Research Article | | Peer-Reviewed

Comparison of Outcome and Toxicities of Concurrent Chemo-radiation Versus Sequential Chemo-radiation in Inoperable Locally Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Received: 21 November 2025     Accepted: 9 December 2025     Published: 7 January 2026
Views:       Downloads:
Abstract

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the standard of care for inoperable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), but its associated toxicities pose a significant challenge, particularly in resource-limited settings, and sequential chemoradiotherapy (SCRT) may offer a more feasible alternative, though with potentially inferior efficacy. This quasi-experimental study, conducted from January 2022 to June 2023, aimed to compare the treatment outcomes and toxicity profiles of CCRT versus SCRT in a real-world Bangladeshi cohort by enrolling 66 patients with LA-NSCLC (Stage IIIA-IIIC) allocated to Arm A (CCRT; n=33), receiving weekly paclitaxel (45 mg/m²) and carboplatin (AUC 2) with concurrent radiotherapy (50 Gy/25 fractions), or Arm B (SCRT; n=33), receiving three cycles of induction paclitaxel (175 mg/m²) and carboplatin (AUC 6) followed by the same radiotherapy regimen, with treatment response assessed using RECIST 1.1 and toxicities graded per CTCAE v5.0. The study population was predominantly male (77.3%), with a mean age of 55.9 years, and had a high prevalence of squamous cell carcinoma (57.6%), and at the 12-week follow-up, the CCRT arm demonstrated a higher complete response rate compared to the SCRT arm (51.5% vs. 33.3%, p=0.535) and a higher overall response rate (84.8% vs. 72.7%, p>0.05), though these differences were not statistically significant, but CCRT was associated with a higher incidence of acute toxicities, notably Grade 2-3 esophagitis (30.3% vs. 15.2%) and Grade 2-3 leucopenia (21.3% vs. 12.1%), while all other hematological and non-hematological toxicities were comparable between the arms and not statistically significant. In conclusion, while CCRT showed a clinically meaningful improvement in treatment response rates, it was associated with increased, though manageable, acute toxicities, and the lack of statistical significance in efficacy, combined with the higher toxicity burden, suggests that SCRT remains a viable and potentially more tolerable treatment option for selected patients in resource-constrained environments where supportive care capabilities are limited.

Published in International Journal of Clinical Oncology and Cancer Research (Volume 11, Issue 1)
DOI 10.11648/j.ijcocr.20261101.11
Page(s) 1-14
Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright

Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC), Locally Advanced Lung Cancer, Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy, Sequential Chemoradiotherapy, Treatment Outcomes, Toxicity Profile, Therapeutic Efficacy, Chemoradiation Sequencing

References
[1] Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021; 71(3): 209-49.
[2] Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, Byrd DR, Brookland RK, Washington MK, et al., editors. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. New York: Springer; 2017.
[3] Morgensztern D, Detterbeck FC, Dorilon A, Goldberg DS, editors. DeVita, Hellman, and Rosenberg's Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology. 12th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2023.
[4] Auperin 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(13): 2181-90.
[5] Curran WJ Jr, Paulus R, Langer CJ, Komaki R, Lee JS, Hauser S, et al. Sequential vs concurrent chemoradiation for stage III non-small cell lung cancer: randomized phase III trial RTOG 9410. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011; 103(19): 1452-60.
[6] Xiao W, Hong M. Concurrent vs sequential chemoradiotherapy for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021; 100(11): e25123.
[7] Conibear J. Rationale for concurrent chemoradiotherapy for patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer. 2020; 123(Suppl 1): 10-7.
[8] Liew MS, Sia J, Starmans MH, Tafreshi A, Harris S, Feigen M, et al. Comparison of toxicity and outcomes of concurrent radiotherapy with carboplatin/paclitaxel or cisplatin/etoposide in stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Med. 2013; 2(6): 916-24.
[9] Spencer A, Williams J, Samuel R, Boon IS, Clarke K, Jain P. Concurrent versus sequential chemoradiotherapy for unresectable locally advanced stage III non-small cell lung cancer: retrospective analysis in a single United Kingdom cancer centre. Cancer Treat Res Commun. 2021; 29: 100460.
[10] 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: Groupe Lyon-Saint-Etienne d'Oncologie Thoracique-Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancérologie NPC 95-01 Study. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23(25): 5910-7.
[11] Hussain SA, Sullivan R. Cancer control in Bangladesh. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2013; 43(12): 1159-69.
[12] Islam MR, Hasan AK, Khatun N, Ridi IN, Rasheed MMO, Islam SMA, et al. Demographic differentials of lung cancer survival in Bangladeshi patients. PLoS One. 2021; 16(12): e0261238.
[13] National Institute of Cancer Research and Hospital (NICRH). Cancer Registry Report 2018-2020. Dhaka: NICRH; 2021.
[14] Luo H, Yu X, Liang N, Xie J, Deng G, Liu Q, et al. The effect of induction chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer who received chemoradiotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96(8): e6084.
[15] Youlden DR, Cramb SM, Baade PD. The International Epidemiology of Lung Cancer: geographical distribution and secular trends. J Thorac Oncol. 2008; 3(8): 819-31.
[16] Gandhi S, Zhao Y, Advani R, Halpern MT, Pandya C, Gross CP, et al. Comparative effectiveness of sequential versus concurrent chemoradiation for stage III non-small cell lung cancer in low-resource settings. J Clin Oncol. 2023; 41(15): 2789-801.
[17] Bradley JD, Hu C, Komaki RR, Masters GA, Blumenschein GR, Schild SE, et al. Long-term results of NRG Oncology RTOG 0617: Standard-versus high-dose chemoradiotherapy with or without cetuximab for unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2020; 38(7): 706-14.
[18] Bade BC, Cruz CSD. Lung cancer 2020: epidemiology, etiology, and prevention. Clin Chest Med. 2020; 41(1): 1-24.
[19] Cruz CSD, Tanoue LT, Matthay RA. Lung cancer: epidemiology, etiology, and prevention. Clin Chest Med. 2011; 32(4): 605-44.
[20] Shah BD, Tyan CC, Rana M, Goodridge D, Hergott CA, Osgood ND, et al. Rural vs urban inequalities in stage at diagnosis for lung cancer. Cancer Treat Res Commun. 2021; 29: 100495.
[21] Xing PY, Zhu YX, Wang L, Hui ZG, Liu SM, Ren JS, et al. What are the clinical symptoms and physical signs for non-small cell lung cancer before diagnosis is made? A nation-wide multicenter 10-year retrospective study in China. Cancer Med. 2019; 8(8): 4055-69.
[22] Mathew A, George PS, Kunnambath R, Mathew BS, Kumar A, Syampramod R, et al. Educational status, cancer stage, and survival in South India: a Population-based study. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020; 6: 1704-11.
[23] Castro S, Sosa E, Lozano V, Akhtar A, Love K, Duffels J, et al. The impact of income and education on lung cancer screening utilization, eligibility, and outcomes: a narrative review of socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer screening. J Thorac Dis. 2021; 13(6): 3745-58.
[24] Zatloukal P, Petruzelka L, Zemanova M, Havel L, Janku F, Judas L, et al. Concurrent versus sequential chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin and vinorelbine in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized study. Lung Cancer. 2004; 46(1): 87-98.
[25] Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982; 5(6): 649-55.
[26] National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Version 3.2023. 2023.
[27] Huber RM, Flentje M, Schmidt M, Pöllinger B, Gosse H, Willner J, et al. Simultaneous chemoradiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone after induction chemotherapy in inoperable stage IIIA or IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer: study CTRT99/97 by the Bronchial Carcinoma Therapy Group. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24(27): 4397-404.
[28] Hoque M. ABC of Research Methodology. 4th ed. Dhaka: BSMMU; 2019.
[29] Liang J, Bi N, Wu S, Chen M, Lv C, Zhao L, et al. Etoposide and cisplatin versus paclitaxel and carboplatin with concurrent thoracic radiotherapy in unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer: a multicenter randomized phase III trial. Ann Oncol. 2017; 28(4): 777-83.
[30] Dobbs J, Barrett A, Ash D. Practical Radiotherapy Planning. 2nd ed. London: Arnold; 1992.
[31] Rourke N, Roque I Figuls M, Farre Bernado N, Macbeth F. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jun 16; 2010(6):CD002140.
[32] Vokes EE, Herndon JE, 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(13): 1698-704.
[33] Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45(2): 228-47.
[34] National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 5.0. Bethesda: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2017.
[35] Buccheri G, Ferrigno D, Tamburini M. Karnofsky and ECOG performance status scoring in lung cancer: a prospective, longitudinal study of 536 patients from a single institution. Eur J Cancer. 1996; 32A(7): 1135-41.
[36] World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013; 310(20): 2191-4.
[37] Furuse, K., Fukuoka, M., Kawahara, M., Nishikawa, H., Takada, Y., Kudoh, S., et al. (1999). Phase III study of concurrent versus sequential thoracic radiotherapy in combination with mitomycin, vindesine, and cisplatin in unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17(9), 2692-2692.
[38] O'Rourke, N., i Figuls, M. R., Bernadó, N. F., & Macbeth, F. (2010). Concurrent chemoradiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (6).
Cite This Article
  • APA Style

    Khatun, A., Tania, M. A., Kabir, S. N., Karim, M. A. (2026). Comparison of Outcome and Toxicities of Concurrent Chemo-radiation Versus Sequential Chemo-radiation in Inoperable Locally Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer. International Journal of Clinical Oncology and Cancer Research, 11(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcocr.20261101.11

    Copy | Download

    ACS Style

    Khatun, A.; Tania, M. A.; Kabir, S. N.; Karim, M. A. Comparison of Outcome and Toxicities of Concurrent Chemo-radiation Versus Sequential Chemo-radiation in Inoperable Locally Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. Cancer Res. 2026, 11(1), 1-14. doi: 10.11648/j.ijcocr.20261101.11

    Copy | Download

    AMA Style

    Khatun A, Tania MA, Kabir SN, Karim MA. Comparison of Outcome and Toxicities of Concurrent Chemo-radiation Versus Sequential Chemo-radiation in Inoperable Locally Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer. Int J Clin Oncol Cancer Res. 2026;11(1):1-14. doi: 10.11648/j.ijcocr.20261101.11

    Copy | Download

  • @article{10.11648/j.ijcocr.20261101.11,
      author = {Ayesha Khatun and Mahbuba Akhter Tania and Sheikh Nazmul Kabir and Md. Abdul Karim},
      title = {Comparison of Outcome and Toxicities of Concurrent Chemo-radiation Versus Sequential Chemo-radiation in Inoperable Locally Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer},
      journal = {International Journal of Clinical Oncology and Cancer Research},
      volume = {11},
      number = {1},
      pages = {1-14},
      doi = {10.11648/j.ijcocr.20261101.11},
      url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcocr.20261101.11},
      eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijcocr.20261101.11},
      abstract = {Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the standard of care for inoperable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), but its associated toxicities pose a significant challenge, particularly in resource-limited settings, and sequential chemoradiotherapy (SCRT) may offer a more feasible alternative, though with potentially inferior efficacy. This quasi-experimental study, conducted from January 2022 to June 2023, aimed to compare the treatment outcomes and toxicity profiles of CCRT versus SCRT in a real-world Bangladeshi cohort by enrolling 66 patients with LA-NSCLC (Stage IIIA-IIIC) allocated to Arm A (CCRT; n=33), receiving weekly paclitaxel (45 mg/m²) and carboplatin (AUC 2) with concurrent radiotherapy (50 Gy/25 fractions), or Arm B (SCRT; n=33), receiving three cycles of induction paclitaxel (175 mg/m²) and carboplatin (AUC 6) followed by the same radiotherapy regimen, with treatment response assessed using RECIST 1.1 and toxicities graded per CTCAE v5.0. The study population was predominantly male (77.3%), with a mean age of 55.9 years, and had a high prevalence of squamous cell carcinoma (57.6%), and at the 12-week follow-up, the CCRT arm demonstrated a higher complete response rate compared to the SCRT arm (51.5% vs. 33.3%, p=0.535) and a higher overall response rate (84.8% vs. 72.7%, p>0.05), though these differences were not statistically significant, but CCRT was associated with a higher incidence of acute toxicities, notably Grade 2-3 esophagitis (30.3% vs. 15.2%) and Grade 2-3 leucopenia (21.3% vs. 12.1%), while all other hematological and non-hematological toxicities were comparable between the arms and not statistically significant. In conclusion, while CCRT showed a clinically meaningful improvement in treatment response rates, it was associated with increased, though manageable, acute toxicities, and the lack of statistical significance in efficacy, combined with the higher toxicity burden, suggests that SCRT remains a viable and potentially more tolerable treatment option for selected patients in resource-constrained environments where supportive care capabilities are limited.},
     year = {2026}
    }
    

    Copy | Download

  • TY  - JOUR
    T1  - Comparison of Outcome and Toxicities of Concurrent Chemo-radiation Versus Sequential Chemo-radiation in Inoperable Locally Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
    AU  - Ayesha Khatun
    AU  - Mahbuba Akhter Tania
    AU  - Sheikh Nazmul Kabir
    AU  - Md. Abdul Karim
    Y1  - 2026/01/07
    PY  - 2026
    N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcocr.20261101.11
    DO  - 10.11648/j.ijcocr.20261101.11
    T2  - International Journal of Clinical Oncology and Cancer Research
    JF  - International Journal of Clinical Oncology and Cancer Research
    JO  - International Journal of Clinical Oncology and Cancer Research
    SP  - 1
    EP  - 14
    PB  - Science Publishing Group
    SN  - 2578-9511
    UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcocr.20261101.11
    AB  - Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the standard of care for inoperable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), but its associated toxicities pose a significant challenge, particularly in resource-limited settings, and sequential chemoradiotherapy (SCRT) may offer a more feasible alternative, though with potentially inferior efficacy. This quasi-experimental study, conducted from January 2022 to June 2023, aimed to compare the treatment outcomes and toxicity profiles of CCRT versus SCRT in a real-world Bangladeshi cohort by enrolling 66 patients with LA-NSCLC (Stage IIIA-IIIC) allocated to Arm A (CCRT; n=33), receiving weekly paclitaxel (45 mg/m²) and carboplatin (AUC 2) with concurrent radiotherapy (50 Gy/25 fractions), or Arm B (SCRT; n=33), receiving three cycles of induction paclitaxel (175 mg/m²) and carboplatin (AUC 6) followed by the same radiotherapy regimen, with treatment response assessed using RECIST 1.1 and toxicities graded per CTCAE v5.0. The study population was predominantly male (77.3%), with a mean age of 55.9 years, and had a high prevalence of squamous cell carcinoma (57.6%), and at the 12-week follow-up, the CCRT arm demonstrated a higher complete response rate compared to the SCRT arm (51.5% vs. 33.3%, p=0.535) and a higher overall response rate (84.8% vs. 72.7%, p>0.05), though these differences were not statistically significant, but CCRT was associated with a higher incidence of acute toxicities, notably Grade 2-3 esophagitis (30.3% vs. 15.2%) and Grade 2-3 leucopenia (21.3% vs. 12.1%), while all other hematological and non-hematological toxicities were comparable between the arms and not statistically significant. In conclusion, while CCRT showed a clinically meaningful improvement in treatment response rates, it was associated with increased, though manageable, acute toxicities, and the lack of statistical significance in efficacy, combined with the higher toxicity burden, suggests that SCRT remains a viable and potentially more tolerable treatment option for selected patients in resource-constrained environments where supportive care capabilities are limited.
    VL  - 11
    IS  - 1
    ER  - 

    Copy | Download

Author Information
  • Sections