SABR in early operable lung cancer: time for evidence

Salvage Therapy for Locoregional Recurrence After Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for Early-Stage NSCLC

Although isolated local (LRs) and regional recurrences (RRs) constitute a minority of post-stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) relapses, their management is becoming increasingly important as the use of SABR continues to expand. However, few evidence-based strategies are available to guide treatment of these potentially curable recurrences. On behalf of the Advanced Radiation Technology Committee of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, this article was written to address management of recurrent disease. Topics discussed include diagnosis and workup, including the roles of volumetric and functional imaging as well as histopathologic methods; clinical outcomes after salvage therapy; patterns of recurrence after salvage therapy; and management options. Our main conclusions are that survival for patients with adequately salvaged LRs is similar to that for patients after primary SABR without recurrence, and survival for those with salvaged RRs (regardless of nodal burden or location) is similar to that of patients with de novo stage III disease. Although more than half of patients who undergo salvage do not develop a second relapse, the predominant pattern of second failure is distant, especially for RRs. Management requires rigorous multidisciplinary coordination. Isolated LRs can be managed with resection and nodal dissection, repeat SABR, thermal ablation, or systemic therapies. RRs can be treated with combined chemoradiotherapy, radiation or chemotherapy alone, or supportive services. Finally, regular and structured follow-up is recommended after post-SABR salvage therapy.

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.

Lung cancer specialists' opinions on treatment for stage I non-small cell lung cancer: A multidisciplinary survey

PURPOSE

The current standard of care for surgically eligible stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is surgical resection, but emerging data suggest that stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is potentially as effective as surgery. However, specialist views of the current evidence about SBRT and how they would incorporate a randomized controlled trial (RCT) into practice is unclear. We sought to understand specialist opinions about evidence regarding treatment of stage I NSCLC and how this translates into practice and clinical trial implementation.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We used a 28-item, web-based survey that invited all participating providers from the American Society for Radiation Oncology, American Thoracic Society Thoracic Oncology Assembly, and the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer to share opinions regarding practice beliefs, treatment of stage I NSCLC, and a clinical trial scenario.

RESULTS

A total of 959 surveys were completed; 64% were from radiation oncologists (ROs) and 49% were from outside the United States. The majority of ROs (80%) reported that current evidence indicates that SBRT has the same or a better benefit compared with surgery for surgically eligible patients with stage I NSCLC; 28% of non-radiation oncologists (NROs) indicated the same (P < .01). Almost all ROs (94%), compared with 62% of NROs, would permit surgically eligible patients to enroll in an RCT of SBRT versus surgery (P < .01). Most ROs (82%) and NROs (87%) believed that changing practice in thoracic surgery would be somewhat difficult, very difficult, or impossible (P = .066) even if an RCT showed better survival with SBRT.

CONCLUSIONS

NROs believe that SBRT is much less effective than surgery, contrary to ROs, who believe that they are similar. Most would support an RCT, but NROs would do so less. Changes in surgical practice may be challenging even if an RCT shows better mortality and quality of life with SBRT. These results are helpful in the creation and dissemination of RCTs that are designed to understand this question.

Systematic lymphadenectomy versus sampling of ipsilateral mediastinal lymph-nodes during lobectomy for non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review of randomized trials and a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To re-examine the evidence for recommendations for complete dissection versus sampling of ipsilateral mediastinal lymph nodes during lobectomy for cancer.

METHODS

We searched for randomized trials of systematic mediastinal lymphadenectomy versus mediastinal sampling. We performed a textual analysis of the authors' own starting assumptions and conclusion. We analysed the trial designs and risk of bias. We extracted data on early mortality, perioperative complications, overall survival, local recurrence and distant recurrence for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We found five randomized controlled trials recruiting 1980 patients spanning 1989-2007. The expressed starting position in 3/5 studies was a conviction that systematic dissection was effective. Long-term survival was better with lymphadenectomy compared with sampling (Hazard Ratio 0.78; 95% CI 0.69-0.89) as was perioperative survival (Odds Ratio 0.59; 95% CI 0.25-1.36, non-significant). But there was an overall high risk of bias and a lack of intention to treat analysis. There were higher rates (non-significant) of perioperative complications including bleeding, chylothorax and recurrent nerve palsy with lymphadenectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

The high risk of bias in these trials makes the overall conclusion insecure. The finding of clinically important surgically related morbidities but lower perioperative mortality with lymphadenectomy seems inconsistent. The multiple variables in patients, cancers and available treatments suggest that large pragmatic multicentre trials, testing currently available strategies, are the best way to find out which are more effective. The number of patients affected with lung cancer makes trials feasible.

Treatment selection of early stage non-small cell lung cancer: the role of the patient in clinical decision making

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study is to investigate the role and experience of early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patient in decision making process concerning treatment selection in the current clinical practice.

METHODS

Stage I-II NSCLC patients (surgery 55 patients, SBRT 29 patients, median age 68) were included in this prospective study and completed a questionnaire that explored: (1) perceived patient knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of the treatment options, (2) experience with current clinical decision making, and (3) the information that the patient reported to have received from their treating physician. This was assessed by multiple-choice, 1-5 Likert Scale, and open questions. The Decisional Conflict Scale was used to assess the decisional conflict. Health related quality of life (HRQoL) was measured with SF-36 questionnaire.

RESULTS

In 19% of patients, there was self-reported perceived lack of knowledge about the advantages and disadvantages of the treatment options. Seventy-four percent of patients felt that they were sufficiently involved in decision-making by their physician, and 81% found it important to be involved in decision making. Forty percent experienced decisional conflict, and one-in-five patients to such an extent that it made them feel unsure about the decision. Subscores with regard to feeling uninformed and on uncertainty, contributed the most to decisional conflict, as 36% felt uninformed and 17% of patients were not satisfied with their decision. HRQoL was not influenced by patient experience with decision-making or patient preferences for shared decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Dutch early-stage NSCLC patients find it important to be involved in treatment decision making. Yet a substantial proportion experiences decisional conflict and feels uninformed. Better patient information and/or involvement in treatment-decision-making is needed in order to improve patient knowledge and hopefully reduce decisional conflict.

Video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy is associated with greater recurrence-free survival than stereotactic body radiotherapy for clinical stage I lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

Stereotactic body radiotherapy is the standard treatment for medically inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Recent data suggest that in operable patients, stereotactic body radiotherapy produces outcomes comparable to those of surgical resection. In veterans with early non-small cell lung cancer, we compared the outcomes of stereotactic body radiotherapy and video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from 183 patients (94.0% male) with clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer who underwent stereotactic body radiotherapy (n = 56) or video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy (n = 127) from 2009 to 2014. Propensity matching was used to produce more comparable groups. Primary end points were tumor control and overall, recurrence-free, and lung-cancer-specific survival, as estimated by Kaplan-Meier actuarial analysis. Multivariable analysis was used to identify independent predictors.

RESULTS

In the overall cohort, the patients who received stereotactic body radiotherapy were older than the patients who received video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy (median age, 79.5 vs 64 years) and had more comorbidities. In the 37 propensity-matched pairs, the 3-year actuarial tumor control rate was 54.3% after stereotactic body radiotherapy and 90.6% after video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy (P = .0038). Actuarial lung cancer-specific 3-year survival was 78.1% (stereotactic body radiotherapy) versus 93.6% (video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy) (P = .055). One-year overall, 3-year overall, and 3-year recurrence-free survivals were 89.2%, 52.9%, and 38.5% after stereotactic body radiotherapy and 94.6%, 85.7%, and 82.8% after video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy (P < .005 for all), respectively. In multivariable analysis, stereotactic body radiotherapy independently predicted recurrence and poorer survival.

CONCLUSIONS

In veteran patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer, video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy resulted in better disease control and survival than stereotactic body radiotherapy. Although prior reports suggest that stereotactic body radiotherapy is a suitable alternative to surgery in early-stage lung cancer, a prospective randomized trial is needed. Nevertheless, stereotactic body radiotherapy remains a suitable option for medically inoperable patients.

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.

Rethinking N2 disease in the era of uniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery

Third Mediterranean Symposium on Thoracic Surgical Oncology, Catania, Italy, 21–22 April 2016

The primary justification for mediastinal lymphadenectomy is that it provides more complete nodal staging to help select best adjuvant treatments. There is a secondary argument that dissection of nodes might remove otherwise unrecognized nodal disease to increase the chance of cure. They have to be thought through again as patients look for less invasive treatments for their cancers such as videothoracoscopy and stereotactic radiotherapy. Evidence from analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results data indicated that sampling or dissection can be performed adequately by surgeons using videothoracoscopy but stereotactic radiotherapy of its nature precludes intraoperative lymph node dissection and yet is being promoted as equivalent treatment. Consideration of these issues requires re-examination of the evidence that lymphadenectomy influences survival.

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.

Improving lung cancer outcomes by improving the quality of surgical care

Surgical resection remains the most important curative treatment modality for non-small cell lung cancer, but variations in short- and long-term surgical outcomes jeopardize the benefit of surgery for certain patients, operated on by certain types of surgeons, at certain types of institutions. We discuss current understanding of surgical quality measures, and their role in promoting understanding of the causes of outcome disparities after lung cancer surgery. We also discuss the use of minimally invasive surgical resection approaches to expand the playing field for surgery in lung cancer care, and end with a discussion of the future role of surgery in a world of alternative treatment possibilities.