Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

 Table of Contents  
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 27-32

Treatment outcomes and prognostic factors in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer – An experience from normal India

1 Department of Radiation Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
2 Department of Medical Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
3 Department of Biostatistics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Date of Submission22-Dec-2020
Date of Decision14-Jan-2021
Date of Acceptance15-Jan-2021
Date of Web Publication18-Aug-2021

Correspondence Address:
Sushmita Pathy
Room no 221, 2nd Floor, Department of Radiation Oncology, BRA-IRCH, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110 029
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_1855_20

Rights and Permissions
 > Abstract 

Context: Chemoradiation is the standard of care in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC). Clinical presentation, disease course, and available treatment options are challenges to overcome. Little is known about the ideal timing and interaction of the two modalities, its relevance in day-to-day decision-making and the treatment outcome.
Aims: The study evaluates the demographic profile, treatment pattern, outcome, and radiotherapy (RT) practice and patient care of LA-NSCLC at a tertiary cancer center.
Setting and Design: This is a retrospective study from a tertiary cancer centre. Archives of patients of LA-NSCLC treated between June 2016 and June 2018 were included in our study.
Materials and Methods: Clinical, demographic characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes were recorded. RT practice and patient care process including the integration of RT with other specialties, waiting time, and compliance to treatment were documented and analyzed.
Statistical Analysis: Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were the primary endpoints of the study. Log-rank test was used for univariate analysis for the factors on OS, and Cox's proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis for cofactors on OS.
Results: Two hundred and thirty-two patients of lung cancer were treated during the study period. Fifty-four patients were squamous cell carcinoma, 108 were adenocarcinoma, and 12 were others. Out of 59 patients of LA-NSCLC, 34 underwent definitive chemoradiation. The median follow-up was 11 months (0.7–29), median overall treatment time was 44 days, median PFS was 8.9 months (range: 1.6–28.6), and median OS was 9.4 months (1.7–44.8). Time to start any oncological intervention was 1 month (0.1–4.3) and time to start RT was 2.1 months (0.1–5.4). Adherence to treatment was 91.2%. Age ≥65 and performance status ≥2 were significant for OS on univariate analysis and none on multivariate analysis.
Conclusions: One-third of the cases of NSCLC present in LA stage and a third are suitable for definitive chemoradiation and only 20% undergo the planned treatment.

Keywords: Chemotherapy, non-small cell lung cancer, radiotherapy

How to cite this article:
Thimmarayappa A, Pathy S, Malik PS, Mallick S, Upadhyay AD. Treatment outcomes and prognostic factors in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer – An experience from normal India. J Can Res Ther 2022;18:27-32

How to cite this URL:
Thimmarayappa A, Pathy S, Malik PS, Mallick S, Upadhyay AD. Treatment outcomes and prognostic factors in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer – An experience from normal India. J Can Res Ther [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 May 26];18:27-32. Available from: https://www.cancerjournal.net/text.asp?2022/18/1/27/324033

 > Introduction Top

Lung cancer (LC) is the second most common cancer worldwide and accounts for 2206771 new cases in 2020 with 1796144 deaths globally. Being the 4th leading cause of cancer in India it accounts for 66279 deaths in 2020.[1] Nearly 35% of the lung cancers are locally advanced (LA) at presentation,[2] and multimodality approach is the essence of management. However, patterns of care vary with stage of presentation, patient's tolerance for treatment, availability of facilities, and practice prevalence.[3],[4] Concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) is the standard of care in LA non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) as it improves OS by 4%–4.5% at 5 years, compared to sequential chemotherapy and radiotherapy (CTRT).[5] Several studies reported[6] significantly reduced overall risk of death with the addition of chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64–0.80), though tolerance to concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) remains debatable and only small proportion of them would complete it. In the day-to-day scenario, because of poor tolerance, many patients receive definitive radiation therapy (RT) alone, and a fraction receives either sequential or concurrent chemoradiation. However, this suitability of therapy is difficult to establish as there are limited data available. Interestingly, various prognostic factors have been identified in the management of LA-NSCLC[7] which are important in decision-making. The current study intends to evaluate the demographic profile, pattern of care, outcome, and prognostic factors at a tertiary cancer centre.

 > Materials and Methods Top

The study was conducted with the approval of the institutional ethics committee. Medical records of patients registered between June 2016 and June 2018 were retrieved. Patients of LA-NSCLC were included in the study. Records were checked for completeness, and incomplete records were excluded. The demographic details (age, gender, performance status (PS),comorbidity, symptoms at presentation), tumor parameters (histology, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) mutation status, stage (Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) 6th edition), hematological and biochemical parameters (baseline hemoglobin, serum albumin) and treatment parameters (date of start of any oncological treatment, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), RT details – date of start of RT, technique, and dose) were recorded in a pre-designed proforma.

As per institutional protocol, all patients underwent baseline staging workup with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) of the chest and abdomen and metastatic workup with metabolic imaging or computed tomography (CT) scan. All patients underwent contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain or CECT brain to rule out brain metastasis. Histopathological confirmation was obtained from a tissue biopsy. As per the institutional protocol, patients of LA-NSCLC with a good PS of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 1–3 were planned for curative treatment. Patients of squamous cell carcinoma received NACT with paclitaxel and carboplatin, whereas patients of EGFR- or ALK-negative adenocarcinoma received NACT with paclitaxel and pemetrexed. EGFR- or ALK-positive patients received targeted therapy (is this part of curative cases). Response assessment was made with CT or metabolic imaging after two cycles or after completing induction chemotherapy. Patients with nonprogressive disease, preserved PS, and pulmonary reserve were taken for definitive CCRT or sequential CTRT.

All patients were planned with conformal planning techniques. CT simulation was done on Philips wide-bore CT scanner, and segmentation was done on Monaco treatment planning system. RT was delivered in two phases. In Phase I, 50 Gy was delivered in 25 fractions to the prechemotherapy volume. This was followed by an additional dose of 10 Gy in 5 fractions in Phase II for the post chemotherapy volume. The total dose of 60 Gy in 30 fractions was delivered over 6 weeks by either three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) on Versa HD or Synergy S (Elekta™). Patients were kept on follow-up every month for the first 3 months, subsequently every 3 months for up to 2 years, and every 6 months henceforth.

Statistical analysis

Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were the primary endpoints of the study. OS was defined from the date of registration to death date or last date of follow-up if alive. PFS was defined from the date of registration to the date of progression or date of last follow-up if not progressed. Log-rank test was used for univariate analysis for the factors on OS, and Cox's proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis for cofactors on OS. All the P values were two-sided, and those with ≤0.05 were considered statistically significant. Stata v13 (StataCorp. 2013. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.) was used to do the statistical analysis.

 > Results Top

Out of 232 lung cancer patients registered in the Lung Cancer Clinic and Radiotherapy Outpatient's Department at our centre, 9 files had incomplete workup details and were excluded. Of those 223 patients, 174 (78%) were NSCLC. Of these, 67 (38.5%) patients were LA-NSCLC. Eight patients out of 67 were not planned for curative intent due to poor PS and large-volume disease. Fifty-nine (33.9%) patients received planned induction chemotherapy or targeted therapy and were reassessed. Thirty-three out of 67 patients were ineligible for radical RT due to poor PS, progressive disease, etc., The remaining 34 (50.7%) patients received radical RT [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Consort diagram of non-small cell lung cancer patients

Click here to view

Demographic profile and clinical characteristics

Sixty-seven patients were analysed in the present study. Fifty-seven patients (85%) were aged ≤65 years, with a male preponderance (83.6%). Thirty-five patients (52.2%) were ECOG PS of 0 to 1. Fifty-eight patients (86.6%) had 0–1 comorbidity. Forty-three patients (64.2%) had cough, 35 (52.2%) had chest pain, 27 had (40.3%) hemoptysis, and 34 (50.7%) had breathlessness at presentation. Loss of weight was observed in 43 (64.2%) at presentation. Twenty-eight patients (41.8%) had a hemoglobin of <11 g/dl and 29 (43.3%) had serum albumin of <3.5 g/dl. Thirty-two patients (47.8%) were of squamous cell carcinoma histology and 28 (41.8%) were of adenocarcinoma histology. Out of 34 adenocarcinoma patients, 2 (6%) were EGFR positive, 4 (11.2%) were ALK positive, 16 (47%) were EGFR and/or ALK negative, and the remaining (35.3%) did not have molecular testing done. Nodal evaluation revealed the majority with N2 disease. Out of 67, only 2 patients (3%) were N0, 3 (4.4%) were N1, 40 (59.7%) were N2, and the remaining 17 (25.4%) were N3. Thirty-three patients (49.3%) belonged to Stage IIIA and 34 (50.7%) to Stage IIIB [Table 1].
Table 1: Patient and treatment characteristics

Click here to view

Treatment characteristics

All cases of LA-NSCLC were evaluated for the intent of treatment. Fifty-nine patients (88%) were planned for curative intent and eight patients (12%) were planned for palliative intent. Curative treatment included NACT or tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) as per the histology, followed by radical RT to the primary with sequential or concurrent chemotherapy as per the institution protocol. Eleven patients (34.3%) of adenocarcinoma received 3-weekly pemetrexed and carboplatin, eight patients (25%) received 3-weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin, six (9.3%) patients received weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin, and the remaining patients (21.9%) received TKI-targeted therapy. Twenty-eight patients (41.8%) received NACT of more than three cycles. Patients underwent a response assessment imaging after scheduled NACT. Twenty-five (42.4%) out of 59 patients were ineligible for radical RT. A total of 33 out of 67 patients of LA-NSCLC received palliative treatment. The reasons for radical treatment not being given were evaluated. Eighteen out of 33 patients had either progressive disease, 7 patients had a poor PS of ECOG PS-4, 5 patients were at risk of radiation toxicity due to large-volume disease, and 3 patients defaulted for treatment. Out of 59 patients planned for curative intent, 3 (3.4%) patients had radiological complete response, 19 (32.2%) had partial response, and 11 (18.6%) had stable disease.

Thirty-four patients received radical RT. Nineteen patients received sequential CTRT and 15 patients received CCRT. Radical RT was delivered by conformal techniques for a median dose of 60 Gy (40–60 Gy) at 1.8–2 Gy per fraction. Twenty-five patients received radiation by 3DCRT, 6 by IMRT, 2 by 2D technique, and 1 patient by VMAT technique. All the 33 patient patients received palliative RT by the 2D technique. Thirty-four patients received radiation to a dose ≥50 Gy with a median overall time of 44 days (29–60 days).


The median follow-up duration was 11 months (0.7–29 months [95% CI: 8.8–22.4]). The median OS was 9.4 months (1.7–44.8 months [95% CI: 11.8–43]). The median PFS was 8.9 months (1.6–28.6 months [95% CI: 9.6–24.2]). The median OS of Stage IIIA and IIIB was 10 months (0.9–44.7 months [95% CI: 10.1–11.7]) and 8.1 months (0.2–25.4 months [95% CI: 7.4–11.6]), respectively. The median PFS of Stage IIIA and IIIB was 9.8 months (1.6–28.6 months [95% CI: 9–28.3]) and 7.3 months (3–25.4 months [95% CI: 6.6–10.5]), respectively. The median time to start any oncological intervention was 1 month (0.1–4.3 months [95% CI: 0.9–1.6]). The median time to start RT was 2.1 months (0.1–5.4 months [95% CI: 2.1–3.8]) [Table 2]. The adherence to radical thoracic radiation was 91.2% (31 out of 34 patients). On univariate analysis of 67 patients, patients aged ≤65 years and those with ECOG performance of 0–1 had better OS [Table 3]. However, on Cox's regression modelling for multivariate analysis, none of them were significant for OS nor PFS.
Table 2: Treatment outcome and intervention duration

Click here to view
Table 3: Univariate analysis of various parameters for Overall survival and Progression free survival

Click here to view

 > Discussion Top

LA-NSCLC constitutes a potentially curable subset of lung cancer patients. However, several factors such as delay in diagnosis due to confounding clinical conditions such as tuberculosis and chronic bronchitis, delayed presentation, and delay in treatment due to logistics in a busy cancer center led to miss of a narrow window of opportunity for curative treatment in lung cancer.[8] The present analysis aims to explore prognostic factors that may help to triage patients best suitable for a certain type of therapy, thereby optimizing the outcome and limiting the toxicity. Besides, we also aim to analyse the demography, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes of such patients to understand the pattern of care in a real-world scenario. The tolerance to therapy and compliance both need to be balanced carefully as LC patients are mostly elderly as most patients are diagnosed in the sixth or seventh decade with a median age of 70 years.[2],[9],[10] In this part of the world, the incidence is more common one decade (median age: 57 years) earlier which is reflected in our analysis as more than 80% of the patients in the current study presented at less than 65 years of age predominantly affecting males (83%) in line with other studies.[2] In this analysis, cough and breathlessness were commonly observed presenting complaints that resemble observation made by Latimer.[11] The present analysis also wants to highlight that weight loss affects nearly 50% of the patients which may be another important reason for poor tolerance and compliance to CTRT. Numerous studies have also highlighted that 28%–59% of NSCLC are diagnosed in Stage III which corroborates closely to the current analysis as 38.5% of the patients were diagnosed in Stage III.[12],[13]

The standard of care worldwide for LA-NSCLC is CCRT.[5] This treatment regimen is associated with increased rates of esophagitis in comparison to sequential chemotherapy and radiation therapy. This sometimes leads to poor tolerance and therefore is considered optimal in patients presenting with less than 5% weight loss. We at our institute followed a protocol of NACT followed by concurrent chemoradiation as a substantial percentage of patients presented with large-volume disease and poor PS and significant weight loss (65%). In CALGB 39801 trial, patients received induction chemotherapy followed by definitive RT. They reported partial response in 31% and stable disease in 39% of their patients.[14] In our patients, 32% had a partial response and 11% had stable disease. These findings were comparable to other studies.[15],[16],[17],[18]

Yamamoto et al. compared second- and third-generation regimens with concurrent thoracic RT in patients with unresectable Stage III NSCLC and reported a median OS of 22 months.[19] In another trial, Segawa et al. reported that median OS and PFS were 23.5 months and 10.5 months, respectively, when docetaxel and cisplatin were compared with mitomycin, vindesine, and cisplatin regimen.[20] In a similar trial, Belani et al. compared induction chemotherapy followed by either standard thoracic RT or hyperfractionated accelerated RT for patients with unresectable Stage IIIA and B non-small cell lung cancer. The median OS in the standard arm was 14.9 months.[21] In the present analysis, median OS (9.4 months) and PFS (8.9 months) were found to be lower in comparison to the published data which reflects poorer outcome in LA-NSCLC patients. Delay in the start of treatment, use of induction chemotherapy followed by CCRT, use of lower doses of RT in some patients to limit the organ at risk toxicity, weight loss are some of the factors that could have attributed to this lower survival. In the present study, patients younger than 65 years and with PS 0–1 had significantly better survival pointing toward the fact that these patients have better tolerance and compliance to therapy. This information may highlight that older patients and patients with PS ≥2 even with LA-NSCLC should be considered for radiation alone which may improve compliance to therapy.

Oncological management at a tertiary centre is a challenge. With high patient load, initiation of timely treatment is difficult causing delay. The effect of time to start treatment on survival parameters was studied by Gomez et al. The median diagnosis to treatment interval was 27 days and duration less than 35 days was associated with improved survival.[22] Diaconescu et al. studied treatment delays in NSCLC and their prognostic implications. Although in metastatic patients, the HR for survival was 0.93 for every week of treatment delay, for LA-NSCLC, the association was inconclusive.[23] The median time to start RT was longer than an ideal duration of 1 month in our study. A prospective study from our centre by Roy et al. demonstrated that hypofractionated accelerated radiotherapy helps in reducing the waiting time for radiotherapy and OTT and machine load at a high-volume centre.[24] These hurdles highlight the challenges faced during radiotherapy practice in a developing country.

Our study has a few limitations. Being a retrospective analysis, it is associated with various forms of bias. The small patient number for analysis also does not provide the true picture in this subset of lung cancer. Heterogeneity in treatment is another weakness of the study. However, the results of the study truly represent the pattern of care in developing countries and reflect the poorer outcome after all the latest molecular developments. Hence, it is important to improve infrastructure to provide timely treatment to all such patients.

 > Conclusions Top

LA-NSCLC is a concoction of potentially curable patients who have a narrow window of opportunity. Tailoring the treatment to each patient through multidisciplinary clinics with early intervention, the large patient burden in developing countries with limited access to a comprehensive cancer care facility can be mitigated well.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 > References Top

Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Today. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today, last updated on December 2020, [Last accessed on 02 Feb 2021].  Back to cited text no. 1
Noronha V, Dikshit R, Raut N, Joshi A, Pramesh CS, George K, et al. Epidemiology of lung cancer in India: Focus on the differences between non-smokers and smokers: A single-center experience. Indian J Cancer 2012;49:74-81.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
Fournel P, Robinet G, Thomas P, Souquet PJ, Léna H, Vergnenégre A, et al. Randomized phase III trial of sequential chemoradiotherapy compared with concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Lyon-Saint-Etienne Group of Thoracic Oncology-French Group of Pneumo-Cancerology NPC 95-01 study. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:5910-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
Turrisi AT, Crowley J, Albain K, Gaspar L, Gandara D. Southwest oncology group: Two decades of experience in non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol 2005;32:S119-21.  Back to cited text no. 4
Aupérin A, Le Péchoux C, Rolland E, Curran WJ, Furuse K, Fournel P, et al. Meta-analysis of concomitant versus sequential radiochemotherapy in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:2181-90.  Back to cited text no. 5
Shrimali RK, Nallathambi C, Saha A, Das A, Prasath S, Mahata A, et al. Radical radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for inoperable, locally advanced, non-small cell lung cancer: Analysis of patient profile, treatment approaches, and outcomes for 213 patients at a tertiary cancer center. Indian J Cancer 2018;55:125-33.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
Stanley KE. Prognostic factors for survival in patients with inoperable lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1980;65:25-32.  Back to cited text no. 7
Chen VW, Ruiz BA, Hsieh MC, Wu XC, Ries LA, Lewis DR. Analysis of stage and clinical/prognostic factors for lung cancer from SEER registries: AJCC staging and collaborative stage data collection system. Cancer 2014;120 Suppl 23:3781-92.  Back to cited text no. 8
Torre LA, Siegel RL, Jemal A. Lung cancer statistics. Adv Exp Med Biol 2016;893:1-19.  Back to cited text no. 9
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:7-30.  Back to cited text no. 10
Latimer KM. Lung cancer: Clinical presentation and diagnosis. FP Essent 2018;464:23-6.  Back to cited text no. 11
Morgensztern D, Ng SH, Gao F, Govindan R. Trends in stage distribution for patients with non-small cell lung cancer: A national cancer database survey. J Thorac Oncol 2010;5:29-33.  Back to cited text no. 12
Choi HS, Jeong BK, Jeong H, Lee YH, Ha IB, Song JH, et al. Application of the new 8th TNM staging system for non-small cell lung cancer: Treated with curative concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Radiat Oncol 2017;12:122.  Back to cited text no. 13
Vokes EE, Herndon JE 2nd, Kelley MJ, Cicchetti MG, Ramnath N, Neill H, et al. Induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy compared with chemoradiotherapy alone for regionally advanced unresectable stage III Non-small-cell lung cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1698-704.  Back to cited text no. 14
Pritchard RS, Anthony SP. Chemotherapy plus radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone in the treatment of locally advanced, unresectable, non-small-cell lung cancer. A meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 1996;125:723-9.  Back to cited text no. 15
Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomized clinical trials. Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group. BMJ 1995;311:899-909.  Back to cited text no. 16
Marino P, Preatoni A, Cantoni A. Randomized trials of radiotherapy alone versus combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy in Stages IIIa and IIIb nonsmall cell lung cancer. A meta-analysis. Cancer 1995;76:593-601.  Back to cited text no. 17
Aupérin A, Le Péchoux C, Pignon JP, Koning C, Jeremic B, Clamon G, et al. Concomitant radiochemotherapy based on platin compounds in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): A meta-analysis of individual data from 1764 patients. Ann Oncol 2006;17:473-83.  Back to cited text no. 18
Yamamoto N, Nakagawa K, Nishimura Y, Tsujino K, Satouchi M, Kudo S, et al. Phase III study comparing second- and third-generation regimens with concurrent thoracic radiotherapy in patients with unresectable Stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: West Japan Thoracic Oncology Group WJTOG0105. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:3739-45.  Back to cited text no. 19
Segawa Y, Kiura K, Takigawa N, Kamei H, Harita S, Hiraki S, et al. Phase III trial comparing docetaxel and cisplatin combination chemotherapy with mitomycin, vindesine, and cisplatin combination chemotherapy with concurrent thoracic radiotherapy in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: OLCSG 0007. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:3299-306.  Back to cited text no. 20
Belani CP, Wang W, Johnson DH, Wagner H, Schiller J, Veeder M, et al. Phase III study of the eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG 2597): Induction chemotherapy followed by either standard thoracic radiotherapy or hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy for patients with unresectable Stage IIIA and B non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:3760-7.  Back to cited text no. 21
Gomez DR, Liao KP, Swisher SG, Blumenschein GR, Erasmus JJ Jr., Buchholz TA, et al. Time to treatment as a quality metric in lung cancer: Staging studies, time to treatment, and patient survival. Radiother Oncol 2015;115:257-63.  Back to cited text no. 22
Diaconescu R, Lafond C, Whittom R. Treatment delays in non-small cell lung cancer and their prognostic implications. J Thorac Oncol 2011;6:1254-9.  Back to cited text no. 23
Roy S, Pathy S, Mohanti BK, Raina V, Jaiswal A, Kumar R, et al. Accelerated hypofractionated radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of lung: evaluation of response, survival, toxicity and quality of life from a Phase II randomized study. Br J Radiol 2016; 89: 20150966.  Back to cited text no. 24


  [Figure 1]

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]


Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

  >Abstract>Introduction>Materials and Me...>Results>Discussion>Conclusions>Article Figures>Article Tables
  In this article

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded179    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal