as a time-dependent covariate using Cox regression to account for the change in TRT status at the time of initiation. Secondary study endpoints included OS and PFS in different baseline metastasis subgroups, analysis of adverse events (AEs), survival analysis with different BEDs and different dose fractionation regimens, ORR, defined as the proportion of patients with complete response (CR) and partial response (PR), and disease control rate (DCR), which included patients with CR, PR, and stable disease (SD) lasting for at least 4 weeks. There were no missing data for the primary endpoints (OS and PFS) or baseline characteristics included in the analysis. Follow-up imaging (chest and abdominal CT) was performed every 6–8 weeks during chemoimmunotherapy, and every 8–12 weeks thereafter until disease progression or death. For patients receiving TRT, the first post-treatment response assessment was scheduled 4–6 weeks after TRT completion. The RECIST version 1.1 was used to assess tumor response by local radiologists and treating physicians in our study.¹⁸

Safety assessment

AEs were assessed and graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0.¹⁹ AEs were captured from the initiation of first-line chemoimmunotherapy until 90 days after the completion of TRT for patients in the TRT group, or until 90 days after the last dose of immunotherapy for patients in the non-TRT group. The analysis focused on the incidence and maximum grade per event for each patient, with a particular focus on pneumonitis and hematologic toxicities.

The overall incidence and severity of AEs were compared between the TRT and non-TRT groups to assess the additional toxicity burden associated with the addition of consolidative TRT. Given the retrospective design and overlapping treatment timelines, definitive attribution of individual AEs to a specific treatment component (chemoimmunotherapy vs TRT) was not feasible; therefore, no attempt was made to assign causality for specific events. These comparisons should be interpreted with caution given the non-randomized design and potential confounding factors.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS statistical software version 27.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA) and Prism software version 8.02 (GraphPad, San Diego, CA, USA). Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test. Kaplan–Meier curves were constructed and compared using the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The propensity-score matching (PSM) was conducted to adjust the unbalanced confounding baseline factors and minimize the selection bias between the two groups.

To account for guarantee-time bias arising from the delayed initiation of TRT, we performed two complementary analyses: (1) a landmark analysis with time zero reset to cycle 4 completion—the earliest point at which TRT could be initiated after response assessment, and (2) time-dependent Cox models in which TRT was treated as a time-varying covariate. These time-dependent models were also used in univariate and multivariate analyses to evaluate prognostic factors while adjusting for guarantee-time bias. The association between BED and survival was evaluated using Cox models with BED treated as a continuous variable. Restricted cubic spline analysis was performed to explore potential non-linear relationships. An exploratory analysis using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves was also performed to identify a potential optimal BED cutoff. However, given the limitations of dichotomizing continuous variables, the results of the restricted cubic spline analysis were considered the primary finding. Survival differences among the three radiotherapy fractionation regimens were assessed using the log-rank test.

All subgroup analyses were pre-specified based on clinically relevant variables (including metastatic sites and number of metastases) but should be considered exploratory. To assess whether the treatment effect of TRT varied across different patient subgroups, we performed interaction tests by introducing an interaction term between treatment allocation (TRT vs non-TRT) and each subgroup variable into the Cox proportional hazards model. Given the multiple comparisons performed, results from subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution, as the risk of type I error may be inflated. All tests were two-sided, and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Reporting guidelines

This retrospective cohort study is reported in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement for cohort studies.²⁰ The completed STROBE checklist is provided as Supplemental File 1.

Results

Patient characteristics

Of the 327 patients initially enrolled after screening, 69 were excluded for various reasons, and 18 were lost to follow-up, a total of 240 elderly patients (⩾70 years) with ES-SCLC receiving first-line chemoimmunotherapy were included in the final analysis. The cohort comprised 83 patients in the TRT group and 157 patients in the non-TRT group (Figure 1). The median age was 73 years. Overall, the ORR and SD rate after initial chemoimmunotherapy were 73.0% and 27.0%, respectively. The ORR was 80% in the TRT group versus 69% in the non-TRT group. There was no significant difference in clinical response to the initial chemoimmunotherapy treatment between the two groups (p = 0.094). All patients were followed up until December 31, 2024, with a median follow-up of 23.02 months (range 21.42–24.61 months). Baseline patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Baseline characteristics of patients after PSM are shown in Supplemental Table 1. There was no statistically significant difference in the efficacy of first-line chemoimmunotherapy between the TRT group and the non-TRT group (p = 0.545).

Figure 1.

Flowchart of the screening procedure.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of the study cohort.

Characteristics	TRT (n = 83)	Non-TRT (n = 157)	p
Ages (years)
Median	73	74
Range	70–82	70–83
Sex
Female	17(20.5)	24(15.3)	0.309
Male	66(79.5)	133(84.7)
KPS score
⩾80	74(89.2)	130(82.9)	0.190
<80	9(10.8)	27(17.1)
Smoking status
Never	25(30.1)	57(36.3)	0.337
Former or current	58(69.9)	100(63.7)
Hypertensive
No	52(62.7)	101(64.3)	0.797
Yes	31(37.3)	56(35.7)
Diabetes
No	66(79.5)	124(79.0)	0.922
Yes	17(20.5)	33(21.0)
CHD
No	65(78.3)	124(79.0)	0.904
Yes	18(21.7)	33(21.0)
Cerebral infarction
No	73(88.0)	134(85.4)	0.578
Yes	10(12.0)	23(14.6)
Liver metastasis
No	44(53.0)	100(63.7)	0.108
Yes	39(47.0)	57(36.3)
Bone metastasis
No	60(72.3)	106(67.5)	0.446
Yes	23(27.7)	51(32.5)
Adrenal metastasis
No	68(81.9)	131(83.4)	0.767
Yes	15(18.1)	26(16.6)
Brain metastasis
No	61(73.5)	125(79.6)	0.280
Yes	22(26.5)	32(20.4)
Response to CIT
CR + PR	66(80)	109(69)	0.094
SD	17(20)	48(31)

CHD, coronary heart disease; CIT, chemo-immunotherapy; CR, complete response; KPS, Karnofsky performance status; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; TRT, thoracic radiotherapy.

Efficacy

At the data cutoff, the median follow-up was 23.02 months (range, 21.42–24.61 months). Disease progression occurred in 165 patients (68.7%), and 167 deaths (69.5%) were recorded. For the entire cohort, median OS was 15.97 months (Figure 2(a)), and median PFS was 8.95 months (Figure 2(b)). After resetting the zero-time, median OS was 12.23 months (Figure 2(c)), and median PFS was 5.77 months (Figure 2(d)). The addition of TRT was associated with a significant survival benefit, yielding a median OS of 18.43 versus 14.39 months (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47–0.87; p = 0.008) and a median PFS of 10.56 versus 8.30 months in the non-TRT group (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52–0.97; p = 0.034), corresponding to absolute improvements of 4.04 and 2.26 months, respectively (Figure 3(a) and (b)). In the time-dependent Cox analysis with time zero redefined at completion of cycle 4 to account for guarantee-time bias (Figure 3(c) and (d)), the median OS was 14.59 versus 10.92 months (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46–0.88; p = 0.007), and the median PFS was 7.80 versus 5.12 months (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52–0.98; p = 0.047), confirming that TRT remained associated with a significant survival benefit.

Figure 2.

(a) OS in the entire cohort. (b) PFS for all patients. (c) OS for all patients after redefining time zero. (d) PFS for all patients after redefining time zero.

Figure 3.

(a) OS in the TRT group versus the non-TRT group. (b) PFS in the TRT group versus the non-TRT group. (c) OS in the TRT group versus the non-TRT group after redefining time zero. (d) PFS in the TRT group versus the non-TRT group after redefining time zero.

After PSM, survival analysis revealed that the TRT group demonstrated superior OS (18.52 vs 15.77 months; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.47–0.98; p = 0.048) and PFS (10.56 vs 7.51 months; HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47–0.97; p = 0.032). After resetting the time point, the TRT group demonstrated superior OS (14.66 vs 11.93 months; HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46–0.99; p = 0.046) and PFS (7.80 vs 4.46 months; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46–0.97; p = 0.035; Supplemental Figure 1).

The TRT group also had significantly higher 1- and 2-year PFS rates (36.14% vs 22.23%, p = 0.022; 10.84% vs 4.45%, p = 0.035) and OS rates (72.29% vs 53.50%, p = 0.005; 16.87% vs 8.28%, p = 0.045). Furthermore, the ORR was significantly higher in the TRT group (79.5% vs 58.0%, p = 0.01). Detailed treatment responses are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2.

Treatment response.

Respones outcome	Total (n = 240)	TRT (n = 83)	Non-TRT (n = 157)	p
Response rate, %
Complete response	6(2.5)	4(4.8)	2(1.3)
Partial response	163(67.9)	62(74.7)	89(56.7)
Stable disease	61(25.4)	14(16.9)	51(32.5)
Progressive disease	10(4.2)	3(3.6)	15(9.6)
Response rate, % (95% CI)	70.4	79.5	58.0	0.010
Disease control rate, % (95% CI)	95.8	96.4	90.4	0.073

Comparison between TRT group and non-TRT group.

CI, confidence interval; TRT, thoracic radiotherapy.

Subgroup survival analysis

Exploratory subgroup analyses based on the number of metastatic sites and metastatic sites were performed, and the results are shown in Figure 4. In the group of patients with ⩽2 metastatic sites, the addition of TRT improved both PFS (10.56 vs 8.40; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50–0.99; p = 0.039) and OS (18.43 vs 14.66; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44–0.89; p = 0.008), but this improvement did not occur for the group of patients with >2 metastatic sites (Figure 4(a)). However, the interaction test did not reveal a statistically significant difference in treatment effect between these two subgroups (p for interaction = 0.33). In addition, a significant survival benefit from TRT was observed specifically in patients with the absence of both liver and brain metastases. A total of 143 patients without liver metastases had a prolonged PFS of 3.41 months (14.39 vs 10.98; HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38–0.99; p = 0.044) and a prolonged OS of 3.01 months after receiving TRT (19.71 vs 16.16; HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.35–0.93; p = 0.023; Figure 4(b)). The interaction test between the liver metastasis subgroup and the non-liver metastasis subgroup yielded a p-value of 0.15. A total of 187 patients without baseline brain metastases had longer PFS (9.77 vs 7.84; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46–0.93; p = 0.034) and OS (19.64 vs 14.39; HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34–0.76; p < 0.001; Figure 4(c)). The interaction test between the brain metastasis subgroup and the non-brain metastasis subgroup yielded a p-value of 0.21.

Figure 4.

(a) OS and PFS in patients with ⩽2 metastatic sites. (b) OS and PFS in patients without baseline liver metastases. (c) OS and PFS in patients without baseline brain metastases.

After resetting the zero-time, as shown in Figure 5, the clinically significant subgroups demonstrating substantial survival benefit remained the subgroups with ⩽2 metastatic sites, no liver metastases, and no brain metastases. In the subgroup of patients with ⩽2 metastatic sites, TRT was associated with improved median OS (14.66 vs 11.25 months; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46–0.90; p = 0.009) and PFS (7.74 vs 5.51 months; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52–0.95; p = 0.048). Among patients without liver metastasis, TRT extended median OS by 3.93 months (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37–0.97; p = 0.037) and PFS by 4.07 months (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37–0.97; p = 0.037). Similarly, in the absence of brain metastasis, patients receiving TRT had significantly longer median OS (15.61 vs 10.85 months; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46–0.93; p < 0.001) and PFS (6.95 vs 4.46 months; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52–0.99; p = 0.030). The interaction tests for both liver and brain metastasis status were statistically significant (both p for interaction < 0.001). Given the exploratory nature of these analyses and the multiple comparisons performed, these findings should be interpreted with caution.

Figure 5.

(a) OS and PFS in patients with ⩽2 metastatic sites after redefining time zero. (b) OS and PFS in patients without baseline liver metastases after redefining time zero. (c) OS and PFS in patients without baseline brain metastases after redefining time zero.

Radiotherapy fractionation and dose analysis

Subgroup analyses were performed based on different radiotherapy fractionation patterns: conventional fractionation, hypofractionation, and hyperfractionation. Survival analysis of the three modes was performed by the log-rank test, and the results revealed that hyperfractionation radiotherapy provided the greatest survival benefit (p = 0.038), as shown in Figure 6(a). After resetting the zero-time, the three fractionation regimens were associated with significantly different survival outcomes (p = 0.048; Figure 6(b)). Pairwise comparison revealed that hyperfractionation conferred a significant survival benefit over conventional fractionation (HR, 2.805; 95% CI, 1.164–6.760; p = 0.022), with median OS of 23.05 versus 13.45 months. No significant difference was observed between hypofractionation and hyperfractionation (HR, 2.077; 95% CI, 0.788–5.478; p = 0.140). Hypofractionation also showed no significant difference compared with conventional fractionation (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.62–2.94; p = 0.267).

Figure 6.

(a) Kaplan–Meier graph of OS in patients of different radiotherapy fractionation patterns. (b) Kaplan–Meier graph of OS in patients of different radiotherapy fractionation patterns after redefining time zero.

In an exploratory ROC analysis, a BED cutoff of 52.43 Gy was identified (Supplemental Figure 2). However, when BED was analyzed as a continuous variable using restricted cubic splines (RCS)—a more statistically robust approach—no significant association with OS was observed (overall p = 0.370; p for non-linearity = 0.606), suggesting the absence of a clear dose–response relationship across the range of doses delivered in this study (Figure 7). Given the well-recognized limitations of dichotomizing continuous variables, the results of the RCS analysis are considered the primary finding.

Figure 7.

Dose–response relationship between BED and OS.

Analysis of survival predictors

The findings from univariate and multivariate survival analyses (Table 3) indicate that liver metastasis emerged as the sole independent adverse prognostic factor. Patients without liver metastasis had a significantly reduced risk of death (HR, 0.555; 95% CI, 0.402–0.766; p < 0.001). After adjusting for guarantee-time bias (Table 4), liver metastasis remained a significant independent prognostic factor (HR, 0.579; 95% CI, 0.419–0.803; p < 0.001). Notably, brain metastasis was not an independent prognostic factor in the multivariate model (p = 0.293), indicating that the presence of brain metastases did not independently predict worse survival when accounting for other factors. However, interaction tests revealed important differences in treatment effect. The forest plot (Figure 8) illustrates the consistency of the TRT benefit across clinically relevant subgroups in the original analysis, with interaction tests showing no significant heterogeneity by sex, KPS, smoking status, or comorbidities (all p for interaction > 0.05). After resetting time zero to address guarantee-time bias (Figure 9), significant interactions emerged for both liver and brain metastasis status (both p for interaction < 0.001).

Table 3.

Univariate and multivariable analyses for OS.

Variable	Univariate analysis			Multivariate analysis
Variable	p	HR	95% CI	p	HR	95% CI
Sex
Female	0.097	0.701	0.461–1.066	0.356	0.790	0.479–1.303
Male
KPS score
⩾80	0.988	0.997	0.662–1.500	0.685	0.891	0.511–1.555
<80
Smoking status
Never	0.079	0.743	0.534–1.035	0.578	0.892	0.597–1.333
Former or current
Hypertensive
No	0.766	0.957	0.696–1.315	0.349	0.841	0.586–1.333
Yes
Diabetes
No	0.331	1.217	0.819–1.806	0.202	1.334	0.856–2.079
Yes
CHD
No	0.776	0.947	0.649–1.381	0.629	1.212	0.705–1.783
Yes
Cerebral infarction
No	0.981	1.005	0.664–1.520	0.918	0.973	0.574–1.647
Yes
Liver metastasis
No	<0.001	0.573	0.432–0.778	<0.001	0.555	0.402–0.766
Yes
Bone metastasis
No	0.235	1.225	0.876–1.711	0.524	0.893	0.632–1.263
Yes
Adrenal metastasis
No	0.166	0.761	0.517–1.120	0.597	0.893	0.587–1.358
Yes
Brain metastasis
No	0.296	0.832	0.589–1.175	0.293	0.811	0.549–1.199
Yes
Treatment
Non-TRT	0.009	1.551	1.116–2.157	0.010	1.571	1.117–2.211
TRT
Response to CIT
CR + PR	0.073	0.731	0.519–1.030	0.176	0.782	0.548–1.117
SD

CHD, coronary heart disease; CI, confidence interval; CIT, chemo-immunotherapy; CR, complete response; HR, hazard ratio; KPS, Karnofsky Performance Status; OS, overall survival; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; TRT, thoracic radiotherapy.

Table 4.

Univariate and multivariable analyses for OS after adjusting for bias.

Variable	Univariate analysis			Multivariate analysis
Variable	p	HR	95% CI	p	HR	95% CI
Sex
Female	0.089	0.742	0.464–1.063	0.356	0.776	0.475–1.283
Male
KPS score
⩾80	0.937	1.017	0.675–1.541	0.899	0.958	0.504–1.836
<80
Smoking status
Never	0.079	0.739	0.531–1.039	0.230	0.808	0.567–1.142
Former or current
Hypertensive
No	0.649	0.931	0.677–1.270	0.176	0.792	0.555–1.108
Yes
Diabetes
No	0.238	1.242	0.867–1.756	0.179	1.324	0.884–1.959
Yes
CHD
No	0.764	0.942	0.651–1.372	0.621	1.121	0.713–1.769
Yes
Cerebral infarction
No	0.855	1.037	0.701–1.540	0.913	1.032	0.624–1.707
Yes
Liver metastasis
No	<0.001	0.590	0.442–0.812	<0.001	0.579	0.419–0.803
Yes
Bone metastasis
No	0.208	0.818	0.579–1.131	0.453	0.872	0.602–1.251
Yes
Adrenal metastasis
No	0.283	0.809	0.550–1.190	0.786	0.942	0.614–1.450
Yes
Brain metastasis
No	0.254	0.838	0.609–1.141	0.307	0.820	0.556–1.203
Yes
Treatment
Non-TRT	0.016	1.502	1.084–2.082	0.005	1.590	1.148–2.190
TRT
Response to CIT
CR + PR	0.068	0.753	0.516–1.061	0.165	0.767	0.556–1.107
SD

Figure 8.

Forest plot of subgroup analysis of OS.

Figure 9.

Forest plot of subgroup analysis of OS after redefining time zero.

In the subgroup of patients with liver metastasis, TRT was associated with a numerical improvement in median OS of approximately 4 months (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.45–1.13), although this did not reach statistical significance. Notably, even among those who received TRT, patients with liver metastasis had a shorter median OS (14.0 months) compared with patients without liver metastasis who did not receive TRT (16.16 months), underscoring the poor prognosis associated with liver involvement. These findings remained consistent after redefining time zero.

Safety

Table 5 shows the toxicity reactions in the TRT and non-TRT groups. Most of the adverse reactions were tolerable, self-limiting, and easy to manage and did not affect the patient’s treatment. Anemia was the most common adverse reaction, with 179 cases (74.5%), and leukopenia was the second most common, with 162 cases (67.5%). For any grade of adverse reactions, patients who received TRT had significant leukopenia (80.7% vs 60.5%, p < 0.001) and anemia (83.1% vs 70.0%, p = 0.027) compared with the non-TRT group, but for grade ⩾3 adverse reactions, there was no significant difference between the two groups. For treatment-related pneumonia, there were 15 cases (18.67%) in the TRT group and 17 cases (10.83%) in the non-TRT group, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.166).

Table 5.

Adverse events.

Adverse event	TRT group (n = 83)				Non-TRT (n = 157)				Chi-square test
Adverse event	Any grade	%	Grade ⩾3	%	Any grade	%	Grade ⩾3	%	p (any grade)	p (Grade ⩾3)
Treatment related
Decreased leukocyte count	67	80.72	9	10.84	95	60.51	26	16.56	<0.001	0.233
Decreased neutrophil count	46	55.42	16	19.28	86	54.78	23	14.65	0.926	0.355
Decreased red blood cell count	69	83.13	3	3.61	110	70.06	10	6.37	0.027	0.370
Decreased platelet count	37	44.58	6	7.23	75	47.78	16	10.19	0.181	0.449
Decreased lymphocyte count	39	46.99	2	2.41	88	56.05	8	5.10	0.731	0.320
Pneumonia	15	18.67	5	6.0	17	10.83	6	3.9	0.166	0.438

TRT, thoracic radiotherapy.

Discussion

Radiotherapy is a highly effective tumor-directed therapy, with approximately 60% of newly diagnosed cancer patients receiving RT as a first-line treatment.²¹ Early clinical evidence suggests that radiotherapy can elicit significant responses not only at the treatment site but also at distant, unexposed tumor deposits—the so-called “abscopal effect.”²² Moreover, ionizing radiation can work together with immune checkpoint blockade to enhance immune-mediated tumor recognition and rejection.^23,24 When combined with immunotherapy, radiotherapy enhances T-cell trafficking to locally treated tumor sites and augments preexisting anticancer T-cell responses.²⁵ Moreover, preclinical studies have demonstrated that radiotherapy can enhance tumor immunogenicity by upregulating the expression of tumor-associated antigens on the cell surface, thereby promoting the opsonization of tumor cells by specific antibodies.²⁶ Several previous clinical studies have demonstrated the survival benefits of radiotherapy in combination with ICI.^24,27,28

The IMpower133, CASPIAN, and CAPSTONE-1 trials represent breakthrough advances in ES-SCLC treatment, establishing chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy as the standard first-line therapy.^6
–8 However, the role of consolidative TRT in the modern chemoimmunotherapy era for ES-SCLC has not been definitively established, particularly in elderly patients who are underrepresented in clinical trials.

The efficacy of TRT has been substantiated by robust evidence demonstrating survival benefits in NSCLC. In the PACIFIC trial, compared with placebo, the addition of durvalumab to concurrent chemoradiotherapy significantly prolonged OS in patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC.²⁹ The 5-year follow-up data revealed that the median OS was 47.5 vs 29.1 months (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59–0.89), and the median PFS was 16.9 vs 5.6 months (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45–0.68) in the durvalumab group and the placebo group, respectively. The 5-year OS rates were 42.9% and 33.4%, respectively, and the 5-year PFS rates were 33.1% and 19.0%, respectively.³⁰ Similarly, the Pembro-RT trial demonstrated that compared with pembrolizumab alone, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) followed by pembrolizumab resulted in a doubled ORR and prolonged PFS and OS.³¹ The results of the present study were similar to those of these two clinical trials, demonstrating that consolidation TRT after first-line chemoimmunotherapy prolonged OS and PFS in elderly ES-SCLC patients, providing a significant survival benefit. The ASTRO guideline on radiation therapy for ES-SCLC recommends TRT for ES-SCLC patients who respond to chemotherapy and immunotherapy.³²

In terms of ES-SCLC, Jeremic et al.³³ first reported that compared with chemotherapy alone, the introduction of chest radiotherapy to chemotherapy resulted in a higher survival rate (mOS, 17 vs 11 months, p = 0.041). In 2015, a phase III randomized CREST trial enrolled ES-SCLC patients who responded to initial ChT and randomly assigned them to receive either TRT or no TRT. Two-year OS (13% vs 3%, p = 0.004) and mPFS (4 vs 3 months, p = 0.001) significantly improved with TRT.³⁴ A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis encompassing 20 studies and 5282 patients represents the most robust evidence to date regarding consolidative TRT, confirming significant OS (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.48–0.66) and PFS (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.45–0.63) in ES-SCLC. Notably, that analysis demonstrated that patients with baseline brain metastases still derived a clear survival benefit (OS: HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39–0.84), whereas those with liver metastases showed no significant improvement.³⁵ In contrast, our subgroup analysis in elderly patients (⩾70 years) revealed that those with brain metastases did not derive significant benefit from consolidative TRT (OS: HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.78–2.67; p = 0.50), while the lack of benefit in patients with liver metastases was consistent with the meta-analysis findings. This discrepancy may reflect the unique characteristics of the elderly population, including differences in tumor biology, treatment tolerance, or competing risks of mortality. These findings highlight the importance of age-specific considerations when applying evidence from mixed-age populations to elderly patients and underscore the need for further research in this underrepresented group.

Meanwhile, several retrospective studies have focused on evaluating the impact of adding TRT to first-line chemotherapy-immunotherapy regimens for ES-SCLC. A multicenter retrospective analysis by Cai et al.³⁶ confirmed that consolidation TRT combined with chemotherapy-immunotherapy is safe and effective. Yao et al.’s³⁷ propensity score-matched study indicated that adding TRT significantly improved OS (21.67 vs 16.60; p = 0.009) and PFS (10.76 vs 7.63; p = 0.014). A phase II clinical trial also demonstrated that first-line adebrelimab plus chemotherapy and TRT significantly benefited patients with ES-SCLC, with a mOS of 22.9 months (an increase of 9.5 months) and a mPFS of 11.3 months (an increase of 7.2 months). The median age of enrolled patients was 57.66 years, with 63% under 65 years old.¹⁶

Notably, the survival outcomes observed in our elderly cohort (mOS 18.43 months with TRT from the start of first-line chemoimmunotherapy) are comparable to those reported in younger populations. For instance, Chen et al.¹⁶ reported a mOS of 22.9 months in a phase II trial with a median age of 57.7 years, and Yao et al.³⁷ observed a mOS of 21.67 months in a propensity-matched analysis including patients with a median age of 62 years. These comparisons suggest that advanced age alone should not preclude consideration of consolidative TRT, and that elderly patients can derive clinically meaningful survival benefits comparable to their younger counterparts.

To our knowledge, this multicenter study is the first to specifically evaluate the efficacy and safety of consolidative TRT following first-line chemoimmunotherapy in a purely elderly ES-SCLC cohort (⩾70 years). Results indicate that the addition of consolidative TRT is associated with significantly improved survival in this clinically important and underrepresented population, prolonging OS and PFS by 4.04 and 2.3 months, respectively.

However, the combination of chemoimmunotherapy and chest radiotherapy remains a prudent option. Pneumonia is a particularly worrisome complication of immunotherapy and a recognized sequela of chest radiotherapy.^38,39 Radiotherapy produces reactive oxygen species, which cause cellular damage and initiate an inflammatory cascade. An excessive localized response to this process can lead to radiological lung injury.^40,41 The safety profile for combining TRT with chemoimmunotherapy was established in the PACIFIC study, which observed no statistically significant increase in pneumonitis risk (33.9% vs 24.8%) for patients with NSCLC.³⁰ In this study, the incidence of pneumonitis was comparable between groups (18.7% vs 10.8%, p = 0.116), with no significant increase in risk attributable to TRT. The incidence of grade 3 or higher pneumonia was 6.0% and 3.9%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two control groups (p = 0.438).

Notably, further discussion is needed regarding the optimal therapeutic dose and treatment modality. Clinical data on the combination of radiotherapy and immunotherapy in ES-SCLC are limited, and the optimal TRT dose is still debated. In a retrospective study, high-dose (tBED >50 Gy) TRT treatment and low-dose (tBED ⩽50 Gy) TRT treatment were given after ChT. The 2-year OS, PFS, and LC rates were 32.3%, 15.3%, and 47.1%, respectively, for high-dose radiotherapy and 17.0% (p < 0.001), 12.9% (p = 0.097), and 34.7% (p = 0.029), respectively, for low-dose radiotherapy.⁴² These findings demonstrate that high-dose TRT is superior to low-dose TRT for improving OS. Conversely, Han et al.¹⁷ found that while radiation dose did not significantly affect survival outcomes in the entire study population, a significant benefit for low-dose radiotherapy was observed in patients who were CR/PR to systemic therapy, evidenced by improved median OS (27.1 vs 22.7 months, p = 0.026) and PFS (11.4 vs 11.2 months, p = 0.032). In this study, the ROC curve was plotted to determine the relationship between the radiotherapy dose and survival, with a cutoff value of 52.43 Gy, and patients were categorized into low-dose (BED ⩽52.43 Gy) and high-dose (BED > 52.43 Gy) groups on the basis of the predetermined cutoff value according to the ROC curve. Compared with patients in the high-dose group, patients in the low-dose group had significantly better survival (mOS, 22.59 vs 16.36; p = 0.026), with a prolonged mPFS of 3.91 months, although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.19). Therefore, researchers still need to explore the optimal dose for radiotherapy further. Although our exploratory ROC analysis suggested superior efficacy below 52.43 Gy, this finding should be interpreted with caution due to the inherent limitations of dichotomizing continuous variables. A more rigorous restrictive cubic spline analysis failed to confirm a significant dose–response relationship (p = 0.370). Our study cohort comprised exclusively elderly patients (⩾70 years), who may exhibit distinct tumor biology, immune function, and treatment tolerance compared to younger populations, potentially altering dose–response relationships. Moreover, the relatively narrow BED range (31.25–72.0 Gy) and sample size (n = 83) may have limited statistical power to detect subtle dose–response effects. These findings underscore the need for larger prospective studies to definitively determine the optimal radiotherapy dose for this population.

With respect to radiotherapy modalities, Luan et al.⁴³ reported that compared with 60 Gy/30f, 45 Gy/30f had a better survival advantage (mPFS, 11 vs 9; p = 0.043). Similarly, we found that hyperfractionation radiotherapy was the most effective treatment (p = 0.038). After redefining the baseline time point and adopting time-dependent Cox analysis, hyperfractionated radiotherapy still demonstrated therapeutic advantages (p = 0.048). Furthermore, pairwise comparisons revealed that hyperfractionation significantly improved patient survival compared to conventional fractionation (HR, 2.805; 95% CI, 1.164–6.760; p = 0.022), with a mOS extension of 9.6 months. Although hypofractionation showed a trend toward poorer outcomes compared with hyperfractionation (HR, 2.077; 95% CI, 0.788–5.478; p = 0.140), this difference did not reach statistical significance, likely due to the relatively small sample size in this group (n = 17). Furthermore, no significant difference was observed between hypofractionation and conventional fractionation (p = 0.267). These findings suggest that hyperfractionated therapy may be the preferred option when clinically feasible, while hypofractionation represents a reasonable alternative, particularly given its shorter treatment duration and comparable efficacy to conventional fractionation. Larger prospective studies are still needed to explore the optimal radiotherapy regimen for elderly patients with ES-SCLC.

After resetting the time point to zero, interaction tests revealed that both liver and brain metastasis status significantly modified the therapeutic effect of TRT (p values for both interactions < 0.001). These findings indicate that the benefit of consolidation TRT is not uniform across all patients but critically depends on the location of metastatic disease. Notably, while brain metastases were not an independent prognostic factor in multivariate analysis (p = 0.293), they emerged as a significant treatment effect modifier: patients without brain metastases derived substantial benefit from TRT, whereas those with brain metastases did not. This distinction holds important clinical implications: even if brain metastases cannot independently predict OS, their presence should guide patient selection for consolidation TRT. Our finding that patients with brain metastases failed to benefit from TRT (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.80–2.73) contrasts with a recent meta-analysis suggesting significant survival benefit for those with brain metastases (OS: HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39–0.84; p = 0.01; PFS: HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.28–0.64; p < 0.001).³⁵ This discrepancy reflects the unique characteristics of elderly cohorts, including differences in tumor biology and treatment tolerance. Older patients may exhibit altered immune function and vascular permeability, thereby modifying their response to radiotherapy-immunotherapy combinations. These observations underscore the importance of age-specific considerations in geriatric populations and the necessity for studies specifically designed for the elderly.

Regarding metastatic burden, patients with ⩽2 metastatic sites derived significant benefit from TRT, whereas those with >2 metastatic sites did not. Xu et al.⁴⁴ reported that patients with oligometastatic ES-SCLC could benefit more in terms of OS, PFS, and local control with the addition of TRT. A secondary analysis of the CREST revealed that patients with no liver metastases or those with only zero to two distant metastases had significantly longer PFS (p = 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively).⁴⁵ Zhang et al.⁴⁶ reported that TRT improved PFS and OS in patients with oligometastatic ES-SCLC and in patients without brain or liver involvement. Consistent with our findings, patients with lower tumor burden (0–2 distant metastases, particularly those without liver or brain metastases) were more likely to benefit from combined TRT. However, the interaction test for number of metastatic sites did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.33; p = 0.21 after reset time), suggesting treatment response may be influenced more by specific metastatic sites than absolute number.

In contrast, liver metastases acted as both a treatment effect modifier and an independent poor prognostic factor. Our multivariate analysis identified liver metastases as the sole independent poor prognostic factor (p < 0.001). A retrospective analysis of 118 patients with ES-SCLC who received first-line chemoimmunotherapy (45 of whom received TRT) demonstrated that liver metastases were an independent predictor of OS in multivariate analysis, suggesting that patients with liver metastases may not benefit from consolidative TRT.¹⁴ Dominik’s systematic review and meta-analysis also indicated that patients with baseline liver metastases receiving combined chemo-immunotherapy showed no significant survival improvement after consolidation TRT (OS: HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.61–1.32; PFS: HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.17–2.01).³⁵ This landmark research underscores the efficacy of cTRT and validates the profound impact of different baseline metastatic patterns on prognosis—particularly the adverse prognostic effect associated with liver metastases. This finding is comparable to our findings.

In summary, these findings support individualized treatment decisions for consolidation TRT based on metastatic patterns, with particular attention to the presence of liver or brain metastases. Future prospective studies should stratify patients according to metastatic sites and burden to validate these observations and further refine treatment recommendations for elderly ES-SCLC patients.

The limitations of this study include those inherent to its retrospective, real-world design. The potential for selection bias exists, as consolidation TRT was likely offered to patients with better performance status. To address guarantee-time bias arising from the delayed initiation of TRT, we performed landmark analyses and time-dependent Cox models with time zero redefined at cycle 4 completion, as described in the “Methods and patients.” Furthermore, heterogeneity in treatment administration (e.g., doses and cycles) must be acknowledged. While we sought to mitigate these issues via a multicenter design and multivariate analysis, further validation through large-scale, prospective trials is warranted to confirm our conclusions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the addition of TRT in elderly ES-SCLC patients receiving first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in combination with immunotherapy resulted in significant survival benefits and tolerability. The results suggest that TRT plus chemoimmunotherapy may be a first-line therapeutic strategy for elderly ES-SCLC patients, but further studies are needed to confirm this conclusion.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-tam-10.1177_17588359261444162 – Supplemental material for Consolidation thoracic radiotherapy after chemoimmunotherapy provides survival benefit in elderly patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a multicenter study

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-tam-10.1177_17588359261444162 for Consolidation thoracic radiotherapy after chemoimmunotherapy provides survival benefit in elderly patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a multicenter study by Ke Zhao, Qinhao Xu, Xuwei Cai, Lujun Zhao, Weikang Xin, Wanjing Li, Yaru Tian, Yulan Sun and Hui Zhu in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-4-tam-10.1177_17588359261444162 – Supplemental material for Consolidation thoracic radiotherapy after chemoimmunotherapy provides survival benefit in elderly patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a multicenter study

Supplemental material, sj-docx-4-tam-10.1177_17588359261444162 for Consolidation thoracic radiotherapy after chemoimmunotherapy provides survival benefit in elderly patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a multicenter study by Ke Zhao, Qinhao Xu, Xuwei Cai, Lujun Zhao, Weikang Xin, Wanjing Li, Yaru Tian, Yulan Sun and Hui Zhu in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Supplemental Material

sj-jpg-1-tam-10.1177_17588359261444162 – Supplemental material for Consolidation thoracic radiotherapy after chemoimmunotherapy provides survival benefit in elderly patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a multicenter study

Supplemental material, sj-jpg-1-tam-10.1177_17588359261444162 for Consolidation thoracic radiotherapy after chemoimmunotherapy provides survival benefit in elderly patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a multicenter study by Ke Zhao, Qinhao Xu, Xuwei Cai, Lujun Zhao, Weikang Xin, Wanjing Li, Yaru Tian, Yulan Sun and Hui Zhu in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Supplemental Material

sj-jpg-3-tam-10.1177_17588359261444162 – Supplemental material for Consolidation thoracic radiotherapy after chemoimmunotherapy provides survival benefit in elderly patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a multicenter study

Supplemental material, sj-jpg-3-tam-10.1177_17588359261444162 for Consolidation thoracic radiotherapy after chemoimmunotherapy provides survival benefit in elderly patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a multicenter study by Ke Zhao, Qinhao Xu, Xuwei Cai, Lujun Zhao, Weikang Xin, Wanjing Li, Yaru Tian, Yulan Sun and Hui Zhu in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all individuals who participated for their kind cooperation in this study.

Declarations

ORCID iD

Hui Zhu

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Nicholson

Chansky

Crowley

, et al. The international association for the study of lung cancer lung cancer staging project: proposals for the revision of the clinical and pathologic staging of small cell lung cancer in the forthcoming eighth edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2016; 11: 300–311.

Bayman

Sheikh

Kularatne

, et al. Radiotherapy for small-cell lung cancer—where are we heading? Lung Cancer 2009; 63: 307–314.

Jing

Zhang

, et al. Thoracic radiation therapy could give survival benefit to elderly patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. Future Oncol 2017; 13: 1149–1158.

Abdel-Rahman

Changing epidemiology of elderly small cell lung cancer patients over the last 40 years; a SEER database analysis. Clin Respir J 2018; 12: 1093–1099.

Ganti

AKP

Loo

Bassetti

, et al. Small cell lung cancer, version 2.2022, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021; 19: 1441–1464.

Horn

Mansfield

Szczȩsna

, et al. First-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. New Engl J Med 2018; 379: 2220–2229.

Goldman

Dvorkin

Chen

, et al. Durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide alone in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): updated results from a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2021; 22: 51–65.

Wang

Zhou

Yao

, et al. Adebrelimab or placebo plus carboplatin and etoposide as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CAPSTONE-1): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2022; 23: 739–747.

Zhao

, et al. Radiotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer in the immunotherapy era. Front Immunol 2023; 14: 1132482.

10.

Sun

Abdulkarim

Blais

, et al. Use of radiation therapy among patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer receiving immunotherapy: Canadian consensus recommendations. Lung Cancer 2023; 179: 107166.

11.

Takahashi

Yamanaka

Seto

, et al. Prophylactic cranial irradiation versus observation in patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18: 663–671.

12.

Yoon

Noh

Ahn

, et al. Higher thoracic radiation dose is beneficial in patients with extensive small cell lung cancer. Radiat Oncol J 2019; 37: 185–192.

13.

Palma

Warner

Louie

, et al. Thoracic radiotherapy for extensive stage small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Lung Cancer 2016; 17: 239–244.

14.

Xie

Liu

, et al. Real-world efficacy and safety of thoracic radiotherapy after first-line chemo-immunotherapy in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Med 2023; 12(11): 3828.

15.

Dingemans

AMC

Früh

Ardizzoni

, et al. Small-cell lung cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2021; 32: 839–853.

16.

Chen

Zou

, et al. Adebrelimab plus chemotherapy and sequential thoracic radiotherapy as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC): a phase II trial. EClinicalMedicine 2024; 75: 102795.

17.

Han

Clinical outcomes of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer patients treated with thoracic radiotherapy at different times and fractionations. Radiat Oncol 2021; 16: 47.

18.

Schwartz

Litière

De Vries

, et al. RECIST 1.1-update and clarification: from the RECIST committee. Eur J Cancer 2016; 62: 132–137.

19.

Freites-Martinez

Santana

Arias-Santiago

, et al. Using the common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE–Version 5.0) to evaluate the severity of adverse events of anticancer therapies. Actas Dermosifiliogr (Engl Ed) 2021; 112: 90–92.

20.

Von Elm

Altman

Egger

, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 344–349.

21.

Jaffray

DA.

Image-guided radiotherapy: from current concept to future perspectives. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2012; 9: 688–699.

22.

Rodríguez-Ruiz

Vanpouille-Box

Melero

, et al. Immunological mechanisms responsible for radiation-induced abscopal effect. Trends Immunol 2018; 39: 644–655.

23.

Demaria

Kawashima

Yang

, et al. Immune-mediated inhibition of metastases after treatment with local radiation and CTLA-4 blockade in a mouse model of breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11: 728–734.

24.

Deng

Liang

Burnette

, et al. Irradiation and anti-PD-L1 treatment synergistically promote antitumor immunity in mice. J Clin Invest 2014; 124: 687–695.

25.

Dovedi

Cheadle

Popple

, et al. Fractionated radiation therapy stimulates antitumor immunity mediated by both resident and infiltrating polyclonal T-cell populations when combined with PD-1 blockade. Clin Cancer Res 2017; 23: 5514–5526.

26.

Formenti

Rudqvist

Golden

, et al. Radiotherapy induces responses of lung cancer to CTLA-4 blockade. Nat Med 2018; 24: 1845–1851.

27.

Dudzinski

Cameron

Wang

, et al. Combination immunotherapy and radiotherapy causes an abscopal treatment response in a mouse model of castration resistant prostate cancer. J Immunother Cancer 2019; 7: 218.

28.

Park

Dong

Liu

, et al. PD-1 Restrains radiotherapy-induced abscopal effect. Cancer Immunol Res 2015; 3: 610–619.

29.

Antonia

Villegas

Daniel

, et al. Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 1919–1929.

30.

Spigel

Faivre-Finn

Gray

, et al. Five-year survival outcomes from the PACIFIC trial: durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40: 1301–1311.

31.

Theelen

Peulen

HMU

Lalezari

, et al. Effect of pembrolizumab after stereotactic body radiotherapy vs pembrolizumab alone on tumor response in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: results of the PEMBRO-RT phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2019; 5: 1276–1282.

32.

Simone

Bogart

Cabrera

, et al. Radiation therapy for small cell lung cancer: an ASTRO clinical practice guideline. Pract Radiat Oncol 2020; 10: 158–173.

33.

Jeremic

Shibamoto

Nikolic

, et al. Role of radiation therapy in the combined-modality treatment of patients with extensive disease small-cell lung cancer: a randomized study. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 2092–2099.

34.

Slotman

Van Tinteren

Praag

, et al. Use of thoracic radiotherapy for extensive stage small-cell lung cancer: a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015; 385: 36–42.

35.

Wróbel

Wojewoda

Ziółek

, et al. Consolidative thoracic radiotherapy in the immunotherapy era for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis with emphasis on brain and liver metastases. Radiother Oncol 2026; 216: 111328.

36.

Cai

Xie

, et al. Safety and efficacy of thoracic radiotherapy combined with chemo-immunotherapy in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a multicenter retrospective analysis. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2023; 12: 1987–2000.

37.

Yao

Song

, et al. Efficacy and safety of thoracic radiotherapy in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer patients receiving first-line immunotherapy plus chemotherapy: a propensity score matched multicentre retrospective analysis. Radiat Oncol 2024; 19(1): 25.

38.

Nishino

Giobbie-Hurder

Hatabu

, et al. Incidence of programmed cell death 1 inhibitor-related pneumonitis in patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol 2016; 2: 1607–1616.

39.

Ghanbar

Suresh

Pulmonary toxicity of immune checkpoint immunotherapy. J Clin Invest 2024; 134(2): e170503.

40.

Movsas

Raffin

Epstein

, et al. Pulmonary radiation injury. Chest 1997; 111: 1061–1076.

41.

Roy

Salerno

Citrin

DE.

Biology of radiation-induced lung injury. Semin Radiat Oncol 2021; 31: 155–161.

42.

Li-Ming

Zhao

Simone

2nd , et al. Receipt of thoracic radiation therapy and radiotherapy dose are correlated with outcomes in a retrospective study of three hundred and six patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 2017; 125: 331–337.

43.

Luan

Wang

Huang

, et al. Efficacy of 3D conformal thoracic radiotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a retrospective study. Exp Ther Med 2015; 10: 671–678.

44.

Cheng

Kang

, et al. Thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) improved survival in both oligo- and polymetastatic extensive stage small cell lung cancer. Sci Rep 2017; 7: 9255.

45.

Slotman

Faivre-Finn

Van Tinteren

, et al. Which patients with ES-SCLC are most likely to benefit from more aggressive radiotherapy: a secondary analysis of the Phase III CREST trial. Lung Cancer 2017; 108: 150–153.

46.

Zhang

Deng

Wang

, et al. Metastatic location of extensive stage small-cell lung cancer: implications for thoracic radiation. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2019; 145: 2605–2612.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.01 MB

4.06 MB

0.43 MB

0.03 MB

0.00 MB