A comparison of surgical intervention and stereotactic body radiation therapy for stage I lung cancer in high-risk patients: a decision analysis

A cost-effectiveness analysis of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy in the management of stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer: Results from the TROG 09.02 CHISEL study

INTRODUCTION

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a standard of care treatment for medically inoperable early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The CHISEL trial was a phase 3 randomised controlled trial that compared SABR to conventional radiation therapy (CRT). Using patient-level data, we compared the cost-effectiveness of SABR and CRT for early-stage NSCLC.

METHODS

Data on treatment exposure, outcomes (recurrence, survival) and quality of life (QoL; EORTC QLQ-C30) were sourced from the trial. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated for the trial period using Australian utility weights for the EORTC QLQ-C30-derived QLU-C10D. Costs related to simulation, planning, delivery, verification and post-treatment monitoring were estimated by applying Australian Medicare Benefits Schedule fees. The costs of post-progression therapy and grade ≥3 toxicity were estimated using trial data and relevant literature sources. Cost-effectiveness was investigated as the incremental cost per QALY gained for SABR compared to CRT.

RESULTS

Complete QoL data were available for 21 patients: 14 in the SABR arm and 7 in the CRT arm. Mean QALYs discounted at 5% per annum were similar between arms: 12.68 months for SABR and 12.12 months for CRT. The mean costs of delivering SABR and CRT were $4763 and $6817, respectively. The costs of monitoring were similar in both arms, $4856 and $4853 for SABR and CRT. The mean costs of post-progression therapy were $24,572 for SABR and $42,801 for CRT. The mean costs of grade ≥3 toxicity were $809 in the SABR arm and $132 in the CRT arm. Therefore, the total mean cost for SABR over the period of interest was lower for SABR than CRT. Given lower mean costs and numerically higher QALYs for SABR compared with CRT, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was not calculated.

CONCLUSION

Compared to CRT, SABR is a cost-effective treatment for early-stage NSCLC as the estimated upfront treatment cost and the cost of subsequent care are lower for SABR for comparable mean QALYs. Assessment of the lifetime QALYs and projections of cost estimation will provide a better indication of the long-term cost-effectiveness of SABR.

Economic evaluation of stereotactic radiotherapy and stereotactic radiosurgery technologies in the treatment of cancers: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review study investigated the cost-effectiveness of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for treatment of various types of cancers.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from 30 December 1990 to 1 January 2023. The entered studies were screened in accordance with the inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria encompassed all types of economic evaluation studies that investigated SRT/SRS technologies in the treatment of various cancers.

RESULTS

A total of 47 articles were included in the review. The findings suggest that the use of Linear accelerator technology for the treatment of lung cancer (8 out of 12 studies) and prostate cancer (4 out of 5 studies) was a cost-effective strategy. Linear accelerator was found to be cost-effective in the treatment of liver metastases and liver cancer (2 out of 5 studies). All of the included studies that used Gamma Knife technology in brain metastases reported Gamma-Knife was a cost-effective treatment. Furthermore, in the treatment of prostate and liver cancer, proton therapy was identified as a cost-effective option than other treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that SRT/SRS is a cost-effective procedure for the treatment of various types of cancers. Therefore, it is recommended to use SRT/SRS technology for optimal use of resources.

Dosimetric Analysis of Proximal Bronchial Tree Subsegments to Assess The Risk of Severe Toxicity After Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy of Ultra-central Lung Tumors

•Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for ultra-central lung tumors is associated with high toxicity rates.•To evaluate differences in radiosensitivity within the proximal bronchial tree (PBT), the PBT was sub-segmented into seven anatomical sections.•A risk-adapted SBRT regimen of EQD2_10 = 54.4 Gy in 8 or 10 fractions results in excellent local control and low rates of severe toxicity.•Data from a recent meta-analysis, the NORDIC Hilus trial and dosimetric data from this study were combined to create a NTCP model.•A dose threshold of EQD2_3 = 100 Gy to the PBT or any of its subsegments is expected to result in low rates of severe bronchial toxicity.

Systematic review of economic evaluations on stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) compared to other radiotherapy techniques or surgical procedures for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is recommended as first-choice treatment to inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it is not widely adopted in developing countries, and its cost-effectiveness is unclear. We aimed to perform a systematic review of full economic evaluations (EE) that compared SABR with other radiotherapy or surgical procedures to assess the results and methodological approach.

METHODS

The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021241640). We included full EE studies with early-stage NSCLC in which one group was submitted to SABR. Studies that were partial EE, included advanced NSCLC or other neoplasm were excluded. We performed the last search on June 2021 in Medline, EMBASE and other databases. The reporting quality were assessed by CHEERS checklist. The main characteristics of each study were tabulated, and the results were presented by a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

We included nine studies. Three compared radiotherapy techniques, in which SABR was found to be dominant or cost-effective. Six compared SABR with surgery, and in this group, there was not a unanimous decision. All included only direct healthcare costs but varied about categories included. The parameters used in the model-based studies were highly heterogeneous using mixed data from various sources. The items properly reported varied from 29 to 67%.

CONCLUSIONS

The studies were all from developed countries and lacked in reporting quality. We recommend that developing countries produce their own studies. More strict alignment to reporting guidelines and use of robust evidence as model parameters are also advised.

Comparison of stereotactic body radiotherapy and radiofrequency ablation for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are recommended for patients with inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with both offering promising results. However, it is largely unknown which of these two treatment modalities provides superior benefits for patients. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis compared clinical outcomes and safety between SBRT and RFA in patients with inoperable early-stage NSCLC.

Methods

Eligible studies published between 2001 and 2020 were obtained through a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Original English-language studies on the treatment of early-stage NSCLC with SBRT or RFA were included. Local control (LC) rates, overall survival (OS) rates, and adverse events were obtained by pooled analyses.

Results

Eighty-seven SBRT studies (12,811 patients) and 18 RFA studies (1,535 patients) met the eligibility criteria. For SBRT, the LC rates (with 95% confidence intervals) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years were 98% (97-98%), 95% (95-96%), 92% (91-93%), and 92% (91-93%), respectively, which were significantly higher than those for RFA [75% (69-82%), 31% (22-39%), 67% (58-76%), and 41% (30-52%), respectively] (P<0.01). There were no significant differences in short-term OS between SBRT and RFA [1-year OS rate: 87% (86-88%) versus 89% (88-91%), P=0.07; 2-year OS rate: 71% (69-72%) versus 69% (64-74%), P=0.42]. Regarding long-term OS, the 3- and 5-year OS rates for SBRT were 58% (56-59%) and 39% (37-40%), respectively, which were significantly (P<0.01) superior to those for RFA [48% (45-51%) and 21% (19-23%), respectively]. The most common complication of SBRT was radiation pneumonitis (grade ≥2), making up 9.1% of patients treated with SBRT, while pneumothorax was the most common complication of RFA, making up 27.2% of patients treated with RFA.

Discussion

Compared with RFA, SBRT has superior LC and long-term OS rates but similar short-term OS rates. Prospective randomized trials with large sample sizes comparing the efficacy of SBRT and RFA are warranted.

Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic body radiotherapy in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to systematically review the studies on the cost-effectiveness of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in databases from 2000 through April 2021. The search terms included 'economics,' 'cost,' 'cost effectiveness,' 'SBRT,' and all names for NSCLC. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts and full texts to determine the studies for the final sample. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies checklist.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were identified and included in our final review. SBRT was reported to be a cost-effective (5 of 5) option compared to conventional radiotherapy, radiofrequency ablation, and best supportive care for medically inoperable, early-stage NSCLC. However, the identified studies revealed that no single treatment was found to be more cost-effective than others between SBRT and surgical interventions. The key drivers of this cost-effectiveness were the cost of the treatment, utility value, and the rate of surgical mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

SBRT may be considered a more cost-effective strategy for medically inoperable, early-stage NSCLC. Considering the limited studies available, more related research should be conducted to further validate these results.

Computed Tomography-Guided Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation in Older Adults With Early-Stage Peripheral Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Objectives

To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of computed tomography(CT)-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in medically inoperable older adults with clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the records of medically inoperable older adults (≥70 years) with clinical stage I NSCLC who underwent percutaneous multi-tined electrode RFA at our institution between January 2014 and December 2018. We analyzed the patients’ characteristics, therapy response, survival, as well as the procedure-related complications.

Results

Eighteen patients (10 men and 8 women) with a mean age of 75.9 (71−85) years were treated in during the study period. The median tumor size was 25 mm (range, 19−43 mm); 10 and 8 cases involved stage T1 and T2a disease, respectively. The median follow-up duration was 25 (11–45) months. RFA was technically successful for all 18 lesions, with no treatment-related mortality. The disease control rate was 83.3% (15/18 lesions). There were 6 cases of pneumothorax: one symptomatic case requiring thoracic drainage, and five requiring no treatment. Minor complications, including pulmonary infection, chest pain, fever, and cough, were treated within 4 days (range, 1−4 days). The progression-free survival rates were 83.3%, 64.9%, and 51.9% 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. The corresponding overall survival rates were 92.2%, 81.5%, and 54.3%, respectively.

Conclusions

CT-guided percutaneous RFA is safe and effective in medically inoperable patients with stage I NSCLC and could be an alternative therapeutic strategy, particularly in older adults with early-stage peripheral lung cancer.

SPECT/CT versus planar imaging to determine treatment strategy for non-small-cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Aim: SPECT/CT has been found to improve predicted postoperative forced expiratory volume in one second (ppoFEV₁) assessments in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: An economic simulation was developed comparing the cost-effectiveness of SPECT/CT versus planar scintigraphy for a US payer. Clinical outcomes and cost data were obtained through review of the published literature. Results: SPECT/CT increased the accuracy ppoFEV₁ assessment, changing the therapeutic decision for 1.3% of nonsurgical patients to a surgical option, while 3.3% of surgical patients shifted to more aggressive procedures. SPECT/CT led to an expected cost of $4694 per life year gained, well below typical thresholds. Conclusion: SPECT/CT resulted in substantially improved health outcomes and was found to be highly cost-effective.

Late Toxicity and Long-Term Local Control in Patients With Ultra-Central Lung Tumours Treated by Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy-Based Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy With Homogenous Dose Prescription

AIMS

To report late toxicity and long-term outcomes of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)-based stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in patients with ultra-central lung tumours.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a single-institution retrospective analysis of patients treated with SABR for ultra-central tumours between May 2008 and April 2016. Ultra-central location was defined as tumour (GTV) abutting or involving trachea, main or lobar bronchi. Respiratory motion management and static-field dynamic-IMRT were used, with dose prescribed homogeneously (maximum <120%). Descriptive analysis, Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test and Cox regression were used to assess outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixty-five per cent of patients had inoperable primary non-small cell lung cancer and 35% had lung oligometastases. The median age was 72 (range 34-85) years. The median gross tumour volume and planning target volume (PTV) were 19.6 (range 1.7-203.3) cm³ and 57.4 (range 7.7-426.6) cm³, respectively. The most commonly used dose fractionation was 60 Gy in eight fractions (n = 51, 87.8%). Median BED₁₀ for D98%PTV and D2%PTV were 102.6 Gy and 115.06 Gy, respectively. With a median follow-up of 26.5 (range 3.2-100.5) months, fatal haemoptysis occurred in five patients (8.7%), of which two were directly attributable to SABR. A statistically significant difference was identified between median BED₃ for 4 cm³ of airway, for patients who developed haemoptysis versus those who did not (147.4 versus 47.2 Gy, P = 0.005). At the last known follow-up, 50 patients (87.7%) were without local recurrence. Freedom from local progression at 2 and 4 years was 92 and 79.8%, respectively. The median overall survival was 34.3 (95% confidence interval 6.1-61.6) months. Overall survival at 2 and 4 years was 55.1 and 41.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In patients with high-risk ultra-central lung tumours, IMRT-based SABR with homogenous dose prescription achieves high local control, similar to that reported for peripheral tumours. Although fatal haemoptysis occurred in 8.7% of patients, a direct causality with SABR was evident in only 3%. Larger studies are warranted to ascertain factors associated with outcomes, especially toxicity, and identify patients who would probably benefit from this treatment.

Survival Outcomes of Treatment with Radiofrequency Ablation, Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy, or Sublobar Resection for Patients with Clinical Stage I Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Single-Center Evaluation

PURPOSE

To retrospectively compare the outcomes of radiofrequency (RF) ablation, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), and sublobar resection (SLR) in patients with stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at a single center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Overall, 289 patients (38 RF ablation, 58 SBRT, and 193 SLR) were included. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated, multiple propensity score was estimated using a multinomial logistic regression model, and relationships between treatments and outcomes were assessed using a Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratios (HRs) for death from any cause and disease progression or death from any cause were examined by a crude model, an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) model, and an IPTW model adjusted for missing variables.

RESULTS

The 5-year overall and progression-free survival rates were 58.9% and 39.9%, respectively, for RF ablation; 42.0% and 34.9%, respectively, for SBRT; and 85.5% and 75.9%, respectively, for SLR. Significantly longer survival time and lower HR were observed for SLR than other treatments. However, after statistical adjustment, these relationships were not significant except for reduced HR of disease progression or death from any cause of SLR compared to RF ablation in the IPTW model. The median hospital stays for RF ablation, SBRT, and SLR were 6.5, 6, and 16 days, respectively. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred only in 11 SLR cases.

CONCLUSIONS

SLR achieved the longest survival. However, after statistical adjustment, there were no significant outcome differences among RF ablation, SBRT, and SLR, except for 1 model. RF ablation or SBRT may be alternative treatments for selected patients with early-stage NSCLC.

Oncologic Outcomes of Surgery Versus SBRT for Non-Small-Cell Lung Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment of stage I non-small-cell lung carcinoma is subject to debate. The aim of this study was to compare overall survival and oncologic outcomes of lobar resection (LR), sublobar resection (SR), and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT).

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of oncologic outcomes of propensity matched comparative and noncomparative cohort studies was performed. Outcomes of interest were overall survival and disease-free survival. The inverse variance method and the random-effects method for meta-analysis were utilized to assess the pooled estimates.

RESULTS

A total of 100 studies with patients treated for clinical stage I non-small-cell lung carcinoma were included. Long-term overall and disease-free survival after LR was superior over SBRT in all comparisons, and for most comparisons, SR was superior to SBRT. Noncomparative studies showed superior long-term overall and disease-free survival for both LR and SR over SBRT. Although the papers were heterogeneous and of low quality, results remained essentially the same throughout a large number of stratifications and sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that LR has superior outcomes compared to SBRT for cI non-small-cell lung carcinoma. New trials are underway evaluating long-term results of SBRT in potentially operable patients.

The Effect of Socioeconomic Status on Treatment and Mortality in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Treatment decisions for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are based on patient and tumor characteristics, including socioeconomic status (SES) factors. The objective was to assess the contribution of SES factors to treatment and outcomes among patients with stage I NSCLC.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for operable patients with stage I NSCLC. Patients were divided into three treatment groups: primary resection (ie, surgery only); nonstandard treatments consisting of chemotherapy with or without radiation; and no therapy. The SES of patients who made up the treatment groups was assessed, and the 5-year survival of all groups was analyzed.

RESULTS

The cohort included 69,168 patients with stage I NSCLC. Each of these patients had between zero and five SES risk factors. The factors associated with no surgery were low income, nonwhite race, low high school graduation rate, Medicaid or no insurance, rural residence, and distance less than 12.5 miles from treatment facility. Patients with several SES risk factors have linearly increasing odds of undergoing nonstandard treatments and quadratically increasing odds of having no therapy (for patients with five factors, to odds ratio 4.7; 95% confidence interval, 3.44 to 6.30). Surgery alone was associated with significantly longer 5-year survival (71.8%) compared with nonstandard treatments (22.7%) and no therapy (21.8%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Socioeconomic status factors increase the risk of undergoing guideline discordant therapy for stage I NSCLC. As the number of SES factors increases, the odds of no therapy rises quadratically whereas the odds of nonstandard treatments rises constantly. The surgery only group had significantly longer survival than the nonstandard treatment and no therapy groups.

[Stereotactic radiotherapy of stage I non-small cell lung cancer. State of the art in 2019 and recommendations: Stereotaxy as an alternative to surgery?]

Stereotactic radiotherapy (or Stereotactic body radiotherapy [SBRT]) is a technique currently well established in the therapeutic arsenal for the management of bronchial cancers. It represents the standard treatment for inoperable patients or who refuses surgery. It is well tolerated, especially in elderly and frail patients, and the current issue is to define its indications in operated patients, based on retrospective and randomized trials comparing stereotactic radiotherapy and surgery, with results equivalents. This work analyzes in detail the different aspects of pulmonary stereotactic radiotherapy and suggests arguments that help in the therapeutic choice between surgery and stereotaxic irradiation. In all cases, the therapeutic decision must be discussed in a multidisciplinary consultation meeting, while informing the patient of the possible therapeutic options.

Video-assisted thoracic lobectomy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer in elderly patients: a propensity matched comparative analysis

Comparative studies of the overall survival (OS) in elderly patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after surgery or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) have been limited by mixed extents of resection and different surgical approaches.

792 patients aged ≥65 years with clinical stage I NSCLC underwent video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) lobectomy or SBRT between 2010 and 2015. The propensity score-matched primary analysis included data from the full cohort; the secondary analysis included data from a subgroup of patients with data on pulmonary function.

Median OS for unmatched patients was 77 months for patients undergoing VATS lobectomy and 38 months for SBRT. The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rates after VATS lobectomy were 92%, 76% and 65%, and after SBRT were 90%, 52% and 29% (p<0.001). Median OS for matched patients in the primary analysis was 77 months for patients undergoing VATS lobectomy and 33 months for SBRT. The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rates after VATS lobectomy were 91%, 68% and 58%, and after SBRT were 87%, 46% and 29% (p<0.001). The survival advantage with VATS lobectomy persisted in the secondary analysis after adjusting for non-matched variables (p=0.034).

We suggest that elderly patients with stage I NSCLC undergoing VATS lobectomy have a better rate of OS than patients undergoing SBRT, irrespective of matching. This could be clinically important in decision-making for elderly patients who can tolerate surgery.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of stereotactic body radiation therapy versus surgery for patients with non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

Stereotactic body radiation therapy is the preferred treatment modality for patients with inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. However, comparative outcomes between stereotactic body radiation therapy and surgery for high-risk patients remain controversial. The primary aim of the present meta-analysis was to assess overall survival in matched and unmatched patient cohorts undergoing stereotactic body radiation therapy or surgery. Secondary end points included cancer-specific survival, disease-free survival, disease recurrence, and perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of relevant studies was performed through online databases using predefined criteria. The most updated studies were selected for meta-analysis according to unmatched and matched patient cohorts.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were identified in the systematic review, and 23 were selected for quantitative analysis. Surgery was associated with superior overall survival in both unmatched (odds ratio, 2.49; 95% confidence interval, 2.10-2.94; P < .00001) and matched (odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-1.93; P < .00001) cohorts. Subgroup analysis demonstrated superior overall survival for lobectomy and sublobar resection compared with stereotactic body radiation therapy. In unmatched and matched cohorts, cancer-specific survival, disease-free survival, and freedom from locoregional recurrence were superior after surgery. However, stereotactic body radiation therapy was associated with fewer perioperative deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence suggests surgery is superior to stereotactic body radiation therapy in terms of mid- and long-term clinical outcomes; stereotactic body radiation therapy is associated with lower perioperative mortality. However, the improved outcomes after surgery may be due at least in part to an imbalance of baseline characteristics. Future studies should aim to provide histopathologic confirmation of malignancy and compare stereotactic body radiation therapy with minimally invasive anatomical resections.

Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy as an Alternative to Lobectomy in Patients With Medically Operable Stage I NSCLC: A Retrospective, Multicenter Analysis

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic ablative body radiation therapy (SBRT) has evolved as the standard treatment for patients with inoperable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report the results of a retrospective analysis conducted on a large, well-controlled cohort of patients with stage I to II NSCLC who underwent lobectomy (LOB) or SBRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred eighty-seven patients with clinical-stage T1a-T2bNoMO NSCLC were treated in 2 academic hospitals between August 2008 and May 2015. Patients underwent LOB or SBRT; those undergoing SBRT were sub-classified as surgical candidates and nonsurgical candidates, according to the presence of surgical contraindications or comorbidities.

RESULTS

In univariate analysis, no significant difference was found in local control between patients who underwent SBRT and LOB, with a trend in favor of surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07-1.01; P < .053). Univariate analysis showed that overall survival (OS) was significantly better in patients who underwent LOB (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.85) with a 3-year OS of 73.4% versus 65.2% for surgery and radiation therapy patients, respectively (P < .01). However, no difference in OS was observed between operable patients undergoing SBRT and patients who underwent LOB (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 0.72-3.90). Progression-free survival was comparable between patients who underwent LOB and SBRT (HR, 0.61; P = .09).

CONCLUSION

SBRT is a valid therapeutic approach in early-stage NSCLC. Furthermore, SBRT seems to be very well-tolerated and might lead to the same optimal locoregional control provided by surgery for patients with either operable or inoperable early-stage NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of stereotactic body radiotherapy and surgery for medically operable early stage non small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Projections estimate an increase of 50% of the incidence of lung cancer by 2030. Early-stage non-small cell lung cancer represented 19% of NSCLC cases diagnosed in the US between 2005 and 2011. There is rising evidence in favour of lung cancer screening, which will reduce the occurrence of later-stage lung cancers while raising the incidence of early-stage NSCLC. Current guidelines state that for early-stage NSCLC, surgical resection should be performed, and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an option for patients who are non-medically operable. In this study, we compared the cost-effectiveness of SBRT with lobectomy in medically operable patients.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model based on the survival results of two randomized studies comparing SBRT and video assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy in early-stage NSCLC, to describe survival and treatment related complications of patients treated for early-stage NSCLC. This analysis was conducted from the French payer perspective on a lifetime perspective. Utility values, recurrence risks, and costs were adapted from the literature. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the influence of the assumptions made.

RESULTS

The Markov model developed was consistent with survival data reported in the pool analysis of the randomized studies. SBRT and lobectomy total costs were 9,234.15€ and 10,726.98€, respectively, and the quality-adjusted life expectancies were 16.35 and 15.80 QALYs, respectively. The DSA, run on every assumption made, revealed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was mainly sensitive to the decrement of utility caused by treatment related complications and initial cost of both surgery and SBRT. The PSA showed that SBRT had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness compared to lobectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first medico-economic study evaluating SBRT and lobectomy in stage I NSCLC based on randomized studies, and our analyses suggest that SBRT is dominant over lobectomy in operable early-stage NSCLC treatment. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed that this result was robust and that it was not modified by the assumptions made in the Markov model building.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus lobectomy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is debate regarding the use of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) or surgery for patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This meta-analysis compared the clinical efficacy of SABR and lobectomy in stage I NSCLC patients.

METHODS

An online search identified eight eligible articles (including 2 trials and 7 cohort studies) for inclusion. The odds ratio (OR) was used as a summary statistic. Overall survival (OS), cause-specific survival (CSS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were selected to calculate ORs with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Fixed-effects or random-effects models were conducted according to study heterogeneity.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between SABR and lobectomy in terms of one-year OS or CSS. Significant benefits of surgery were observed in three-year OS (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.55-2.86), three-year CSS (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.05-3.57), three-year RFS (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12-2.36), and five-year OS (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.71-3.36). In addition, lobectomy demonstrated a beneficial trend in one-year RFS, five-year RFS, and CSS.

CONCLUSION

Meta-analyses of current evidence suggested that lobectomy provides better long-term survival outcomes for stage I NSCLC patients.

Sublobar resection is associated with improved outcomes over radiotherapy in the management of high-risk elderly patients with Stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and Aim

A matched-pair comparison was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of sublobar resection versus radiotherapy for high-risk elderly patients with Stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Patients and Methods

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and manual searches. The meta-analysis was performed to compare overall survival, pattern of failure, and toxicity among the homogeneous studies. Subdivided analyses were also performed.

Results

Sixteen studies containing 11540 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among these studies, 9 were propensity-score matched (PSM) cohort studies, and 7 were cohort studies. Sublobar resection, compared with radiotherapy (either conventional fraction radiation therapy or stereotactic body radiation therapy), significantly improved the overall survival regardless in both PSM and non-PSM analyses (all p < 0.05). However, the difference in the pattern of failure and toxicity were not significant (all p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Sublobar resection was associated with improved outcomes in high-risk elderly patients with Stage I NSCLC, which supports the need to compare both treatments in large prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trials.

Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy Versus Surgery in Early Lung Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Propensity Score Studies

PURPOSE

As no completed randomized trials of surgery versus stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer are available, numerous propensity score studies have attempted to mimic the setting of clinical trials using nonrandomized data. We performed a meta-analysis of propensity score studies comparing SABR and surgery.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The MEDLINE and Embase databases were queried up to December 2016. Two authors independently reviewed the records for inclusion and extracted outcome measures. The study was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines. The primary meta-analysis and secondary analyses were carried out using R (version 3.3.2) at a significance level of .05.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Overall survival favored surgery (hazard ratio for SABR vs surgery, 1.48 [95% confidence interval, 1.26-1.72]; I² = 80.5%). Lung cancer-specific survival was not significantly different between SABR and surgery (hazard ratio, 1.17 [95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.50]; I² = 18.6%). On stratification, overall survival favored both lobectomy and sublobar resection over SABR, although lung cancer-specific survival was again not significantly different. On secondary analysis, the lymph node upstaging rate was 15.6% following surgery, with 11.4% of patients receiving chemotherapy. The propensity score-matching caliper distance and first-author specialty were found to be associated with survival endpoints on regression.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer who are eligible for either treatment, better overall survival was seen after surgery compared with SABR. However, lung cancer-specific survival was similar for both treatments. Prospective clinical trials are preferred to propensity analyses in evaluating the nature of non-cancer-related death after SABR.

Surgery versus stereotactic body radiation therapy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer: A comprehensive review

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. With the implementation of lung cancer screening, the number and proportion of patients diagnosed with early-stage disease are anticipated to increase. Surgery is currently the standard of care for patients with operable stage I NSCLC. However, promising outcomes with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in patients with inoperable disease has led to interest in directly comparing SBRT and surgery in operable patients. Unfortunately, early randomized trials comparing surgery and SBRT closed early because of poor accrual. In this article, the nuances of surgery and SBRT for early-stage NSCLC are reviewed. Furthermore, retrospective and prospective analyses of SBRT in early-stage NSCLC are discussed, and active randomized trials comparing these 2 approaches are described. Cancer 2018;124:667-78. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

A Propensity-Matched Analysis of Outcomes of Patients with Clinical Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated surgically or with stereotactic radiotherapy: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy between SBRT and surgery based on the Propensity-Matched Analysis.

METHODS

Publications on comparison SBRT and Surgery for early stage non- small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from 2011 to 2017 were collected. Propensity score matching was used to achieve comparable treatment hazard ratios of the overall survival (OS), local control survival (LC), regional control survival (RC), loco-regional control survival (LRC), distant control survival (DC), disease-free survival (DFS), and progression-free survival (PFS) between SBRT and Surgery. The major outcomes measures were hazard ratios (HRs). Meta-analysis Revman 5.3 software was used to analyze the combined Pooled HRs using fixed- or random-effects models according to the heterogeneity.

RESULT

Eleven studies met our inclusion criteria. The LC, L-R C, DC, DFS and PFS rates of patients with early-stage lung cancer who were treated with SBRT are equal to surgical results. While, patients with surgery achieved superior OS compared with SBRT.

CONCLUSION

In this study we carried out a meta-analysis, which controls the acceptable level of the efficacy in the propensity score to match patients. The surgery had obvious OS advantages in this meta-analysis. However, these conclusions would be proven by further studies incorporating comorbidity data, and outcomes from randomized control study. The final decision for the optimal treatment of a patient with early-stage NSCLC can be substantiated by a personalized treatment model.

Survival Outcome after Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy and Surgery for Early Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Treatment modalities in medically compromised patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are controversial. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) or stereotactic ablative radiotherapy has been increasingly recognized as a favorable alternative to surgical resection for early-stage NSCLC. Many retrospective analyses compared the efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with surgery for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the efficacy between SBRT and surgery regimens for patients with early-stage NSCLC remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy between SBRT and surgery.

METHODS

Publications on comparison SBRT with Surgery in treatment of early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from 2011 to 2017 were collected. Retrospective trials analyzed the summary hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), local control survival (LC), regional control survival (RC), loco-regional control survival (LRC), and distant control survival (DC) between SBRT and Surgery. The major outcomes measures were hazard ratios (HRs). Meta-analysis Revman 5.3 software was used to analyze the combined Pooled HRs using fixed- or random-effects models according to the heterogeneity.

RESULT

A systematic literature search was conducted including14 studies. In this meta-analysis, patients with SBRT achieved inferior OS, DFS, LC, RC, LRC and DC, compared with surgery.

CONCLUSION

In this study we found more favorable outcomes with stage I NSCLC treated with SBRT. The surgery had no obvious advantages in this meta-analysis. Although surgery has become the recommended treatment at present, SBRT has potential to be an alternative treatment as a novel non-invasive radiation therapy modality in patients with stage I-II NSCLC.

Cost-Effectiveness of Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: a Critical Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to summarize and appraise published cost-effectiveness studies on stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).

RECENT FINDINGS

We performed a Medline search of cost-effectiveness studies of SRS, SBRT, and other cancer treatment modalities such as surgery and systemic therapy from 2006 to 2016. We included studies that used both modeling and retrospective review techniques. We excluded studies of benign disease. We defined a strategy whose incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is ≤$50,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) as "clearly cost-effective," a strategy whose ICER is ≤$100,000/QALY as "probably cost-effective," and a strategy ≤$200,000/QALY as "possibly cost-effective." We appraised modeling studies by determining whether or not they conform to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices (ISPOR) in modeling task force good research practices in model transparency and validation. We identified 24 studies that met inclusion criteria. Treatment sites included brain, bone, liver, lung, pancreas, and prostate. SRS and SBRT were clearly cost-effective strategies in 17 studies, probably cost-effective in 3 studies, and possibly cost-effective in 2 studies. Of the 16 modeling studies,15 conformed to transparency best practices; however, only 6 studies performed rigorous validation as described by the ISPOR guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

SRS and SBRT are likely to be cost-effective management strategies across a large variety of treatment sites and techniques. However, rigorous model validation techniques are lacking in these modeling studies.

Salvage pulmonary resection after stereotactic body radiotherapy: A feasible and safe option for local failure in selected patients

OBJECTIVE

For inoperable patients with pulmonary malignancy, stereotactic body radiotherapy is a reasonable therapeutic option. Despite good early tumor control, local failure occurs in up to 10% of patients by 3 years. Because management of local recurrence after stereotactic body radiotherapy is unclear, we evaluated use of surgery as a salvage option.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of consecutive patients from a single institution who underwent salvage resection of primary and metastatic pulmonary malignancies previously treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy. In addition, a literature search was conducted to identify previous reports of pulmonary resection for local stereotactic body radiotherapy failures, to allow cumulative analyses with previously published cases.

RESULTS

A total of 21 patients met inclusion criteria. The median time between stereotactic body radiotherapy and salvage surgery was 16.2 months (range, 6.4-71.5). Postoperative complications occurred in 7 patients (18.9%), in whom atrial arrhythmias and prolonged air leaks (>5 days) were most frequent (n = 2 each, 5.4%). There was no local recurrence after salvage surgery. Distant failure occurred in 5 of 21 patients (23.8%) at a median of 36.2 months, and median disease-free survival was 19.2 months. The 30- and 90-day mortality was 4.8% (1 patient). Cumulative analysis included 37 patients from 4 institutions and comprised 26 (78.8%) primary non-small cell lung cancers and 11 (29.7%) lung metastases. Median overall survival after salvage surgery was 46.9 months, and 3-year survival was 71.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

After local failure of stereotactic body radiotherapy, salvage resection remains a viable option for operable patients, with acceptable morbidity and survival. As use of stereotactic body radiotherapy continues to expand, further studies to evaluate the optimal management for local failure are needed.

Impact of maximum standardized uptake value of non-small cell lung cancer on detecting lymph node involvement in potential stereotactic body radiotherapy candidates

BACKGROUND

The retrospective study investigated the association between the maximum standardized uptake value (SUV_max) of primary tumor and lymph node involvement in potential stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) candidates.

METHODS

A total of 185 patients with clinical stage I NSCLC were enrolled in the current study. All patients underwent lobectomy with systematic lymph node dissection following preoperative FDG-PET/CT scanning. The association between clinicopathological variables and lymph node involvement was analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis. Spearman's correlation test was used to evaluate the correlation between them. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to calculate the area under the curve.

RESULTS

Among these patients, 22.1% had occult lymph node involvement, 15.1% were N1 and 7.0% were N2. Greater tumor size (P=0.007), elevated CEA (P=0.006), central location (P=0.002), higher SUV_max (P<0.001), solid nodule type (P=0.002), visceral pleural invasion (P=0.001) and presence of micropapillary and solid patterns (P=0.002) were significantly associated with lymph node involvement. In multivariate analysis, lymph node involvement was associated with central location (OR 5.784, 95% CI: 1.584-21.114, P=0.008), SUV_max (increase of 1 unite, OR 1.147, 95% CI: 1.035-1.272, P=0.009) and visceral pleural invasion (OR 3.044, 95% CI: 1.369-6.769, P=0.006). ROC area under the curve of SUV_max for lymph node involvement was 0.770 (95% CI: 0.698-0.841), the sensitivity and specificity were 85.4% and 63.2%, respectively. Spearman's correlation test showed that SUV_max of tumor mostly depended on tumor size and nodule type.

CONCLUSIONS

SUV_max of primary tumor was a predictor of lymph node involvement for potential SBRT candidates. Centrally located tumor and visceral pleural invasion were related to higher rate of nodal metastasis. Lobectomy and systemic lymph node dissection should be performed in these patients, instead of SBRT.

Patient Preferences in Treatment Choices for Early-Stage Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Decision-making for lung cancer treatment can be complex because it involves both provider recommendations based on the patient's clinical condition and patient preferences. This study describes the relative importance of several considerations in lung cancer treatment from the patient's perspective.

METHODS

A conjoint preference experiment began by asking respondents to imagine that they had just been diagnosed with lung cancer. Respondents then chose among procedures that differed regarding treatment modalities, the potential for treatment-related complications, the likelihood of recurrence, provider case volume, and distance needed to travel for treatment. Conjoint analysis derived relative weights for these attributes.

RESULTS

A total of 225 responses were analyzed. Respondents were most willing to accept minimally invasive operations for treatment of their hypothetical lung cancer, followed by stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT); they were least willing to accept thoracotomy. Treatment type and risk of recurrence were the most important attributes from the conjoint experiment (each with a relative weight of 0.23), followed by provider volume (relative weight of 0.21), risk of major complications (relative weight of 0.18), and distance needed to travel for treatment (relative weight of 0.15). Procedural and treatment preferences did not vary with demographics, self-reported health status, or familiarity with the procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Survey respondents preferred minimally invasive operations over SBRT or thoracotomy for treatment of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Treatment modality and risk of cancer recurrence were the most important factors associated with treatment preferences. Provider experience outweighed the potential need to travel for lung cancer treatment.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung cancer: how much does it really cost?

INTRODUCTION

Despite the lack of randomized evidence, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is being accepted as superior to conventional radiotherapy for patients with T1-2N0 non-small-cell lung cancer in the periphery of the lung and unfit or unwilling to undergo surgery. To introduce SBRT in a system of coverage with evidence development, a correct financing had to be determined.

METHODS

A time-driven activity-based costing model for radiotherapy was developed. Resource cost calculation of all radiotherapy treatments, standard and innovative, was conducted in 10 Belgian radiotherapy centers in the second half of 2012.

RESULTS

The average cost of lung SBRT across the 10 centers (6221&OV0556;) is in the range of the average costs of standard fractionated 3D-conformal radiotherapy (5919&OV0556;) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (7379&OV0556;) for lung cancer. Hypofractionated 3D-conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy schemes are less costly (3993&OV0556; respectively 4730&OV0556;). The SBRT cost increases with the number of fractions and is highly dependent of personnel and equipment use. SBRT cost varies more by centre than conventional radiotherapy cost, reflecting different technologies, stages in the learning curve and a lack of clear guidance in this field.

CONCLUSIONS

Time-driven activity-based costing of radiotherapy is feasible in a multicentre setup, resulting in real-life resource costs that can form the basis for correct reimbursement schemes, supporting an early yet controlled introduction of innovative radiotherapy techniques in clinical practice.

Surgical versus Medical Treatment of Ocular Surface Squamous Neoplasia: A Cost Comparison

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to compare the cost associated with surgical versus interferon-alpha 2b (IFNα2b) treatment for ocular surface squamous neoplasia (OSSN).

DESIGN

A matched, case-control study.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 98 patients with OSSN, 49 of whom were treated surgically and 49 of whom were treated medically.

METHODS

Patients with OSSN treated with IFNα2b were matched to patients treated with surgery on the basis of age and date of treatment initiation. Financial cost to the patient was calculated using 2 different methods (hospital billing and Medicare allowable charges) and compared between the 2 groups. These fees included physician fees (clinic, pathology, anesthesia, and surgery), facility fees (clinic, pathology, and operating room), and medication costs. Time invested by patients was calculated in terms of number of visits to the hospital and compared between the 2 groups. Parking costs, transportation, caregiver wages, and lost wages were not considered in our analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Number of clinic visits and cost of therapy as represented by both hospital charges and Medicare allowable charges.

RESULTS

When considering cost in terms of time, the medical group had an average of 2 more visits over 1 year compared with the surgical group. Cost as represented by hospital charges was higher in the surgical group (mean, $17 598; standard deviation [SD], $7624) when compared with the IFNα2b group (mean, $4986; SD, $2040). However, cost between the 2 groups was comparable when calculated on the basis of Medicare allowable charges (surgical group: mean, $3528; SD, $1610; medical group: mean, $2831; SD, $1082; P = 1.00). The highest cost in the surgical group was the excisional biopsy (hospital billing $17 598; Medicare allowable $3528), and the highest cost in the medical group was interferon ($1172 for drops, average 8.0 bottles; $370 for injections, average 5.4 injections).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data in this group of patients previously demonstrated equal efficacy of surgical versus medical treatment. In this article, we consider costs of therapy and found that medical treatment involved two more office visits, whereas surgical treatment could be more or equally costly depending on insurance coverage.

The Role of Surgical Resection in Stage IIIA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Decision and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of combination chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgical intervention (CRS) vs definitive chemotherapy and radiotherapy (CR) in clinical stage IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients at academic and nonacademic centers.

METHODS

Patients with clinical stage IIIA NSCLC receiving CR or CRS from 1998 to 2010 were identified in the National Cancer Data Base. Propensity score matching on patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics was performed. Medicare allowable charges were used for treatment costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was based on probabilistic 5-year survival and calculated as cost per life-year gained.

RESULTS

We identified 5,265 CR and CRS matched patient pairs. Surgical resection imparted an increased effectiveness of 0.83 life-years, with an ICER of $17,618. Among nonacademic centers, 1,634 matched CR and CRS patients demonstrated a benefit with surgical resection of 0.86 life-years gained, for an ICER of $17,124. At academic centers, 3,201 matched CR and CRS patients had increased survival of 0.81 life-years with surgical resection, for an ICER of $18,144. Finally, 3,713 CRS patients were matched between academic and nonacademic centers. Academic center surgical patients had an increased effectiveness of 1.5 months gained and dominated the model with lower surgical cost estimates associated with lower 30-day mortality rates.

CONCLUSIONS

In stage IIIA NSCLC, the selective addition of surgical resection to CR is cost-effective compared with definitive chemoradiation therapy at nonacademic and academic centers. These conclusions are valid over a range of clinically meaningful variations in cost and treatment outcomes.

Additional data in the debate on stage I non-small cell lung cancer: surgery versus stereotactic ablative radiotherapy

Lobectomy has been the standard of care for patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), resulting in nearly universal local control and excellent overall survival. However, up to one-quarter of early stage patients are unable to undergo or refuse definitive resection. With the increasing adoption of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) over conventionally fractionated radiotherapy among medical inoperable patients, tumor control and overall survival rates in this population have significantly improved. Trials demonstrating excellent outcomes among both medically inoperable and medical operable patients with stage I NSCLC have spurred interest in comparisons between surgery and SABR. The recent publication of the randomized STARS and ROSEL trials demonstrated fewer toxicities and an improvement in overall survival among patients treated with SABR compared with surgery. Based on these trials and retrospective comparisons between the modalities, definitive SABR now more firmly appears to be a viable first-line option for treating patients with operable stage I NSCLC.

Bronchoscopy-Guided Cooled Radiofrequency Ablation as a Novel Intervention Therapy for Peripheral Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Our previous animal and preliminary human studies indicated that bronchoscopy-guided cooled radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the lung is a safe and feasible procedure without major complications.

OBJECTIVES

The present study was performed to evaluate the safety, effectiveness and feasibility of computed tomography (CT)-guided bronchoscopy cooled RFA in patients with medically inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Patients with pathologically diagnosed NSCLC, who had no lymph node involvement or distant metastases (T1-2aN0M0) but were not surgical candidates because of comorbidities (e.g., synchronous multiple nodules, advanced age, cardiovascular disease, poor pulmonary function, etc.) were enrolled in the present study. The diagnosis and location between the nearest bronchus and target tumor were made by CT-guided bronchoscopy before the treatment. A total of 28 bronchoscopy-guided cooled RFA procedures were performed in 20 patients. After treatment, serial CT imaging was performed as follow-up.

RESULTS

Eleven lesions showed significant reductions in tumor size and 8 lesions showed stability, resulting in a local control rate of 82.6%. The median progression-free survival was 35 months (95% confidence interval: 22-45 months), and the 5-year overall survival was 61.5% (95% confidence interval: 36-87%). Three patients developed an acute ablation-related reaction (fever, chest pain) and required hospitalization but improved with conservative treatment. There were no other adverse events in the present study.

CONCLUSIONS

CT-guided bronchoscopy cooled RFA is applicable for only highly selected subjects; however, our trial may be an alternative strategy, especially for disease local control in medically inoperable patients with stage I NSCLC.

SBRT in operable early stage lung cancer patients

Since decades the gold standard for treatment of early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is surgical lobectomy plus mediastinal lymph node dissection. Patients in worse health status are treated with sublobar resection or radiation treatment. With development of stereotactic-body-radiotherapy (SBRT), outcome of patients treated with radiation was substantially improved. Comparison of SBRT and surgical techniques is difficult due to the lack of randomized trials. However, all available evidence in form of case control studies of population based studies show equivalence between sublobar resection and SBRT indicating that SBRT-when performed by a trained and experienced team-should be offered to all high-risk surgical patients. For patients not willing to take the risk of lobectomy and therefore refusing surgery, SBRT is an excellent treatment option.

Role of stereotactic body radiotherapy for oligometastasis from colorectal cancer

Systemic chemotherapy has enabled prolongation of survival in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer. This has subsequently increased the relative significance of local therapy for patients with oligometastases because they can be cured by removal of oligometastatic lesions. One of the most frequently reported tumor histologies for oligometastases is colorectal cancer. Resection is the standard therapy in most settings of oligometastases. Recently, studies have shown that stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) may become a treatment option that provides high local control with minimal morbidity. Two-year local control rates following SBRT for hepatic and pulmonary oligometastases are almost over 80% and are even higher for patients treated with high-dose regimens. The indications of SBRT for other metastatic sites or conditions include isolated lymph nodes, spinal and adrenal metastasis, and post-surgical pelvic recurrence. Many retrospective studies have indicated that SBRT for various lesions results in good outcomes with low morbidity, both in the curative and palliative setting. However, few reports with a high level of evidence have indicated the efficacy of SBRT compared to standard therapy. Hereafter, the optimal indication of SBRT needs to be prospectively investigated to obtain convincing evidence.

Analysis of first recurrence and survival in patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer treated with surgical resection or stereotactic radiation therapy

OBJECTIVES

Comparative studies of survival between stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and surgery have been limited by lack of comparisons of recurrence patterns between matched cohorts in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

All patients undergoing treatment with surgery or SBRT for clinical stage I NSCLC between June 2004 and December 2010 were reviewed. Age, tumor characteristics, comorbidity score, pulmonary function, overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and recurrence data were collected and propensity matching performed.

RESULTS

The mean age for surgery (n = 458) was 65.8 ± 10.5 versus 74.4 ± 9.4 for SBRT (n = 151) (P < .0001). For the entire surgical cohort, 3-year OS was 78% and DFS was 72%. For the entire SBRT cohort, 3-year OS was 47% and DFS was 42%. The overall local recurrence rate for surgery was 2.6%. The overall local recurrence rate for SBRT was 10.7%. A propensity-matched comparison based on age, tumor size, Adult Comorbidity Evaluation comorbidity score, forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration, and tumor location resulted in 56 matched pairs. The 3-year OS was 52% versus 68% for SBRT and surgery (P = .05); DFS was 47% versus 65% (P = .01). At 3 years, local recurrence-free survival was 90% versus 92% for SBRT and surgery (P = .07).

CONCLUSIONS

Although surgical resection seems to result in better OS and DFS versus SBRT, matching these disparate cohorts of patients remains challenging. Participation in clinical trials is essential to define the indications and relative efficacy of surgery and radiation therapy in a high-risk population with stage I NSCLC.

Salvage stereotactic ablative irradiation for isolated postsurgical local recurrence of lung cancer

BACKGROUND

For isolated postsurgical local recurrences (IPSLR) of lung cancer, salvage resection is often unfeasible due to a high risk of morbidity and death. Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) provides excellent therapeutic effects, with mild toxicities, for patients with medically inoperable lung cancer. However, the outcomes of SABR for IPSLR have not been reported.

METHODS

Patients with IPSLR who were treated with SABR between 2005 and 2012 were retrospectively identified. The prescribed doses were 40 to 60 Gy per 5 to 10 fractions. Treatment outcomes and toxicities were evaluated.

RESULTS

We identified 23 patients with IPSLR, including 21 with bronchial stump or staple line recurrences and 2 with chest wall recurrences. During follow-up, IPSLR occurred at a median of 36.7 months (range, 5.0 to 190 months) after resection. All patients were N0 M0, and the T stages at recurrence were T1a, T1b, T2a, and T4 in 6, 5, 3, and 9 patients, respectively. The initial pathologic diagnoses were adenocarcinoma in 17 patients and squamous cell carcinoma in 6. At a median follow-up duration of 17.0 months (range, 6.0 to 89.6 months) after SABR, there were 2 local recurrences. Local control and overall survival rates at 1 and 2 years were 94.7% and 86.8% and 84.0% and 76.4%, respectively. Grade 3 to 5 radiation pneumonitis occurred in 1 patient each. Grade 3 temporary but repeated obstructive pneumonia occurred in 2 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

SABR for IPSLR achieved high local control with limited toxicities. SABR may lead to a potential cure and should be considered as a salvage treatment option for IPSLR.

Is stereotactic ablative radiotherapy equivalent to sublobar resection in high-risk surgical patients with stage I non-small-cell lung cancer?

A best evidence topic in thoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'Is stereotactic ablative radiotherapy equivalent to sublobar resection in high-risk surgical patients with Stage I non-small cell lung cancer?'. Altogether over 318 papers were found, of which 18 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) and sublobar resection (SLR) offer clear survival benefit in the treatment of early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in high-risk patients unsuitable for lobectomy and SABR has shown good results in medically operable patients. No randomized data are available comparing SLR and SABR, and therefore, data from prospective studies were compared. Overall survival at 1 year was similar between patients treated with SABR and SLR (81-85.7 vs 92%); however, overall 3-year survival was higher following SLR (87.1 vs 45.1-57.1%). There was no statistically significant difference in local recurrence in patients treated with SABR compared with SLR (3.5-14.5 vs 4.8-20%). Both treatment modalities are associated with complications. Fatigue (31-32.6%), pneumonitis (2.1-12.5%) and chest wall pain (3.1-12%) were common following SABR; however, serious grade 3 and 4 toxicity were rare. Morbidity following SLR was reported between 7.3 and 33.7%. Thirty-day mortality following SABR was 0%, while predicted 30-day mortality following a lung resection, using the thoracoscore predictive model ranges between 1 and 2.6%. Treatment for early-stage NSCLC should be tailored to individual patients. SABR is an acceptable alternative to SLR in high-risk patients but comparative data are required.

Patterns of failure after stereotactic body radiation therapy or lobar resection for clinical stage I non-small-cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to compare patterns of failure between lobar resection (lobectomy or pneumonectomy) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for patients with clinical stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

From January 2004 to January 2008, 338 patients underwent definitive treatment for pathologically confirmed clinical stage I NSCLC with lobar resection (n = 260) or SBRT (n = 78). Most surgical patients underwent lobectomy (n = 237). SBRT patients received a biologically effective dose of at least 100 Gy10. Lobar resection patients were younger, healthier, and had superior pulmonary function, whereas most of the patients in the SBRT group had T1 tumors. Final pathology upstaged 32.7% of surgery patients, and 20.0% received adjuvant chemotherapy. No SBRT patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

In an unmatched comparison, 4-year lobar local control (98.7% versus 93.6%, p = 0.015) was greater for lobar resection versus SBRT, respectively, though primary tumor (98.7% versus 95.3%, p = 0.088), regional (82.9% versus 78.1%, p = 0.912), and distant control (76.1% versus 54.0%, p = 0.152) were similar. Overall survival (OS, 63.5% versus 29.6%, p < 0.0001) was greater for lobar resection, though cause-specific survival (CSS, 81.3% versus 75.3%, p = 0.923) was similar. In a T-stage matched comparison of 152 patients, there was no significant difference in patterns of failure or CSS, whereas OS favored surgery.

CONCLUSION

Lobectomy/pneumonectomy or SBRT results in comparable patterns of failure for clinical stage I NSCLC. In this retrospective comparison, OS was superior for surgery, though CSS was similar. Randomized trials are necessary to control for fundamental differences in comorbidity, which impact interpretation of both tumor control and survival.