Comparison of the Efficacy of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy versus Surgical Treatment for Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer after Propensity Score Matching

Disparities in Access to Multidisciplinary Cancer Consultations and Treatment for Patients With Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A SEER-Medicare Analysis

PURPOSE

Disparities in access to a multidisciplinary cancer consultation (MDCc) persist, and the role of physician relationships remains understudied. This study examined the extent to which multilevel factors, including patient characteristics and patient-sharing network measures reflecting the structure of physician relationships, are associated with an MDCc and receipt of stereotactic body radiation therapy versus surgery among patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data for patients diagnosed with stage I-IIA NSCLC from 2016 to 2017. We assembled patient-sharing networks and identified cancer specialists who were locally unique for their specialty, herein referred to as linchpins. The proportion of linchpin cancer specialists for each hospital referral region (HRR) was calculated as a network-based measure of specialist scarcity. We used multilevel multinomial logistic regression to estimate associations between study variables and receipt of an MDCc and multilevel logistic regression to examine the relationship between patient receipt of an MDCc and initial treatment.

RESULTS

Our study included 6120 patients with stage I-IIA NSCLC, of whom 751 (12.3%) received an MDCc, 1729 (28.3%) consulted only a radiation oncologist, 2010 (32.8%) consulted only a surgeon, and 1630 (26.6%) consulted neither specialist within 2 months of diagnosis. Compared with patients residing in an HRR with a low proportion of linchpin surgeons, those residing in an HRR with a high proportion of linchpin surgeons had a 2.99 (95% CI, 1.87-4.78) greater relative risk of consulting only a radiation oncologist versus receiving an MDCc and a 2.70 (95% CI, 1.68-4.35) greater relative risk of consulting neither specialist versus receiving an MDCc. Patients who received an MDCc were 5.32 times (95% CI, 4.27-6.63) more likely to receive stereotactic body radiation therapy versus surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician networks are associated with receipt of an MDCc and treatment, underscoring the potential for leveraging patient-sharing network analysis to improve access to lung cancer care.

Comparison of stereotactic body radiation therapy versus surgery for multiple primary lung cancers after prior radical resection: A multicenter retrospective study

Background

Patients who previously underwent surgical resection of initial primary lung cancer are at a high risk of developing multiple primary lung cancers (MPLCs). The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety between stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and surgery for MPLCs patients after prior radical resection for the first lung cancers.

Methods

In this multicenter retrospective study, eligible MPLC patients with tumor diameter of 5.0 cm or less at N0M0 who underwent SBRT or reoperation between January 2013 and August 2020 were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the 3-year locoregional recurrence and treatment-related toxicity. Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate survival rates. The χ² test was adapted to assess the difference of categorical variables between the two subgroup patients.

Results

A total of 203 (73 in the SBRT group and 130 in the surgery group) patients from three academic cancer centers were evaluated with a median follow-up of 38.3 months. The cumulative 1-, 2-, and 3-year incidences of locoregional recurrence were 5.6 %, 7.0 % and 13.1 % in the SBRT group versus 3.2 %, 4.8 % and 7.4 % in the surgery group, respectively [hazard ratio (HR), 1.97; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.74-5.24; P = 0.14]. The cancer-specific survival rates were 95.9 %, 94.5 % and 88.1 % versus 96.9 %, 94.6 % and 93.8 % in the SBRT and surgery groups respectively (HR, 1.72; 95 % CI, 0.67-4.44; P = 0.23). In the SBRT group, two patients (2.7 %) suffered from grade 3 radiation pneumonitis, while in the surgery group, grade 3 complications occurred in four (3.1 %) patients, and four cases were expired due to pneumonia or pulmonary heart disease within 90 days after surgery.

Conclusions

SBRT is an effective therapeutic option with limited toxicity compared to surgery for patients with MPLCs after prior radical surgical resection, and it could be considered as an alternative treatment for those patients.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Versus Ablation Versus Surgery for Early-Stage Lung Cancer in High-Risk Patients

Current treatment for early-stage lung cancer focuses on surgical intervention as the mainstay of treatment; however, this poses issues in patients that are high-risk or unable to tolerate any operation. In this case, sublobar resection or radiation therapy has been the primary treatment for these subsets of patients. Alternative approaches include stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and thermal ablation. In this article, we focus on treatment strategies using SBRT, thermal ablation, or surgery as it pertains to high-risk patients with early-stage lung cancer.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 4: systematic review of evidence involving SBRT and ablation

Background

Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options [lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), thermal ablation], weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making.

Methods

A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after SBRT or thermal ablation vs. resection is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons with at least some adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved.

Results

Short-term outcomes are meaningfully better after SBRT than resection. SBRT doesn't affect quality-of-life (QOL), on average pulmonary function is not altered, but a minority of patients may experience gradual late toxicity. Adjusted non-randomized comparisons demonstrate a clinically relevant detriment in long-term outcomes after SBRT vs. surgery. The short-term benefits of SBRT over surgery are accentuated with increasing age and compromised patients, but the long-term detriment remains. Ablation is associated with a higher rate of complications than SBRT, but there is little intermediate-term impact on quality-of-life or pulmonary function tests. Adjusted comparisons show a meaningful detriment in long-term outcomes after ablation vs. surgery; there is less difference between ablation and SBRT.

Conclusions

A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy or thermal ablation vs. resection with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation for a framework for individualized decision-making.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus surgery for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: an updated meta-analysis involving 29,511 patients included in comparative studies

Objective:

To evaluate the efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) versus surgery for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by means of a meta-analysis of comparative studies.

Methods:

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines, searches were performed on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library for eligible studies. The meta-analysis compared the hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and local control (LC). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses evaluated the association of extent of surgical resection, study publication year, tumor staging, propensity score matching, proportion of chemotherapy use, and proportion of pathological lymph node involvement with CSS and OS.

Results:

Thirty studies involving 29,511 patients were included (surgery group: 17,146 patients and SBRT group: 12,365 patients). There was a significant difference in favor of surgery vs. SBRT in the 3-year OS (HR = 1.35; 95% CI: 1.22-1.44; I² = 66%) and 3-year CSS (HR = 1.23; 95% CI: 1.09-1.37; I² = 17%), but not in the 3-year LC (HR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.93-1.08; I² = 19%). In the subgroup analysis for OS, no significant difference between surgery and SBRT groups was observed in the T1N0M0 subgroup (HR = 1.26; 95% CI: 0.95-1.68; I² = 0%). In subgroup analysis for CSS, no significant difference was detected between the sublobar resection subgroup and the SBRT group (HR = 1.21; 95% CI: 0.96-1.53; I² = 16%).

Conclusions:

Surgery generally resulted in better 3-year OS and CSS than did SBRT; however, publication bias and heterogeneity may have influenced these findings. In contrast, SBRT produced LC results similar to those of surgery regardless of the extent of surgical resection. These findings may have important clinical implications for patients with comorbidities, advanced age, poor pulmonary reserve, and other factors that may contraindicate surgery.

The evolving landscape of sex-based differences in lung cancer: a distinct disease in women

In stark contrast to a few decades ago when lung cancer was predominantly a disease of men who smoke, incidence rates of lung cancer in women are now comparable to or higher than those in men and are rising alarmingly in many parts of the world. Women face a unique set of risk factors for lung cancer compared to men. These include exogenous exposures including radon, prior radiation, and fumes from indoor cooking materials such as coal, in addition to endogenous exposures such as oestrogen and distinct genetic polymorphisms. Current screening guidelines only address tobacco use and likely underrepresent lung cancer risk in women. Women were also not well represented in some of the landmark prospective studies that led to the development of current screening guidelines. Women diagnosed with lung cancer have a clear mortality benefit compared to men even when other clinical and demographic characteristics are accounted for. However, there may be sex-based differences in outcomes and side effects of systemic therapy, particularly with chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Ongoing research is needed to better investigate these differences to address the rapidly changing demographics of lung cancer worldwide.

Sex-based differences in lung cancer span the care continuum. This suggests lung cancer may increasingly be viewed as a distinct disease in women, with implications for screening and treatment. Lung cancer research should capture these sex-based differences.https://bit.ly/2WfhaB4

Non-surgical Treatments for Lung Metastases in Patients with Soft Tissue Sarcoma: Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) and Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA)

BACKGROUND

Radio-frequency ablation (RFA) and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) are two emerging therapies for lung metastases.

INTRODUCTION

Aliterature review was performed to evaluate the outcomes and complications of these procedures in patients with lung metastases from soft tissue sarcoma (STS).

METHODS

After selection, seven studies were included for each treatment encompassing a total of 424 patients: 218 in the SBRT group and 206 in the RFA group.

RESULTS

The mean age ranged from 47.9 to 64 years in the SBRT group and from 48 to 62.7 years in the RFA group. The most common histologic subtype was, in both groups, leiomyosarcoma. In the SBRT group, median overall survival ranged from 25.2 to 69 months and median disease- free interval was from 8.4 to 45 months. Two out of seven studies reported G3 and one G3 toxicity, respectively. In RFA patients, overall survival ranged from 15 to 50 months. The most frequent complication was pneumothorax. Local control showed a high percentage for both procedures.

CONCLUSION

SBRT is recommended in patients unsuitable to surgery, in synchronous bilateral pulmonary metastases, in case of deep lesions and patients receiving high-risk systemic therapies. RFA is indicated in case of a long disease-free interval, in oligometastatic disease, when only the lung is involved, in small size lesions far from large vessels. Further large randomized studies are necessary to establish whether these treatments may also represent a reliable alternative to surgery.

Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Lobectomy Versus Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Treatment for Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matching Analysis

Background

Compared the overall outcomes of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) versus stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for stage I-II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

We retrospectively compared overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), locoregional control (LRC), and disease-free survival (DFS) at our institution between January 2012 and December 2016. Propensity score-matching was performed to reduce patient selection bias based on age, gender, Karnofsky performance score, Charlson comorbidity index, pulmonary function, and tumor diameter.

Results

A total of 567 patients treated with SBRT (n = 109) or surgery (n = 458) were included. Of those, 104 patients were matched for further analyses. Median follow-up was 44 months. At 3 and 5 years, OS was 88.6 and 79.9% for SBRT, and 94.2 and 91.6% for surgery (p = 0.097). There were no differences noted in 5-year CSS (83.7 vs. 91.6%, respectively; p = 0.270). The cumulative incidence of LRC at 3 and 5 years was comparable (93.5 and 93.5% vs. 94.0 and 85.9%, respectively; p = 0.621). Differences in the rates of disease-free survival at 5 years were not statistically significant (79.0 and 80.5%, respectively; p = 0.624).

Conclusions

This propensity score-matching analysis suggests that SBRT can be an alternative option to VATS lobectomy for stage I-II NSCLC.

Comparison of the outcomes of sublobar resection and stereotactic body radiotherapy for stage T1-2N0M0 non-small cell lung cancer with tumor size ≤ 5 cm: a propensity score matching analysis

Background

Surgery and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) are both suitable treatment options for early stage Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), which accounts for the majority of lung cancer. This study compared the outcomes of sublobar resection (SLR) and SBRT in patients with stage T1-2N0M0 NSCLC with tumor size ≤5 cm.

Methods

Patients with T1-2N0M0 lung cancer who underwent SLR or SBRT between January, 2012 and December, 2016 were included in this retrospective study. The survival outcomes and toxicity of the SLR and SBRT cohorts were compared using Kaplan-Meier survival plots. In a second exploratory analysis, propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to reduce selection bias between the two groups of patients.

Results

A total of 121 SLR and 109 SBRT cases were included. The average follow-up was 49.4 months. Prior to PSM, the 5-year overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates in the SLR group (82.8% and 89.0%, respectively) were superior to those in the SBRT group (67.0% and 75.3%; P=0.001 and P=0.013, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in the five-year locoregional control and disease-free survival (DFS) rates between the groups. PSM identified 40 patients from each treatment group who shared similar characteristics. At 5 years, the OS rates in the SLR and SBRT groups were comparable (79.9% vs. 66.5%, respectively; P=0.154). After PSM, the rates of CSS, locoregional control, and DFS were also similar between the groups (P=0.458, 0.369, and 0.698, respectively). In the SBRT group, one patient developed grade 3 radioactive pneumonitis. No grade >3 toxicities or treatment-related deaths occurred in either group.

Conclusions

SBRT may be an alternative option to SLR for patients who cannot tolerate lobectomy because of medical comorbidities and has a similar level of effectiveness.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for elderly patients (≥ 75 years) with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is the primary treatment method for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) considered inoperable due to medical comorbidities. However, the application of SBRT in patients aged ≥ 75 years has not been adequately studied. This retrospective study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of SBRT in early-stage NSCLC patients aged ≥ 75 years, and the impact of treatment on nutritional status and self-care ability.

METHODS

Histopathologically confirmed early-stage (T1-3N0M0) NSCLC patients aged ≥ 75 years treated with SBRT between 2013 and 2018 at our center were identified from the electronic database. Treatment efficacy, treatment toxicities, impact of treatment on nutritional status, and self-care ability were retrospectively analyzed. Toxicities were evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (CTCAE) (Common 2010) version 4.0. Nutritional status was assessed by Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 criteria, and self-care ability by Barthel index and fall risk index.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients were enrolled. Median follow-up duration was 46.3 (3.9-80.1) months. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 92.6%, 77.2%, and 59.1%, respectively, and the 1-year, 3-year and 5-year local control rates were 95.6%, 88.9% and 85.6%, respectively. Grade 1-2 and grade 3 radiation pneumonitis occurred in 60/68 (96.8%) and 1/68 (1.5%) patients, respectively. Fall risk at 3 months after treatment was not significantly different from that before treatment (P = 0.22). Barthel index increased significantly after treatment (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

SBRT appears to be effective and safe for NSCLC patients aged ≥ 75 years, with no adverse impact on nutritional status and self-care ability.

Comparison of the outcomes of stereotactic body radiotherapy versus surgical treatment for elderly (≥70) patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer after propensity score matching

Background

The optimal treatment for elderly patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains inconclusive. Previous studies have shown that stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) provides encouraging local control though higher incidence of toxicity in elderly than younger populations. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of SBRT and surgical treatment in elderly patients with clinical stage I-II NSCLC.

Methods

This retrospective analysis included 205 patients aged ≥70 years with clinical stage I NSCLC who underwent SBRT or surgery at Zhejiang Cancer Hospital (Hangzhou, China) from January 2012 to December 2017. A propensity score matching analysis was performed between the two groups. In addition, we compared outcomes and related toxicity in both study arms.

Results

Each group included 35 patients who met the inclusion criteria. Median follow-up was 50.1 (0.8–74.4) months for surgery and 35.5 (11.5–71.4) months for SBRT. The rate of cancer-specific survival was similar between the two treatment arms (p = 0.958). In patients who underwent surgery, the corresponding 3- and 5-year cancer-specific survival rates were 85.3 and 81.7%, respectively. In those who received radiotherapy, these rates were 91.3 and 74.9%, respectively. Moreover, the 3- and 5-year locoregional control in patients who underwent surgery were 90.0 and 80.0%, respectively. In those who received radiotherapy, these rates were 91.1 and 84.1%, respectively. Notably, the observed differences in progression-free survival were not statistically significant (p = 0.934). In the surgery group, grade 1–2 complications were observed in eleven patients (31%). One patient died due to perioperative infection within 30 days following surgery. There was no grade 3–5 toxicity observed in the SBRT group.

Conclusions

The outcomes of surgery and SBRT in elderly patients with early-stage NSCLC were similar.