Radiol Oncol 2023; 57(3): 389-396. doi: 10.2478/raon-2023-0032 389 research article Local control and survival after stereotactic body radiation therapy of early-stage lung cancer patients in Slovenia Karmen Stanic 1,2 , Jasna But-Hadzic 1,2 , Jan Zagar 1 , Martina Vrankar 1,2 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Slovenia 2 Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia Radiol Oncol 2023; 57(3): 389-396. Received 4 April 2023 Accepted 14 June 2023 Correspondence to: Assist. Prof. Martina Vrankar, M.D., Ph.D., Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Zaloška 2, Ljubljana, Slovenia. E-mail: mvrankar@onko-i.si Disclosure: No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Background. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) precisely and non-invasively delivers ablative radiation dose to tumors in early-stage lung cancer patients who are not candidates for surgery or refuse it. The aim of research was to evaluate local control, overall survival (OS), local progression free survival (LPFS), distant metastases free survival (DMFS), disease free survival (DFS) and toxicity in early-stage lung cancer patients treated with SBRT in a single tertiary cancer centre. Patients and methods. We retrospectively evaluated medical records and radiation treatment plan parameters of 228 tumors irradiated in 206 early-stage lung cancer patients between 2016 and 2021 at the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana. Results. After 25 months of median follow up, 68 of 206 (33%) patients died. Median OS was 46 months (CI 36−56), 1-year, 2-year and 3-year OS were 87%, 74% and 62% and 5-year OS was 31%. A total of 45 disease progressions have been identified in 41 patients. Local progress only was noticed in 5 (2%) patients, systemic progress in 32 (16%) and combined systemic and local in 4 (2%) patients. Local control rate (LCR) at 1 year was 98%, at 2 and 3 years 96% and 95% at 5 years. The 1-, 2- and 3-year LPFS were 98%, 96% and 94%, respectively and 5-year LPFS was 82%. One, 2-, 3- and 5-year DFS were 89%, 81%, 72% and 49%, respectively. Among 28 toxicities recorded only one was Grade 4 (pneumonitis), all others were Grade 1 or 2. No differences in LCR, LPFS, DFS were found in univariate analysis com- paring patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. For OS the only statistically significant difference was found in patients with more than 3 comorbidities compared to those with less comorbidities. Conclusions. Early lung cancer treated with SBRT at single tertiary cancer centre showed that LCR, LPFS, DFS, DMFS and OS were comparable to published studies. Patients with many comorbidities had significantly worse overall survival compared to those with less comorbidities. No other significant differences by patient, tumor, or treatment characteristics were found for DMFS, LPFS, and DFS. Toxicity data confirmed that treatment was well tolerated. Key words: stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT); early-stage lung cancer; lung cancer; local control; survival Introduction Localized disease is diagnosed in up to 20% of patients with lung cancer. 1 This proportion, espe- cially in patients with early lung cancer is increas- ing due to lung cancer screening programs and covid-19 pandemic’s increased lung diagnostics during the last two years. Furthermore, number of inoperable or high-risk patients is growing due to an aging population. According to Slovenian national cancer registry for 2019 localized dis- ease was reported in 18% of all newly diagnosed Radiol Oncol 2023; 57(3): 389-396. Stanic K et al. / SBRT of early-stage lung cancer in Slovenia 390 lung cancer patients. 2 Standard of care for these patients is lobectomy, however due to comor- bidities and old age many of them are not eligi- ble for surgery. 3,4 Inoperable patients with small tumors and no metastases in local lymph nodes and those who refuse surgery are treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). SBRT is a precise technique that can deliver a very high dose (i.e., ablative dose) to the target volume in one to eight fractions. 5,6 Studies have shown that efficacy of SBRT can be compared to surgery, al- though no randomized phase III studies have been completed. 7 Two prospective studies, STARS and ROSEL, were closed prematurely due to poor ac- crual. 8 Combined data with notable limitations from these two trials suggested that SBRT could be a reasonable treatment option in medically op- erable patients. Recent revised STARS trial with re-accrual of the SABR arm to a larger sample size and follow-up of 5.1 years confirmed the findings. 9 Additional prospective randomized trials on this topic that will hopefully clarify this issue are STABLE-MATES (sub-lobar resection versus SABR) and VALOR (SABR versus anatomic pul- monary resection), but results will not be ready for some years. 10,11 The results on the effectiveness of SBRT ra- diation and standard radiation are contradictory. SPACE trial and LUSTRE trial (published only in abstract form) report no difference in local con- trol and OS. 12,13 On the other hand, superior local control and OS of SBRT compared to conventional radiotherapy of the primary inoperable peripher- ally located stage I NSCLC was proved in phase III randomized CHISEL study. 14 In Slovenia SBRT technique was introduced at the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana in 2016 and its use has been constantly increasing since then. It is used for the treatment of primary tumors, local re- currences and metastases. This report focuses on treatment of early lung cancer patients with SBRT and represents our first 5-year analysis. Patients and methods We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 206 consecutive early-stage lung cancer patients and radiation treatment plan parameters of 228 tumors irradiated with SBRT between 2016 and 2021 at Institute of Oncology Ljubljana. The cut-off date of our analysis was 6 th November 2022. In our clinical practice staging investigations routinely included computed tomography (CT) of chest and abdomen, brain CT/magnetic resonance imaging, whole-body fluorodeoxyglucose positron emis- sion tomography (FDG PET/CT), blood work, and pulmonary function tests. All patients had either biopsy-proven lung cancer or pulmonary lesions that were considered ‘‘suspicious’’ by experienced chest radiologist and showed evidence of progres- sion on at least two serial CT imaging studies and/ or increased FDG uptake on PET scan. All patients were discussed at the multidisciplinary tumor board. Any decision to proceed with radiation therapy for patients without biopsy confirmation of disease was communicated and agreed upon in multidisciplinary tumor board. Decision was typi- cally based on the predicted probability of malig- nancy (i.e., enlarged lesion on serial CT scans or PET/CT-avid lesion) and weighed against risks of biopsy. Patients with more than one primary lung tumor without evidence of metastasis were care- fully discussed at multidisciplinary tumor board. SBRT procedure All patients undergoing initial 4D-CT simulation (Siemens Somatom Definition AS® CT) required immobilization on T-bar/Wingboard with a vac- uum cushion device or thermoplastic mask (for tumors in the apex of the lung). Respiratory mo- tion for tumors in lower lobes was minimized us- ing abdominal compression belt. First two years Novalis Tx linear accelerator (Varian) with Exact Trac verification and correction system was used for detection of patient’s movement. After that TrueBeam STx and True beam linear accelerators with the external respiratory monitoring system [Real-time Position Management (RPM) System, Varian ® Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA] and Optical Surface Monitoring System (OSMS) was used. Patients had pre-treatment and verification CBCT image registered to the planning CT for dai- ly position treatment verification. All set-up errors were corrected before treatment delivery. Internal target volume (ITV) included gross tu- mor volume (GTV) expended by all visible tumor motion on 4D-CT. The planning target volume (PTV) was generated using a 5 mm circumferen- tial expansion of the ITV. Required covering of ITV was at least 99% of the prescription dose. At least 95% of the PTV volume should be covered with 100% of prescribed dose and at least 99% of PTV volume should be covered with 90% of prescribed dose. Maximum dose was prescribed between 125−150% of the prescribed dose for 1−5 fractions and 110−130% for 8 fractions. The most frequently Radiol Oncol 2023; 57(3): 389-396. Stanic K et al. / SBRT of early-stage lung cancer in Slovenia 391 used energy was 6 MV. During the last two years 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF) became the preferred choice. Dose restrictions for organ at risk (OAR) were complied according to our inhouse protocol based on AAPM Task Group 101 report, RTOG 0915 study (for 4 fractions), and LungTech study for 8 fractions. 15-17 Restrictions for spinal cord Pmax were taken after Sahgal et al. 18 Statistical definitions Local control (LC) was defined as no recurrence within the high-dose region of the primary target tumor volume. LC rate was analyzed for all treat- ed tumors. If a patient had more than one lesion treated, progression of any treated lesions was considered a local recurrence for local progression free survival (LPFS) calculation, which was com- puted from the date of RT completion till date of local recurrence, last follow up or death. Disease- free survival (DFS) was defined from the date of completed RT treatment to first either systemic or local recurrence of disease, last follow up or death. Distant metastases free survival (DMFS) was cal- culated from the date of RT completion till date of metastatic spread, last follow up or death. Overall survival (OS) was defined from the date of com- pleted treatment until the date of death or the last contact in months. OS was calculated for each pa- tient regardless of solitary or multiple tumor sta- tuses. The censored cases were defined as the pa- tients still alive at the time of the last follow-up. The one-, two-, three- and five-year OS, DFS, DMFS and LPFS rates were estimated from the cumulative proportion surviving at the particular time (survival table). All p values ≤ 0.05 were con- sidered statistically significant. Data were analyzed using SPSS 25.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Radiation-induced toxicity was categorized ac- cording to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) 5.0. 19 The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee and Review Board (ERIDNPVO-0025/2022). Results Patients Between April 2016 and December 2021, 206 consecutive patients (113 males and 93 females) with 228 tumors were treated at the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana with SBRT due to primary ear- ly-stage lung cancer. Mean age of our patients was 71 years (range 53−89). ECOG performance status was mainly good (0−2, 85.4%), although many of them had multiple comorbidities, the vast major- ity of which were caused by smoking. Most often patients had cardiovascular diseases (ischemic heart disease, heart failure, arterial hypertension, peripheral arterial occlusive disease), lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, interstitial lung disease, emphysema), renal insufficiency and gastrointestinal diseases. Interestingly, almost half TABLE 1. Patient characteristics (n = 206) Characteristic Number % Age mean in years (range) 71.2 (53−89) Gender Male 113 54.9 Female 93 45.1 Other malignancies* yes 96 46.6 no 110 53.4 Number of comorbidities 0−3 125 60.7 > 3 81 39.3 Lung function (%) mean (range) FVC (data available for 153 pts) 87.7 (24-152) FEV1 (data available for 164 pts) 61.4 (17-144) DLCO (data available for 140 pts) 55.6 (15-120) ECOG Performance status before radiotherapy 0 17 8.3 1 78 37.9 2 81 39.2 3 30 14.6 The reason for non-surgery Impaired lung function 92 44.7 Comorbidity 85 41.3 Patient refused 5 2.4 Old age 4 1.9 Combined reasons 20 9.7 *synchronous or in the past DLCO = diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide; ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, FEV1 = forced expiratory volume in 1 second; FVC = forced vital capacity; ptc = patients Radiol Oncol 2023; 57(3): 389-396. Stanic K et al. / SBRT of early-stage lung cancer in Slovenia 392 of the patients had a concurrent or previous ma- lignancy. We also irradiated a patient with several tumors after a heart transplant. Patients were inoperable due to impaired lung function (44.7%), comorbidities (41.3%) or both, but 5 patients refused surgical procedure. Lung function data were not available for all patients (Table 1). Tumors Majority of patients (186) had radiation of a single tumor, 18 patients had 2 tumors and 2 patients 3 tumors. Table 2 shows that vast majority of pa- tients (as per AJCC 8th edition) had T1 tumors (85.1%). Adenocarcinomas were present in 84 tu- mors (36.8%), but nonverified lesions were com- mon as well (36.0%). Tumors were mainly located in upper lobes (66.2%). Treatment Treatment prescription dose was mostly 50−55 Gy in 5 fractions (174 patients), next most common prescription was 54 Gy in 3 fractions (32 patients) and only one patient had a single fraction with 34 Gy delivered. More centrally located tumors were treated with 60 Gy in 8 fractions (16 patients), pre- scription of 48 Gy in 4 fractions was rarely used (3 patients). During the first two years only 3D or dynamic conformal arc technique (ARC) was available for SBRT. New linear accelerators made volumetric modulated arc treatment (VMAT) (57.9%) possible afterwards (Table 3). 18 Median PTV of tumors was 22.4 cubic centime- tres (cc) with wide range of size (5.9−160.4). ITV and PTV coverage as well as PTV dose maximum can be found in Table 3. Outcomes Out of 206 patients, 2 patients did not complete in- tended treatment due to deterioration of medical condition (severe coughing, pleural effusion), but their data were included in the final analysis. They both had only 2 fractions delivered out of 3 frac- tions planned. After 25 months of median follow up (range 1−69), 68 of 206 (33%) patients died. Median OS was 46 months (CI 36−56), 1-year, 2-year and 3-year OS were 87%, 74% and 62% and 5-year OS was 31%. Due to retrospective nature of the analysis cause of death could not be retrieved for 25 pa- TABLE 2. Tumor characteristics (n = 228) Characteristic Number % Histology Adenocarcinoma 84 36.8 Squamous cell carcinoma 38 16.7 Small cell lung cancer 4 1.8 NSCLC unspecified 19 8.3 No tissue diagnosis 82 36.0 Carcinoid 1 0.4 Location Left upper lobe 78 34.2 Left lower lobe 31 13.6 Right upper lobe 73 32.0 Right middle lobe 11 4.8 Right lower lobe 35 15.4 T stage 1 194 85.1 2 27 11.8 3 7 3.1 NSCLC = non-small cell lung cancer TABLE 3. Treatment characteristics (n = 228) Characteristic Number of fractions Number of tumors % 1 1 0.4 2 2 0.9 3 32 14.1 4 3 1.3 5 174 76.3 8 16 7.0 Treatment characteristics Median Mean (range) PTV volume (cc) 22.4 30.6 (5.9-160.4) PTV max dose % 137.5 135.5 (104.7-151.4) ITV coverage % 100 99.7 (66.5-100) PTV coverage (V95) % 95 90.4 (32-100) PTV coverage (V99) % 99.8 99 (88.8-100) BED 115.5 112.3 (59.5-151.2) Technique Number of patents % 3D 62 27.2 ARC 34 14.9 VMAT 132 57.9 ARC = dynamic conformal arc therapy; BED = biological effective dose; ITV = internal target volume; PTV = planning target volume; VMAT = volumetric modulated arc therapy; 3D = conventional conformal therapy Radiol Oncol 2023; 57(3): 389-396. Stanic K et al. / SBRT of early-stage lung cancer in Slovenia 393 tients, others died due to lung cancer (24), cov- id-19 (6), other malignancies (6), emergencies (4) and COPD (3). Altogether, 45 recurrences were reported in 41 (20%) patients. Progression was local only in 5 (2%) patients. In two of those local recurrence of simultaneously irradiated 2 tumors was recorded on all irradiated sites at the same time. Systemic progression was noticed in 32 (15%) patients, who had 34 tumors irradiated (2 simultaneously), while in 4 patients (2%) (4 tumors) progressions were combined. Local recurrences (local + combined) showed malignant growth within PTV in 6 tumors and at the edge of PTV within the steep dose gradi- ent in 5 tumors. Local control rate (LCR) at 1 year was 98%, 96% at 2 and 3 years and 95% at 5 years. Local progres- sion free survival (LPFS) at 1-year, 2-year, 3-year and 5-year were 98%, 96%, 94% and 82%, respec- tively (Figure 1). Interestingly, among 4 patients with small-cell lung cancer neither had local re- currence or systemic disease during the follow up period. Among all patients, 36 (18%) experienced sys- temic disease spread. Distant metastases free sur- vival (DMFS) after 1-year, 2-year and 3-year were 90%, 84% and 74%, while 5-year DMFS was 61%. Systemic spread was noted in lung (28), mediasti- nal lymph nodes (12), brain (5), bone (5), liver (5), pleura (4), and adrenal gland (3). Eighteen patients with progressive disease were still alive at the cut- off date. Outcomes showed 89%, 81%, 72% and 49% of DFS after 1-year, 2-years, 3-years and 5-years, re- spectively. The following toxicities were reported in 28 pa- tients (13.5%): chest wall pain, rib fracture, dysp- nea, pneumonitis, esophagitis, cough, radioderma- titis. Except for one Grade 4 pneumonitis, toxicities were Grade 1 or 2 and of short duration. To assess the factors affecting LPFS, DFS, DMFS and OS, several clinical and dosimetric factors were studied using univariate analysis, including age, gender, tissue diagnosis, tumor location as well as mean and median PTV size, BED, PTV95 coverage, PTV99 coverage, PTV maximum dose, treatment length and treatment technique. Non-significantly better OS was seen for patients with verified tumors compared to non-verified ones (p = 0.06) as shown in Figure 2 and those with better PS (p = 0.07). The only significant difference in median OS was found between patients with 0−3 comorbidities compared to those with 4 and more, 57 months vs. 43 months as shown in Figure 3 (p = 0.03). Discussion SBRT, a noninvasive method of delivering a high ablative radiation dose to a small tumor volume in a few fractions, has become a standard treatment for patients with inoperable early-stage lung can- cer over the past two decades. 21-24 It also offers a 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Time (months) 60 48 36 24 12 0 LPFS Censored Survival Function FIGURE 1. Local progression free survival (LPFS). 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Time (months) 60 48 36 24 12 0 OS yes-censored no-censored yes no Tumor verification p=0.06 FIGURE 2. Overall survival (OS) according to tumor verification. Radiol Oncol 2023; 57(3): 389-396. Stanic K et al. / SBRT of early-stage lung cancer in Slovenia 394 good alternative treatment option for patients who refuse surgery. Institutions report high local control rates for patients with non-small cell lung cancer, reaching up to 95% in small peripheral tumors and negative nodes after 2−5 years. Our 1-year, 2-year, 3-year and 5-year LCR and LPFS compare favorably with published studies. One of early outcome reports in a single center showed 92% 1-year control rate and 89% at 4-year. 25 Singh et al. reported 1- and 2-year LC rates for all patients to be 92% and 85% respec- tively. 26 More recently Abreu et al. found 89.1% LC rate after two years. 27 Latest report from Canadian researchers, who compared 4 different treatment groups (SBRT, hypofractionation, conventional and palliative irradiation) demonstrated that SBRT offered the best local control (94% at 3-years). 28 Overall survival showed 1-year, 2-year and 3-year after SBRT to be 87%, 74% and 62%, while 5-year OS with 31% was not so favorable, however our cohort of patients included highly comorbid individuals. In already mentioned studies other re- searchers report 1-year OS of 92%, 2-year 89% and 3-year 67%. 25,27,28 Resection is the standard treatment for stage I and II lung cancer. 29 Five-year net survival of patients with localized lung cancer exceeded 60% during the period 2012−2016 in Slovenia. 30 Introduction of minimally invasive video-thoraco- scopic surgery represented a revolution in surgical treatment of patients with lung cancer during that period. The latest publication from another surgi- cal center in Slovenia showed that 5-year OS after resection was 70.2% for stage I and 60.2% for stage II. 31 Our 5-year OS with SBRT is lower, however patients in our analysis were inoperable and with many comorbidities that influenced the outcome. Patients without treatment have 20% 5-year OS in stage I. 32 Already ten years ago, Netherland re- searchers reported 7% decrease in untreated non- small cell lung patients in stage I and 8-month im- provement in median survival after introduction of SBRT. 33 Our OS results in inoperable patients with many comorbidities that would otherwise not be treated show that SBRT will undoubtedly contrib- ute to increased survival rates in stage I and stage II lung cancer in Slovenia in the future. OS data can be compared to conventional RT. We do not have local data published, but in literature 3D-RT is inferior in terms of OS. 25,28,35 Moreover, patients with many comorbidities would other- wise only be eligible for palliative radiotherapy or best supportive care. Doupnik et al. compared 4 different treatment groups and reported the worst 3-year survival with palliative irradiation (44%), much lower than for SBRT (67%) which is compa- rable to our 3-year SBRT OS (62%). 28 We report outcomes with diversified histology of lung lesions, moreover, more than a third of pa- tients had no tissue biopsy. The reason might be that most of our patients were treated during cov- id-19 epidemic when less pulmonology diagnos- tics was performed due to the reassignment of pul- monologists to covid wards. While biopsy confir- mation remains a goal in the workup of suspected lung tumors and is recommended in all guidelines due to impaired lung function and other comorbid- ities, in real world situations diagnostic procedure is not possible for up to 25% of patients. 35 Different histological status of tumors (biopsy proven or not) had no influence on LPFS or DFS in our study. Patients who had verified tumors had better OS compared to non-verified ones, however the dif- ference was not statistically significant (p = 0.06). The reason is probably the patient selection. More patients with poor PS, impaired lung function and other comorbidities had no tumor verification and were also not candidates for treatment after pro- gression, especially systemic treatment. In most of the publications SBRT is presented only for NSCLC data. Retrospective data on histologically unverified early-stage NSCLC lesions treated with SBRT, as opposed to histologically verified ones, showed no significant difference regarding OS and 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Time (months) 60 48 36 24 12 0 OS > 3-censored 0-3-censored > 3 0-3 Number of comorbidities p=0.03 FIGURE 3. Overall survival (OS) according to number of comorbidities. Radiol Oncol 2023; 57(3): 389-396. Stanic K et al. / SBRT of early-stage lung cancer in Slovenia 395 local control while similar rates of DFS and dis- tant failure between pathologically confirmed and presumed NSCLC were observed. 36-38 On the other hand, a large systematic review and meta-analysis of total 43 articles showed lower 3-year overall sur- vival and lower 2-year and 5-year cancer-specific survival for biopsy-proven disease compared to clinical disease. However, 5-year OS was the same for both groups. 39 The recommended dose and fractionation are determined by tumor volume and location. Median BED delivered to tumors of our patients was 115.5 Gy. In fact, 91.5% of our patients received dose BED (αβ 10 ) 100 Gy or higher which has been associ- ated with better outcomes for stage I/II NSCLC. 40-42 Higher dose was not associated with better surviv- al or local tumor control in our analysis. The optimal duration over which lung SBRT should be delivered is contradictory. Five-fraction SBRT delivered over non-consecutive days showed superior LC and similar toxicity compared to con- secutive fractionation in study by Alite et al. 43 On the contrary, Ikawa et al. reported beneficial effect on tumor control for consecutive stereotactic body radiotherapy compared to non-consecutive ste- reotactic body radiotherapy. 44 No difference in LC was found in group of our patients who complet- ed treatment within one week compared to those whose treatment was longer. In our analysis, we observed no difference in LPFS or DFS by any patient, tumor, or treatment characteristic. The 5-year OS of 31% was lower than reported in comparable retrospective analyses; however, LPFS was comparable to other outcomes. Again, the reason might be patient selection. Our population of irradiated patients appears to have multiple comorbidities regardless of assessed PS. In fact, significantly better OS was found for pa- tients with less comorbidities. Therefore, in pa- tients with poor PS and significant comorbidities, the benefit of such treatment should carefully be discussed at multidisciplinary tumor board. Limitation Limitations of our study include being retrospec- tive in nature as well as with variation in terms of tumor primary site, size, irradiation dose and his- tology. No strict imaging evaluation timelines were respected and varied according to clinical scenarios as well as toxicity evaluation. No data about ther- apy after progression was collected. Patients with more comorbidities had lower OS in our analysis, however no score system was used for calculation and due to retrospective nature of collected data, information might not be accurate. Conclusions Results for LC, LPFS, DFS and OS in our cohort of inoperable early-stage lung cancer patients of dif- ferent histology treated with SBRT at a single ter- tiary cancer institution showed comparable results to published studies. Patients with many comor- bidities had significantly worse survival compared to those with less comorbidities. No other signifi- cant differences by patient, tumor, or treatment characteristics were found for OS, LPFS, and DFS. Toxicity data confirmed that treatment was well tolerated. References 1. Lu T, Yang X, Huang Y, Zhao M, Li M, Ma K, et al. Trends in the incidence, treatment, and survival of patients with lung cancer in the last four decades. Cancer Manag Res 2019; 11: 943-53. doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S187317 2. Cancer in Slovenia 2019. Ljubljana: Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Epidemiology and Cancer Registry, Slovenian Cancer Registry; 2022. 3. Postmus PE, Kerr KM, Oudkerk M, Senan S, Waller DA, Vansteenkiste J, et al. Early and locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2017; 28: iv1-21. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx222 4. Ettinger DS, Wood DE, Aisner DL, Akerley W, Bauman JR, Bharat A, et al. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) v 1, 2003. [cited 2022 Dec 28]. Available at: https://www.nccn.org/ login?ReturnURL=https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/ nscl.pdf. 5. Guckenberger M, Andratschke N, Alheit H, Holy R, Moustakis C, Nestle U, et al. Definition of stereotactic body radiotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 2014; 190: 26-33. doi: 10.1007/s00066-013-0450-y 6. Guckenberger M, Andratschke N, Dieckmann K, Hoogeman MS, Hoyer M, Hurkmans C, et al. ESTRO ACROP consensus guideline on implementation and practice of stereotactic body radiotherapy for peripherally located early stage non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 2017; 124: 11-7. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.05.012 7. Timmerman RD, Paulus R, Pass HI, Gore EM, Edelman MJ, Galvin J, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for operable early-stage lung cancer findings from the NRG oncology RTOG 0618 trial. JAMA Oncol 2018; 4: 1263-6. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1251 8. Chang JY , Senan S, Paul MA, Mehran RJ, Louie AV, Balter P , et al. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus lobectomy for operable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of two randomised trials. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16: 630-7. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70168-3 9. Chang JY, Mehran RJ, Feng L, Verma V, Liao Z, Welsh JW, et al. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for operable stage I non-small cell lung cancer (revised STARS): long-term results of a single-arm, prospective trial with prespeci- fied comparison to surgery. Lancet Oncol 2021; 22: 1448-57. doi: 10.1016/ S1470-2045(21)00401-0 10. JoLT-Ca sublobar resection (SR) versus stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SAbR) for lung cancer (STABLE-MATES). Clinical-TrialsGov 2015. [cited 2022 Dec 28]. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02468024 11. Veterans affairs lung cancer surgery or stereotactic radiotherapy (VALOR). ClinicalTrialsGov 2016. [cited 2022 Dec 28]. Available at: https://clinicaltri- als.gov/ct2/show/NCT02984761 Radiol Oncol 2023; 57(3): 389-396. Stanic K et al. / SBRT of early-stage lung cancer in Slovenia 396 12. Nyman J, Hallqvist A, Lund JA, Brustugun OT, Bergman B, Bergström P, et al. SPACE – a randomized study of SBRT vs conventional fractionated radio- therapy in medically inoperable stage I NSCLC. Radiother Oncol 2016; 121: 1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.08.015 13. Swaminath A, Parpia S, Wierzbicki M, Kundapur V, Faria SL, Okawara G, et al. LUSTRE: a phase III randomized trial of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) vs. conventionally hypofractionated radiotherapy (CRT) for medically inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 114: 1061-2. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.09.009 14. Ball D, Mai GT , Vinod S, Babington S, Ruben J, Kron T , et al. Stereotactic abla- tive radiotherapy versus standard radiotherapy in stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (TROG 09.02 CHISEL): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20: 494-503. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30896-9 15. Benedict SH, Yenice KM, Followill D, Galvin JM, Hinson W , Kavanagh B, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy: the report of AAPM Task Group 101. Med Phys 2010; 37: 4078-101. doi: 10.1118/1.3438081 16. Videtic GMM, Hu C, Singh AK, Chang JY, Parker W, Olivier KR, et al. A ran- domized phase 2 study comparing 2 stereotactic body radiation therapy schedules for medically inoperable patients with stage I peripheral non- small cell lung cancer: NRG Oncology RTOG 0915 (NCCTG N0927). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015; 93: 757-64. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.07.2260 17. Adebahr S, Collette S, Shash E, Lambrecht M, Le Pechoux C, Faivre-Finn C, et al. LungTech, an EORTC Phase II trial of stereotactic body radiotherapy for centrally located lung tumours: a clinical perspective. Br J Radiol 2015; 88: 20150036. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20150036 18. Sahgal A, Chang JH, Ma L, Marks LB, Milano MT, Medin P , et al. Spinal cord dose tolerance to stereotactic body radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 110: 124-36. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.09.038 19. National Cancer Institute. Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) v5. 2021. [cited 2022 Dec 29]. Available at: https://ctep.cancer .gov/ protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm#ctc_50 20. Peterlin P , Stanič K, Méndez I, Strojnik A. Treating lung cancer with dynamic conformal arc therapy: a dosimetric study. Radiat Oncol 2017; 12: 93. doi: 10.1186/s13014-017-0823-y 21. Baumann P, Nyman J, Hoyer M, Wennberg B, Gagliardi, G, Lax I, et al. Outcome in a prospective phase II trial of medically inoperable stage I non- small-cell lung cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 3290-6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.5681 22. Singh AK, Gomez-Suescun JA, Stephans KL, Bogart JA, Hermann GM, Tian L, et al. One versus three fractions of stereotactic body radiation therapy for peripheral stage I to II non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized, multi- institution, phase 2 trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 105: 752-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.08.019 23. Videtic GM, Paulus R, Singh AK, Chang JY, Parker W, Olivier KR, et al. Long- term follow-up on NRG Oncology RTOG 0915 (NCCTG N0927): a randomized phase 2 study comparing 2 stereotactic body radiation therapy schedules for medically inoperable patients with stage I peripheral non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 103: 1077-84. doi: 10.1016/j. ijrobp.2018.11.051 24. Timmerman RD, Hu C, Michalski JM, Bradley JC, Galvin J, Johnstone DW, et al. Long-term results of stereotactic body radiation therapy in medically inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer. JAMA Oncol 2018; 4: 1287-8. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1258 25. Taremi M, Hope A, Dahele M, Pearson S, Fung S, Purdie T, et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for medically inoperable lung cancer: prospective, single- center study of 108 consecutive patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82: 967-73. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.12.039 26. Singh D, Chen Y, Hare MZ, Usuki KY, Zhang H, Lundquist T, et al. Local control rates with five-fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy for oligo- metastatic cancer to the lung. J Thorac Dis 2014; 6: 369-74. doi: 10.3978/j. issn.2072-1439.2013.12.03 27. Abreu CECV, Moraes FY , Miranda FA, Siqueira GSM, Gadia R, Haddad CK, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for biopsy-proven primary non-small- cell lung cancer: experience of patients with inoperable cancer at a single brazilian institution. J Glob Oncol 2018; 4: 1-8. doi: 10.1200/JGO.18.00020 28. Doupnik NP, Hirmiz K, Hussein AA, Agapito J, Pan M. Early-stage non-small cell lung cancer stereotactic body radiation therapy outcomes in a single institution. Cureus 2022; 14: e21878. doi: 10.7759/cureus.21878 29. Lackey A, Donington JS. Surgical management of lung cancer. Semin Intervent Radiol 2013; 30: 133-40. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1342954 30. Zadnik V, Žagar T, Tomšič S, Lokar K, Duratović Konjević A, Zakotnik B. Survival of cancer patients, diagnosed in 1997-2016 in Slovenia. Ljubljana: Institute of Oncology Ljubljana; 2021. 31. Bitenc M, Cufer T, Kern I, Miklavcic M, Petrovic S, Groznik v, Sadikov A. Real-life long-term outcomes of upfront surgery in patients with resectable stage I-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer. Radiol Oncol 2022; 56: 346-54. doi: 10.2478/raon-2022-0030 32. Mullins K. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: when and why is it appropriate therapy? J Adv Pract Oncol 2015; 6: 351-4. doi: 10.6004/jadpro/2015.6.4.5 33. Haasbeek CJA, Palma D, Visser O, Lagerwaard FJ, Slotman B, Senan S. Early- stage lung cancer in elderly patients: a population-based study of changes in treatment patterns and survival in the Netherlands. Ann Oncol 2012; 23: 2743-7. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mds081 34. von Reibnitz D, Shaikh F, Wu AJ, Treharne GC, Dick-Godfrey R, Foster A, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) improves local control and overall survival compared to conventionally fractionated radiation for stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Acta Oncol 2018; 57: 1567-73. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2018.1481292 35. Ishikura S. Optimal radiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer: current pro- gress and future challenges. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012; 60: 127-31. doi: 10.1007/s11748-011-0832-y 36. Wegner RE, Ahmed N, Hasan S, Schumacher LY , Van Deusen M, Colonias A. SBRT for early stage lung cancer: outcomes from biopsy-proven and em- pirically treated lesions. Lung Cancer Manag 2018; 7: LMT01. doi: 10.2217/ lmt-2018-0006 37. Haidar YM, Rahn DA, Nath S, Song W, Bazhenova L, Makani S, et al. Comparison of outcomes following stereotactic body radiotherapy for non- small cell lung cancer in patients with and without pathological confirma- tion. Ther Adv Respir Dis 2014; 8: 3-12. doi: 10.1177/1753465813512545 38. Hasan S, Colonias A, Mickus T, VanDeusen M, Rodney E. Wegner RE, et al. Image-based management of empiric lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) without biopsy: predictors from a 10 year single institution experi- ence. Thorac Cancer 2018; 9: 699-706. doi: 10.1111/1759-7714.12635 39. IJsseldijk MA, Shoni M, Siegert C, Wiering B, van Engelenburg KCA, Lebenthal A, et al. Survival after stereotactic body radiation therapy for clinically diagnosed or biopsy-proven early-stage NSCLC: a systematic re- view and meta-analysis. J Thorac Oncol 2019; 14: 583-95. doi: 10.1016/j. jtho.2018.12.035 40. Onishi H, Shirato H, Nagata Y, Hiraoka M, Fujino M, Gomi K, et al. Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HypoFXSRT) for stage I non- small cell lung cancer: updated results of 257 patients in a Japanese multi-institutional study. J Thorac Oncol 2007; 2: S94-100. doi: 10.1097/ JTO.0b013e318074de34 41. Zhang J, Yang F, Li B, Li H, Liu J, Huang W, et al. Which is the optimal biologi- cally effective dose of stereotactic body radiotherapy for stage I non-small- cell lung cancer? A meta-analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 81: e305-16. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.04.034 42. Koshy M, Malik R, Weichselbaum RR, Sher DJ. Increasing radiation therapy dose is associated with improved survival in patients undergoing stereotac- tic body radiation therapy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015; 91: 344-50. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.10.002 43. Alite F, Stang K, Balasubramanian N, Adams W, Shaikh MP, Small C, et al. Local control dependence on consecutive vs. nonconsecutive fractionation in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol 2016; 121: 9-14. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.07.026 44. Ikawa T, Tabuchi T, Konishi K, Morimoto M, Hirata T, Kanayama N, et al. Prolonged overall treatment time negatively affects the outcomes of stereotactic body radiotherapy for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: a propensity score-weighted, single-center analysis. PLoS One 2021; 16: e0253203. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253203