Comparison of Changes in Pulmonary Function After Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Versus Conventional 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy for Stage I and IIA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Analysis of the TROG 09.02 (CHISEL) Phase 3 Trial

Publication Name

International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics


Purpose: The TROG 09.02 CHISEL trial compared conventional radiation therapy (CRT) with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in patients with inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Patients randomized to SBRT had less local failure and improved overall survival. This analysis reports differences in pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and the 6-minute walk test (SMWT) between patients who received SBRT and those who received CRT. Methods and Materials: We analyzed the PFTs and SMWTs of all patients recruited to the CHISEL [trial. During this trial, patients underwent serial PFTs. Linear regression models were used to compare parameters between SBRT and CRT at 3 and 12 months after treatment. Results: One hundred and one patients were enrolled; 33 patients were treated with CRT, 61 were treated with SBRT, and 7 did not receive treatment. Primary tumor size was similar between arms: SBRT 25 mm (standard deviation [SD], 9) and CRT 28 mm (SD, 9). On regression analysis, at 3 and 12 months, there was no evidence of a difference between arms in PFT decline or distance walked in the SMWT. Planning target volume size was significantly larger in the CRT arm, 142.79 cc (SD, 61.14), compared with the SBRT group, 46.15 cc (SD, 23.39). The mean biologically effective dose received by the target was significantly larger in the SBRT group, 125.92 Gy (SD, 21.58), compared with CRT, 65.49 Gy (SD, 6.32). Mean dose to the lungs minus the gross target volume incorporating motion was 8.9 Gy (SD, 2.34) in the CRT group and 4.37 Gy (SD, 1.42) in the SBRT group. Conclusions: Despite the considerably higher biologically effective doses delivered to the tumor in SBRT, there was no difference in decline in respiratory function observed between the 2 groups.

Open Access Status

This publication is not available as open access

Funding Sponsor

Merck Sharp and Dohme



Link to publisher version (DOI)