Lobectomy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer: Post hoc analysis dressed up as level-1 evidence?

GOECP/SEOR radiotheraphy guidelines for non-small-cell lung cancer

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a heterogeneous disease accounting for approximately 85% of all lung cancers. Only 17% of patients are diagnosed at an early stage. Treatment is multidisciplinary and radiotherapy plays a key role in all stages of the disease. More than 50% of patients with NSCLC are treated with radiotherapy (curative-intent or palliative). Technological advances-including highly conformal radiotherapy techniques, new immobilization and respiratory control systems, and precision image verification systems-allow clinicians to individualize treatment to maximize tumor control while minimizing treatment-related toxicity. Novel therapeutic regimens such as moderate hypofractionation and advanced techniques such as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) have reduced the number of radiotherapy sessions. The integration of SBRT into routine clinical practice has radically altered treatment of early-stage disease. SBRT also plays an increasingly important role in oligometastatic disease. The aim of the present guidelines is to review the role of radiotherapy in the treatment of localized, locally-advanced, and metastatic NSCLC. We review the main radiotherapy techniques and clarify the role of radiotherapy in routine clinical practice. These guidelines are based on the best available evidence. The level and grade of evidence supporting each recommendation is provided.

Comparative effectiveness of stereotactic body radiation therapy versus surgery for stage I lung cancer in otherwise healthy patients: An instrumental variable analysis

Objectives

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an established primary treatment modality in patients with lung cancer who have multiple comorbidities and/or advanced-stage disease. However, its role in otherwise healthy patients with stage I lung cancer is unclear. In this context, we compared the effectiveness of SBRT versus surgery on overall survival using a national database.

Methods

We identified all patient with clinical stage I non–small cell lung cancer from the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2016. We defined otherwise healthy patients as those with a Charlson-Deyo comorbidity index of 0 and whose treatment plan included options for either SBRT or surgery. We further excluded patients who received SBRT due to a contraindication to surgery. We first used propensity score matching and Cox proportional hazard models to identify associations. Next, we fit 2-stage residual inclusion models using an instrumental variables approach to estimate the effects of SBRT versus surgery on long-term survival. We used the hospital SBRT utilization rate as the instrument.

Results

Of 25,963 patients meeting all inclusion/exclusion criteria, 5465 (21%) were treated with SBRT. On both Cox proportional hazards modeling and propensity-score matched Kaplan-Meier analysis, surgical resection was associated with improved survival relative to SBRT. In the instrumental-variable–adjusted model, SBRT remained associated with decreased survival (hazard ratio, 2.64; P < .001). Both lobectomy (hazard ratio, 0.17) and sublobar resections (hazard ratio, 0.28) were associated with improved overall survival compared with SBRT (P < .001).

Conclusions

In otherwise healthy patients with stage I NSCLC, surgical resection is associated with a survival benefit compared with SBRT. This is true for both lobar and sublobar resections.

Survival of Primary Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Compared With Surgery for Operable Stage I/II Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an accepted primary treatment option for inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The role of SBRT in the treatment of operable disease remains unclear. We retrospectively evaluated patients with operable early-stage NSCLC who elected to receive primary SBRT, examined factors associated with SBRT, and compared overall survival after surgical resection and SBRT.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with stage I/II, N0 NSCLC from 2004 to 2016. The proportion of patients who refused recommended surgery and were treated with SBRT was calculated. A propensity score predicting the probability of refusing surgery and receiving SBRT was generated and used to match SBRT and resected patients. Long-term overall survival was compared in the matched cohort using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression.

RESULTS

We identified 1359 patients (0.98%) who refused recommended surgery and elected SBRT. This proportion increased annually, from 0.1% in 2004 to 1.7% in 2016. Factors associated with SBRT were older age, black race, Medicaid coverage, lower T stage, and more recent diagnosis year. Propensity matching resulted in 1315 well-balanced pairs. Surgery was associated with higher median survival (74 vs 47 months, P < .01) in the matched cohort. Survival benefit persisted after adjusting for covariates on Cox regression (hazard ratio, 1.69; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Median survival was significantly higher after surgery compared with SBRT in a risk-adjusted matched cohort of patients judged to be surgical candidates. Operable patients considering primary SBRT should be educated regarding this difference in survival.

Surgery and stereotactic body radiotherapy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: prospective clinical trials of the past, the present, and the future

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) may be a potential alternative to surgical resection in high-risk operable patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A number of clinical studies have been undertaken to answer this question, although the conclusion has remained undetermined. Although three randomized clinical trials have failed, currently several prospective clinical trials are ongoing on SBRT versus surgery for early-stage NSCLC. This review article was designed to overview the previous and ongoing clinical trials and to discuss the future perspectives in the comparisons.

The role of small or single-institution prospective studies in thoracic research

Interventional studies are designed specifically to test the impact of a treatment or management strategy on an outcome of interest. In this article, we will highlight two viewpoints regarding the role of small or single-institution prospective interventional studies within the field of thoracic surgery: first, that these studies are beneficial and can positively impact the field, and second, that these studies can have such significant limitations that they may have no meaningful impact. We will also review elements that can make for successful design and execution of small prospective interventional studies.

Treatment strategy and decision-making for elderly surgical candidates with early lung cancer

Among elderly cancer patients of the same chronological age, there is a wide range of heterogeneity in their ability to tolerate surgery. When an elderly patient comes to a thoracic surgeon, the surgeon first considers how healthy the patient is. If the patient looks healthy or in fit condition, the surgeon offers lobectomy plus mediastinal lymph node dissection. On the other hand, if the patient looks frail, the surgeon may offer, instead of a standard treatment, lobectomy without lymph node dissection, sublobar resection, or radiotherapy or may not offer any kind of treatment. This review was conducted to obtain an overview of these options and compare the treatment outcomes reported in the literature for the purpose of making a good decision for elderly surgical candidates with early lung cancer.

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.

Surgical Resection Versus Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Stage I NSCLC: Can Randomized Trials Provide the Solution?

Surgical resection has traditionally been considered the standard of care for patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). With the introduction of stereotactic radiation body therapy (SBRT), there is now a viable option for medically inoperable patients with stage I NSCLC. The effectiveness of SBRT in patients with stage I disease but at elevated surgical risk is unknown. Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been attempted to compare surgical resection and SBRT in this population, but have been aborted due to poor patient enrollment. Despite these failures, there still remains a push for more RCTs. In this commentary, we review the challenges that RCTs face in their ability to appropriately compare these two therapies.

Clinical staging of NSCLC: current evidence and implications for adjuvant chemotherapy

Survival of all non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients is disappointing, with a 5-year survival of 18%. Staging NSCLC patients is crucial because it determines the choice of treatment and prognosis. Clinical staging is a complex process that comes with many challenges and with low accuracy between the clinical and pathological stage. Treatment modalities for stage I-III NSCLC consist of surgical resection, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. This review describes the current evidence on staging and the implications on adjuvant chemotherapy. For stage I disease, staging is most accurate. Primary treatment consists of surgery or stereotactic ablative radiotherapy. When a patient has stage II disease, staging is less accurate because more diagnostic modalities are necessary to stage the mediastinal lymph nodes. Surgery remains the primary treatment modality and platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy gives a 4% 5-year survival benefit. Staging patients with stage III disease is difficult because of the heterogeneity of the patients. It should be decided if a patient has potentially resectable disease with or without risk of incomplete resection. Induction therapy with chemo(radio)therapy followed by surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy are the treatments of choice. The 5-year survival can reach 44% in selected patients. Decisions in staging and treating patients with NSCLC should be made by a multidisciplinary team with sufficient expertise in all aspects of staging and treatment.

Dumping the information bucket: A qualitative study of clinicians caring for patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality of patient-clinician communication and shared decision making (SDM) when two disparate treatments for early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are discussed.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study to evaluate the experiences of 20 clinicians caring for patients with clinical Stage I NSCLC prior to treatment, focusing on communication practices. We used directed content analysis and a patient-centered communication theoretical model to guide understanding of communication strategies.

RESULTS

All clinicians expressed the importance of providing information, especially for mitigating patient worry, despite recognition that patients recall only a small amount of the information given. When patients expressed distress, clinicians exhibited empathy but preferred to provide more information in order to address patient concerns. Most clinicians reported practicing SDM, however, they also reported not clearly eliciting patient preferences and values, a key part of SDM.

CONCLUSION

Communication with patients about treatment options for early stage NSCLC primary includes information giving. We found that only a few communication domains associated with SDM occurred regularly, and SDM may not be necessary in this clinical context.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians may need to incorporate nurse navigators or more written materials for effectively discussing potentially equivalent treatment options with their patients.

Salvage surgery after high-dose radiotherapy

Salvage surgery is a relatively new entity in thoracic surgery and oncology. Salvage resection after radiotherapy refers to surgery as only remaining therapeutic option in patients who were treated with high-dose stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) for early-stage lung cancer or full-dose chemoradiation for locally advanced lung cancer. Indications include locally progressive tumors, recurrent local or locoregional disease, or specific complications after radiotherapy such as lung abscesses or infected, necrotic cavities. Small, retrospective series demonstrate that salvage surgery after high-dose radiotherapy is feasible and may yield good long-term results. A clear distinction should be made between salvage surgery after SRT for early-stage lung cancer and salvage procedures after full-dose chemoradiation for lung cancers with locoregional extension into the mediastinum. Salvage surgery after SRT may be rather straightforward and in specific cases even feasible by a minimally invasive approach. In contrast, surgery after a full dose of chemoradiation delivered several months or years earlier, can be quite challenging and the dissection of the pulmonary artery and mediastinal lymph nodes technically demanding. Due to the more central irradiation an intrapericardial dissection is often required. To prevent a bronchopleural fistula protection of the bronchial stump with well-vascularized flaps is recommended. Each individual patient in whom salvage surgery is considered, should be discussed thoroughly within a multidisciplinary board, detailed cardiopulmonary functional evaluation is required, and the operation should be performed by an experienced team including a thoracic surgeon, anaesthesiologist and intensive care physician. At the present time only retrospective series are available. Carefully designed prospective studies are necessary to more precisely define indications and results of salvage surgery not only after SRT for peripherally localized lesions but also following full-dose chemoradiation for locoregionally advanced disease.

Noteworthy Literature Published in 2016 for Thoracic Surgery

The past year has produced several important articles in the field of thoracic surgery, spanning many different diseases. Thoracic surgeons continue to investigate methods to perform complex operations and procedures less invasively, with the least possible morbidity to our patients. We also continue to critically evaluate new technology and procedures to ensure that they meet our rigorous standards for oncologic efficacy and for management of benign disease. Importantly, as we continue to evolve, thoracic surgeons have remained focused on optimizing processes of care, both inside and outside the operating room. The purpose of this review is to highlight the major advances in thoracic surgical disease in the year 2016.

Management of stage I and II nonsmall cell lung cancer

The incidence of stage I and II nonsmall cell lung cancer is likely to increase with the ageing population and introduction of screening for high-risk individuals. Optimal management requires multidisciplinary collaboration. Local treatments include surgery and radiotherapy and these are currently combined with (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy in specific cases to improve long-term outcome. Targeted therapies and immunotherapy may also become important therapeutic modalities in this patient group. For resectable disease in patients with low cardiopulmonary risk, complete surgical resection with lobectomy remains the gold standard. Minimally invasive techniques, conservative and sublobar resections are suitable for a subset of patients. Data are emerging that radiotherapy, especially stereotactic body radiation therapy, is a valid alternative in compromised patients who are high-risk candidates for surgery. Whether this is also true for good surgical candidates remains to be evaluated in randomised trials. In specific subgroups adjuvant chemotherapy has been shown to prolong survival; however, patient selection remains important. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy may yield similar results as adjuvant chemotherapy. The role of targeted therapies and immunotherapy in early stage nonsmall cell lung cancer has not yet been determined and results of randomised trials are awaited.

Interpreting survival data from clinical trials of surgery versus stereotactic body radiation therapy in operable Stage I non-small cell lung cancer patients

OBJECTIVES

To identify the variability of short- and long-term survival outcomes among closed Phase III randomized controlled trials with small sample sizes comparing SBRT (stereotactic body radiation therapy) and surgical resection in operable clinical Stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Clinical Stage I NSCLC patients who underwent surgery at our institution meeting the inclusion/exclusion criteria for STARS (Randomized Study to Compare CyberKnife to Surgical Resection in Stage I Non-small Cell Lung Cancer), ROSEL (Trial of Either Surgery or Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Early Stage (IA) Lung Cancer), or both were identified. Bootstrapping analysis provided 10,000 iterations to depict 30-day mortality and three-year overall survival (OS) in cohorts of 16 patients (to simulate the STARS surgical arm), 27 patients (to simulate the pooled surgical arms of STARS and ROSEL), and 515 (to simulate the goal accrual for the surgical arm of STARS).

RESULTS

From 2000 to 2012, 749/873 (86%) of clinical Stage I NSCLC patients who underwent resection were eligible for STARS only, ROSEL only, or both studies. When patients eligible for STARS only were repeatedly sampled with a cohort size of 16, the 3-year OS rates ranged from 27 to 100%, and 30-day mortality varied from 0 to 25%. When patients eligible for ROSEL or for both STARS and ROSEL underwent bootstrapping with n=27, the 3-year OS ranged from 46 to 100%, while 30-day mortality varied from 0 to 15%. Finally, when patients eligible for STARS were repeatedly sampled in groups of 515, 3-year OS narrowed to 70-85%, with 30-day mortality varying from 0 to 4%.

CONCLUSION

Short- and long-term survival outcomes from trials with small sample sizes are extremely variable and unreliable for extrapolation.

Narcissus, the Beam, and lung cancer

In the management of lung cancer, the rules of engagement of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) are not clearly defined. The potential for SABR to affect to an unprecedented level current protocols and in all disease stages emerges vehemently from the literature. However, in a time when the role of surgery is being reassessed, surgeons need to take a closer look at the evidence for the use of SABR in lung cancer patients and clearly define their indisputable role within the context of multidisciplinary teams. The myth of Narcissus exemplified in the absolute masterpiece by Caravaggio seems to represent an ideal metaphor to explain the ever-evolving interaction between surgery and SABR in lung cancer management.

Is surgery still the optimal treatment for stage I non-small cell lung cancer?

There is debate about what is the optimal treatment for operable stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although surgery has been the standard of care for centuries, recent retrospective and prospective randomized studies indicated that stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) could be an option for this group of patients with similar survival and less toxicities. However, to change the standard of care, more studies are needed and participating ongoing larger randomized studies is the best approach to resolve this controversy.

Curing Operable Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy: The Force Awakens

In 2016, surgery is the standard of care for peripheral stage I non-small cell lung cancer. However, recent thought-provoking randomized evidence suggests stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) has survival outcomes similar to those of surgery. Albeit limited, patient-reported outcomes and quality of life suggest that SABR compares favorably to surgery because it is noninvasive and associated with relatively few treatment-related complications. This article explores the current scientific landscape of surgery and SABR in this patient cohort.