Birim O, Kappetein AP, Stijnen T, Bogers AJ.
Meta-analysis of positron emission tomographic and computed tomographic imaging in detecting mediastinal lymph node metastases in nonsmall cell lung cancer.
Ann Thorac Surg. 2005 Jan;79(1):375-82. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.06.041.
Abstract/Text
A systematic review was undertaken to select studies that compared the accuracy of 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography with computed tomographic imaging in detecting mediastinal lymph node metastases in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer. Two authors selected relevant articles according to predefined criteria. With a meta-analytic method, summary receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed. The point on the receiver operating characteristic curve with equal sensitivity and specificity for 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography was Q* = 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 0.95). For computed tomography it was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.75). The difference was highly significant (p < 0.0001). We conclude that 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is more accurate than computed tomography in detecting mediastinal lymph node metastases.
Schmidt-Hansen M, Baldwin DR, Hasler E, Zamora J, Abraira V, Roqué I Figuls M.
PET-CT for assessing mediastinal lymph node involvement in patients with suspected resectable non-small cell lung cancer.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Nov 13;2014(11):CD009519. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009519.pub2. Epub 2014 Nov 13.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: A major determinant of treatment offered to patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is their intrathoracic (mediastinal) nodal status. If the disease has not spread to the ipsilateral mediastinal nodes, subcarinal (N2) nodes, or both, and the patient is otherwise considered fit for surgery, resection is often the treatment of choice. Planning the optimal treatment is therefore critically dependent on accurate staging of the disease. PET-CT (positron emission tomography-computed tomography) is a non-invasive staging method of the mediastinum, which is increasingly available and used by lung cancer multidisciplinary teams. Although the non-invasive nature of PET-CT constitutes one of its major advantages, PET-CT may be suboptimal in detecting malignancy in normal-sized lymph nodes and in ruling out malignancy in patients with coexisting inflammatory or infectious diseases.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of integrated PET-CT for mediastinal staging of patients with suspected or confirmed NSCLC that is potentially suitable for treatment with curative intent.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 30 April 2013: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via OvidSP (from 1946), Embase via OvidSP (from 1974), PreMEDLINE via OvidSP, OpenGrey, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and the trials register www.clinicaltrials.gov. There were no language or publication status restrictions on the search. We also contacted researchers in the field, checked reference lists, and conducted citation searches (with an end-date of 9 July 2013) of relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Prospective or retrospective cross-sectional studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of integrated PET-CT for diagnosing N2 disease in patients with suspected resectable NSCLC. The studies must have used pathology as the reference standard and reported participants as the unit of analysis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data pertaining to the study characteristics and the number of true and false positives and true and false negatives for the index test, and they independently assessed the quality of the included studies using QUADAS-2. We calculated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each study and performed two main analyses based on the criteria for test positivity employed: Activity > background or SUVmax ≥ 2.5 (SUVmax = maximum standardised uptake value), where we fitted a summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve using a hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) model for each subset of studies. We identified the average operating point on the SROC curve and computed the average sensitivities and specificities. We checked for heterogeneity and examined the robustness of the meta-analyses through sensitivity analyses.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 45 studies, and based on the criteria for PET-CT positivity, we categorised the included studies into three groups: Activity > background (18 studies, N = 2823, prevalence of N2 and N3 nodes = 679/2328), SUVmax ≥ 2.5 (12 studies, N = 1656, prevalence of N2 and N3 nodes = 465/1656), and Other/mixed (15 studies, N = 1616, prevalence of N2 to N3 nodes = 400/1616). None of the studies reported (any) adverse events. Under-reporting generally hampered the quality assessment of the studies, and in 30/45 studies, the applicability of the study populations was of high or unclear concern.The summary sensitivity and specificity estimates for the 'Activity > background PET-CT positivity criterion were 77.4% (95% CI 65.3 to 86.1) and 90.1% (95% CI 85.3 to 93.5), respectively, but the accuracy estimates of these studies in ROC space showed a wide prediction region. This indicated high between-study heterogeneity and a relatively large 95% confidence region around the summary value of sensitivity and specificity, denoting a lack of precision. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the overall estimate of sensitivity was especially susceptible to selection bias; reference standard bias; clear definition of test positivity; and to a lesser extent, index test bias and commercial funding bias, with lower combined estimates of sensitivity observed for all the low 'Risk of bias' studies compared with the full analysis.The summary sensitivity and specificity estimates for the SUVmax ≥ 2.5 PET-CT positivity criterion were 81.3% (95% CI 70.2 to 88.9) and 79.4% (95% CI 70 to 86.5), respectively.In this group, the accuracy estimates of these studies in ROC space also showed a very wide prediction region. This indicated very high between-study heterogeneity, and there was a relatively large 95% confidence region around the summary value of sensitivity and specificity, denoting a clear lack of precision. Sensitivity analyses suggested that both overall accuracy estimates were marginally sensitive to flow and timing bias and commercial funding bias, which both lead to slightly lower estimates of sensitivity and specificity.Heterogeneity analyses showed that the accuracy estimates were significantly influenced by country of study origin, percentage of participants with adenocarcinoma, (¹⁸F)-2-fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) dose, type of PET-CT scanner, and study size, but not by study design, consecutive recruitment, attenuation correction, year of publication, or tuberculosis incidence rate per 100,000 population.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review has shown that accuracy of PET-CT is insufficient to allow management based on PET-CT alone. The findings therefore support National Institute for Health and Care (formally 'clinical') Excellence (NICE) guidance on this topic, where PET-CT is used to guide clinicians in the next step: either a biopsy or where negative and nodes are small, directly to surgery. The apparent difference between the two main makes of PET-CT scanner is important and may influence the treatment decision in some circumstances. The differences in PET-CT accuracy estimates between scanner makes, NSCLC subtypes, FDG dose, and country of study origin, along with the general variability of results, suggest that all large centres should actively monitor their accuracy. This is so that they can make reliable decisions based on their own results and identify the populations in which PET-CT is of most use or potentially little value.
Fischer B, Lassen U, Mortensen J, Larsen S, Loft A, Bertelsen A, Ravn J, Clementsen P, Høgholm A, Larsen K, Rasmussen T, Keiding S, Dirksen A, Gerke O, Skov B, Steffensen I, Hansen H, Vilmann P, Jacobsen G, Backer V, Maltbaek N, Pedersen J, Madsen H, Nielsen H, Højgaard L.
Preoperative staging of lung cancer with combined PET-CT.
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 2;361(1):32-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0900043.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Fast and accurate staging is essential for choosing treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The purpose of this randomized study was to evaluate the clinical effect of combined positron-emission tomography and computed tomography (PET-CT) on preoperative staging of NSCLC.
METHODS: We randomly assigned patients who were referred for preoperative staging of NSCLC to either conventional staging plus PET-CT or conventional staging alone. Patients were followed until death or for at least 12 months. The primary end point was the number of futile thoracotomies, defined as any one of the following: a thoracotomy with the finding of pathologically confirmed mediastinal lymph-node involvement (stage IIIA [N2]), stage IIIB or stage IV disease, or a benign lung lesion; an exploratory thoracotomy; or a thoracotomy in a patient who had recurrent disease or death from any cause within 1 year after randomization.
RESULTS: From January 2002 through February 2007, we randomly assigned 98 patients to the PET-CT group and 91 to the conventional-staging group. Mediastinoscopy was performed in 94% of the patients. After PET-CT, 38 patients were classified as having inoperable NSCLC, and after conventional staging, 18 patients were classified thus. Sixty patients in the PET-CT group and 73 in the conventional-staging group underwent thoracotomy (P=0.004). Among these thoracotomies, 21 in the PET-CT group and 38 in the conventional-staging group were futile (P=0.05). The number of justified thoracotomies and survival were similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of PET-CT for preoperative staging of NSCLC reduced both the total number of thoracotomies and the number of futile thoracotomies but did not affect overall mortality. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00867412.)
2009 Massachusetts Medical Society
Maziak DE, Darling GE, Inculet RI, Gulenchyn KY, Driedger AA, Ung YC, Miller JD, Gu CS, Cline KJ, Evans WK, Levine MN.
Positron emission tomography in staging early lung cancer: a randomized trial.
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):221-8, W-48. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00132. Epub 2009 Jul 6.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Among patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), preoperative imaging tests are important in defining surgical candidates.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether whole-body positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET-CT) plus cranial imaging correctly upstages cancer in more patients with NSCLC than does conventional staging plus cranial imaging.
DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial with recruitment from June 2004 to August 2007. The centralized, computer-generated, variable block size randomization scheme was stratified by treatment center and cancer stage. Participants, health care providers, and outcome assessors were not blinded to imaging modality assignment.
SETTING: 8 hospitals and 5 PET-CT centers in academic institutions.
PATIENTS: Eligible patients were older than 18 years; had histologic or cytologic proof of stage I, II, or IIIA NSCLC on the basis of chest radiography and thoracic CT; and had a tumor considered to be resectable.
INTERVENTION: PET-CT or conventional staging (abdominal CT and bone scan). All patients also had cranial imaging using CT or magnetic resonance imaging.
MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was correct upstaging, thereby avoiding stage-inappropriate surgery. Secondary outcomes were incorrect upstaging and incorrect understaging.
RESULTS: 170 patients were assigned to PET-CT and 167 to conventional staging. Eight patients (3 who had PET-CT and 5 who had conventional staging) did not have planned surgery. Disease was correctly upstaged in 23 of 167 PET-CT recipients and 11 of 162 conventional staging recipients (13.8% vs. 6.8%; difference, 7.0 percentage points [95% CI, 0.3 to 13.7 percentage points]), thereby sparing these patients from surgery. Disease was incorrectly upstaged in 8 PET-CT recipients and 1 conventional staging recipient (4.8% vs. 0.6%; difference, 4.2 percentage points [CI, 0.5 to 8.6 percentage points]), and it was incorrectly understaged in 25 and 48 patients, respectively (14.9% vs. 29.6%; difference, 14.7 percentage points [CI, 5.7 to 23.4 percentage points]). At 3 years, 52 patients who had PET-CT and 57 patients who had conventional staging had died.
LIMITATION: The relatively small sample and the fact that some patients did not have planned surgery limited the ability to determine precise differences in clinical outcomes that were attributable to testing strategies.
CONCLUSION: Preoperative staging with PET-CT and cranial imaging identifies more patients with mediastinal and extrathoracic disease than conventional staging, thereby sparing more patients from stage-inappropriate surgery, but the strategy also incorrectly upstaged disease in more patients.
De Wever W, Ceyssens S, Mortelmans L, Stroobants S, Marchal G, Bogaert J, Verschakelen JA.
Additional value of PET-CT in the staging of lung cancer: comparison with CT alone, PET alone and visual correlation of PET and CT.
Eur Radiol. 2007 Jan;17(1):23-32. doi: 10.1007/s00330-006-0284-4. Epub 2006 May 9.
Abstract/Text
Integrated positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) is a new imaging modality offering anatomic and metabolic information. The purpose was to evaluate retrospectively the accuracy of integrated PET-CT in the staging of a suggestive lung lesion, comparing this with the accuracy of CT alone, PET alone and visually correlated PET-CT. Fifty patients undergoing integrated PET-CT for staging of a suggestive lung lesion were studied. Their tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) statuses were determined with CT, PET, visually correlated PET-CT and integrated PET-CT. These TNM stages were compared with the surgical TNM status. Integrated PET-CT was the most accurate imaging technique in the assessment of the TNM status. Integrated PET-CT predicted correctly the T status, N status, M status and TNM status in, respectively, 86%, 80%, 98%, 70% versus 68%, 66%,88%, 46% with CT, 46%, 70%, 96%, 30% with PET and 72%, 68%, 96%, 54% with visually correlated PET-CT. T status and N status were overstaged, respectively, in 8% and 16% with integrated PET-CT, in 20% and 28% with CT, in 16% and 20% with PET, in 12% and 20% with visually correlated PET-CT and understaged in 6% and 4% with integrated PET-CT, versus 12% and 6% with CT, 38% and 10% with PET and 12% with visually correlated PET-CT. Integrated PET-CT improves the staging of lung cancer through a better anatomic localization and characterization of lesions and is superior to CT alone and PET alone. If this technique is not available, visual correlation of PET and CT can be a valuable alternative.
Antoch G, Stattaus J, Nemat AT, Marnitz S, Beyer T, Kuehl H, Bockisch A, Debatin JF, Freudenberg LS.
Non-small cell lung cancer: dual-modality PET/CT in preoperative staging.
Radiology. 2003 Nov;229(2):526-33. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2292021598. Epub 2003 Sep 25.
Abstract/Text
PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of dual-modality positron emission tomographic (PET)-computed tomographic (CT) imaging, as compared with PET alone and CT alone, in the staging of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven patients with NSCLC underwent staging with combined fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET and CT. CT, PET, and coregistered PET/CT images were evaluated separately by two different physicians for each imaging modality, and disease stage was determined by using TNM and American Joint Committee on Cancer staging systems. Histopathologic results served as the reference standard. The statistical significance of differences among CT, PET, and PET/CT was determined by using the McNemar test.
RESULTS: Overall tumor stage was correctly classified as 0-IV with CT in 19 patients, with PET in 20 patients, and with PET/CT in 26 patients. PET/CT findings when compared with PET findings led to a treatment change for four patients (15%) and when compared with CT findings led to a treatment change for five patients (19%). Differences in the accuracy of overall tumor staging between PET/CT and CT (P =.008) and between PET/CT and PET (P =.031) were significant. Primary tumor stage was correctly determined in more patients with PET/CT than with either PET alone or CT alone. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of regional lymph node staging, respectively, were 89%, 94%, 89%, 94%, and 93%, with PET/CT; 89%, 89%, 80%, 94%, and 89% with PET; and 70%, 59%, 50%, 77%, and 63% with CT. Fourteen distant metastases were detected in four patients with CT, four were detected in two patients with PET, and 17 were detected in four patients with PET/CT.
CONCLUSION: Use of dual-modality PET/CT significantly increases the number of patients with correctly staged NSCLC and thus has a positive effect on treatment.
Copyright RSNA, 2003
Suzuki K, Koike T, Asakawa T, Kusumoto M, Asamura H, Nagai K, Tada H, Mitsudomi T, Tsuboi M, Shibata T, Fukuda H, Kato H; Japan Lung Cancer Surgical Study Group (JCOG LCSSG).
A prospective radiological study of thin-section computed tomography to predict pathological noninvasiveness in peripheral clinical IA lung cancer (Japan Clinical Oncology Group 0201).
J Thorac Oncol. 2011 Apr;6(4):751-6. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31821038ab.
Abstract/Text
PURPOSE: Pathological noninvasiveness needs to be precisely predicted in preoperative radiological examinations of patients with early lung cancer for the application of limited surgery.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with clinical T1N0M0 peripheral lung cancer were recruited. Radiological findings of the main tumor were evaluated as to ground-glass opacity with thin-section computed tomography. The primary end point was specificity, i.e., the proportion of patients with radiologically diagnosed invasive lung cancer to patients with pathologically diagnosed invasive lung cancer. The precision-based planned sample size was 450. We expected that the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for specificity should be satisfied in ≥97% of patients.
RESULTS: We enrolled 811 patients from 31 institutions between December 2002 and May 2004. The primary end point was evaluated in 545 patients. The specificity and sensitivity for the diagnosis of pathologically diagnosed invasive cancer were 96.4% (161/167, 95% CI: 92.3-98.7%) and 30.4% (115/378, 95% CI: 25.8-35.3%), respectively, i.e., a negative result. Nevertheless, the specificity for lung adenocarcinoma ≤2.0 cm with ≤0.25 consolidation to the maximum tumor diameter was 98.7% (95% CI: 93.2-100.0%), and this criterion could be used to radiologically define early adenocarcinoma of the lung.
CONCLUSIONS: Although our predetermined criterion for specificity was not statistically confirmed, radiological diagnosis of noninvasive lung cancer with a thin-section computed tomography scan corresponded well with pathological invasiveness. Radiological noninvasive peripheral lung adenocarcinoma could be defined as an adenocarcinoma ≤2.0 cm with ≤0.25 consolidation.
Suzuki K, Watanabe SI, Wakabayashi M, Saji H, Aokage K, Moriya Y, Yoshino I, Tsuboi M, Nakamura S, Nakamura K, Mitsudomi T, Asamura H; West Japan Oncology Group and Japan Clinical Oncology Group.
A single-arm study of sublobar resection for ground-glass opacity dominant peripheral lung cancer.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022 Jan;163(1):289-301.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.09.146. Epub 2020 Nov 12.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: The optimal mode of surgery for ground-glass opacity dominant peripheral lung cancer defined with thoracic thin-section computed tomography remains unknown.
METHODS: We conducted a single-arm confirmatory trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sublobar resection for ground-glass opacity dominant peripheral lung cancer. Lung cancer with maximum tumor diameter 2.0 cm or less and with consolidation tumor ratio 0.25 or less based on thin-section computed tomography were registered. The primary end point was 5-year relapse-free survival. The planned sample size was 330 with the expected 5-year relapse-free survival of 98%, threshold of 95%, 1-sided α of 5%, and power of 90%. The trial is registered with University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry, number University Hospital Medical Information Network 000002008.
RESULTS: Between May 2009 and April 2011, 333 patients were enrolled from 51 institutions. Median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 56-68), and 109 were smokers. Median maximum tumor diameter was 1.20 cm (1.00-1.54). Median maximum tumor diameter of consolidation was 0 (0.00-0.20). The primary end point, 5-year relapse-free survival, was estimated on 314 patients who underwent sublobar resection. Operative modes were 258 wide wedge resections and 56 segmentectomies. Median pathological surgical margin was 15 mm (0-55). The 5-year relapse-free survival was 99.7% (90% confidence interval, 98.3-99.9), which met the primary end point. There was no local relapse. Grade 3 or higher postoperative complications based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effect v3.0 were observed in 17 patients (5.4%), without any grade 4 or 5.
CONCLUSIONS: Sublobar resection with enough surgical margin offered sufficient local control and relapse-free survival for lung cancer clinically resectable N0 staged by computed tomography with 3 or fewer peripheral lesions 2.0 cm or less amenable to sublobar resection and with a consolidation tumor ratio of 0.25 or less.
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Okada M, Koike T, Higashiyama M, Yamato Y, Kodama K, Tsubota N.
Radical sublobar resection for small-sized non-small cell lung cancer: a multicenter study.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006 Oct;132(4):769-75. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2006.02.063.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: At present, even when early-stage, small-sized non-small cell lung cancers are being increasingly detected, lesser resection has not become the treatment of choice. We sought to compare sublobar resection (segmentectomy or wedge resection) with lobar resection to test which one is the appropriate procedure for such lesions.
METHODS: From 1992 to 2001, a nonrandomized study was performed in 3 institutes for patients with a peripheral cT1N0M0 non-small cell lung cancer of 2 cm or less who were able to tolerate a lobectomy. The results of the sublobar resection group enrolled preoperatively (n = 305) were compared with those of the lobar resection group (n = 262).
RESULTS: Except for distribution of tumor location, there were no significant differences in any variable, patient characteristics, curability, pathologic stage, morbidity, or recurrence rate. Median follow-up was more than 5 years. Disease-free and overall survivals were similar in both groups with 5-year survivals of 85.9% and 89.6% for the sublobar resection group and 83.4% and 89.1% for the lobar resection group, respectively. Multivariate analysis confirmed that the recurrence rate and prognosis associated with sublobar resection were not inferior to those obtained with lobar resection. Postoperative lung function was significantly better in patients who underwent sublobar resection.
CONCLUSIONS: Sublobar resection should be considered as an alternative for stage IA non-small cell lung cancers 2 cm or less, even in low-risk patients. These results could lay the foundation for starting randomized controlled trials anew, which would bring great changes of lung cancer surgery in this era of early detection of lung cancer.
Saji H, Okada M, Tsuboi M, Nakajima R, Suzuki K, Aokage K, Aoki T, Okami J, Yoshino I, Ito H, Okumura N, Yamaguchi M, Ikeda N, Wakabayashi M, Nakamura K, Fukuda H, Nakamura S, Mitsudomi T, Watanabe SI, Asamura H; West Japan Oncology Group and Japan Clinical Oncology Group.
Segmentectomy versus lobectomy in small-sized peripheral non-small-cell lung cancer (JCOG0802/WJOG4607L): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.
Lancet. 2022 Apr 23;399(10335):1607-1617. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02333-3.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Lobectomy is the standard of care for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The survival and clinical benefits of segmentectomy have not been investigated in a randomised trial setting. We aimed to investigate if segmentectomy was non-inferior to lobectomy in patients with small-sized peripheral NSCLC.
METHODS: We conducted this randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial at 70 institutions in Japan. Patients with clinical stage IA NSCLC (tumour diameter ≤2 cm; consolidation-to-tumour ratio >0·5) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either lobectomy or segmentectomy. Randomisation was done via the minimisation method, with balancing for the institution, histological type, sex, age, and thin-section CT findings. Treatment allocation was not concealed from investigators and patients. The primary endpoint was overall survival for all randomly assigned patients. The secondary endpoints were postoperative respiratory function (6 months and 12 months), relapse-free survival, proportion of local relapse, adverse events, proportion of segmentectomy completion, duration of hospital stay, duration of chest tube placement, duration of surgery, amount of blood loss, and the number of automatic surgical staples used. Overall survival was analysed on an intention-to-treat basis with a non-inferiority margin of 1·54 for the upper limit of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) and estimated using a stratified Cox regression model. This study is registered with UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN000002317.
FINDINGS: Between Aug, 10, 2009, and Oct 21, 2014, 1106 patients (intention-to-treat population) were enrolled to receive lobectomy (n=554) or segmentectomy (n=552). Patient baseline clinicopathological factors were well balanced between the groups. In the segmentectomy group, 22 patients were switched to lobectomies and one patient received wide wedge resection. At a median follow-up of 7·3 years (range 0·0-10·9), the 5-year overall survival was 94·3% (92·1-96·0) for segmentectomy and 91·1% for lobectomy (95% CI 88·4-93·2); superiority and non-inferiority in overall survival were confirmed using a stratified Cox regression model (HR 0·663; 95% CI 0·474-0·927; one-sided p<0·0001 for non-inferiority; p=0·0082 for superiority). Improved overall survival was observed consistently across all predefined subgroups in the segmentectomy group. At 1 year follow-up, the significant difference in the reduction of median forced expiratory volume in 1 sec between the two groups was 3·5% (p<0·0001), which did not reach the predefined threshold for clinical significance of 10%. The 5-year relapse-free survival was 88·0% (95% CI 85·0-90·4) for segmentectomy and 87·9% (84·8-90·3) for lobectomy (HR 0·998; 95% CI 0·753-1·323; p=0·9889). The proportions of patients with local relapse were 10·5% for segmentectomy and 5·4% for lobectomy (p=0·0018). 52 (63%) of 83 patients and 27 (47%) of 58 patients died of other diseases after lobectomy and segmentectomy, respectively. No 30-day or 90-day mortality was observed. One or more postoperative complications of grade 2 or worse occurred at similar frequencies in both groups (142 [26%] patients who received lobectomy, 148 [27%] who received segmentectomy).
INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this study was the first phase 3 trial to show the benefits of segmentectomy versus lobectomy in overall survival of patients with small-peripheral NSCLC. The findings suggest that segmentectomy should be the standard surgical procedure for this population of patients.
FUNDING: National Cancer Center Research and the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare of Japan.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Ginsberg RJ, Rubinstein LV.
Randomized trial of lobectomy versus limited resection for T1 N0 non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer Study Group.
Ann Thorac Surg. 1995 Sep;60(3):615-22; discussion 622-3. doi: 10.1016/0003-4975(95)00537-u.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: It has been reported that limited resection (segment or wedge) is equivalent to lobectomy in the management of early stage (T1-2 N0) non-small cell lung cancer.
METHODS: A prospective, multiinstitutional randomized trial was instituted comparing limited resection with lobectomy for patients with peripheral T1 N0 non-small cell lung cancer documented at operation. Analysis included locoregional and distant recurrence rates, 5-year survival rates, perioperative morbidity and mortality, and late pulmonary function assessment.
RESULTS: There were 276 patients randomized, with 247 patients eligible for analysis. There were no significant differences for all stratification variables, selected prognostic factors, perioperative morbidity, mortality, or late pulmonary function. In patients undergoing limited resection, there was an observed 75% increase in recurrence rates (p = 0.02, one-sided) attributable to an observed tripling of the local recurrence rate (p = 0.008 two-sided), an observed 30% increase in overall death rate (p = 0.08, one-sided), and an observed 50% increase in death with cancer rate (p = 0.09, one-sided) compared to patients undergoing lobectomy (p = 0.10, one-sided was the predefined threshold for statistical significance for this equivalency study).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with lobectomy, limited pulmonary resection does not confer improved perioperative morbidity, mortality, or late postoperative pulmonary function. Because of the higher death rate and locoregional recurrence rate associated with limited resection, lobectomy still must be considered the surgical procedure of choice for patients with peripheral T1 N0 non-small cell lung cancer.
Nyman J, Hallqvist A, Lund JÅ, Brustugun OT, Bergman B, Bergström P, Friesland S, Lewensohn R, Holmberg E, Lax I.
SPACE - A randomized study of SBRT vs conventional fractionated radiotherapy in medically inoperable stage I NSCLC.
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Oct;121(1):1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.08.015. Epub 2016 Sep 3.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has been introduced for small lung tumors due to excellent local control and few side effects, even though there are no comparative studies. SPACE (Stereotactic Precision And Conventional radiotherapy Evaluation) is the first randomized phase II trial comparing SBRT and conventional fractionated radiotherapy (3DCRT).
METHODS: Patients with stage I medically inoperable NSCLC were randomized to receive SBRT to 66Gy in 3 fractions (one week) or 3DCRT to 70Gy (7weeks). Patients were followed to assess efficacy, toxicity and HRQL.
FINDINGS: Between 2007 and 2011, 102 patients were randomized. Mean age 74 (57-86), 60% women, the vast majority (92%) had COPD or cardiovascular comorbidity. The SBRT arm included more patients with T2-tumors (p=0.02) and male gender (p=0.35). The median follow-up was 37months with a 1-, 2- and 3-year PFS of: SBRT: 76%, 53%, 42% and 3DCRT: 87%, 54% 42%, HR=0.85 (95% CI 0.52-1.36) with no difference between the groups and no difference in OS (HR=0.75, 95% CI 0.43-1.30). At the end of the study 70% of SBRT patients had not progressed compared to 59% (3DCRT, p=0.26). Toxicity was low with no grade 5 events. Pneumonitis of any grade was observed in 19% (SBRT) and 34% (3DCRT, p=0.26), and esophagitis in 8% and 30% respectively (p=0.006). HRQL was evaluated with the EORTC QLQ 30 and LC14 module and patients treated with 3DCRT experienced worse dyspnea (p=0.01), chest pain (p=0.02) and cough (>10 points difference).
INTERPRETATION: There was no difference in PFS and OS between SBRT and conventionally treated patients despite an imbalance of prognostic factors. We observed a tendency of an improved disease control rate in the SBRT group and they experienced better HRQL and less toxicity. SBRT is convenient for patients and should be considered standard treatment for patients with inoperable stage I NSCLC.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Ball D, Mai GT, Vinod S, Babington S, Ruben J, Kron T, Chesson B, Herschtal A, Vanevski M, Rezo A, Elder C, Skala M, Wirth A, Wheeler G, Lim A, Shaw M, Schofield P, Irving L, Solomon B; TROG 09.02 CHISEL investigators.
Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard radiotherapy in stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer (TROG 09.02 CHISEL): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial.
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Apr;20(4):494-503. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30896-9. Epub 2019 Feb 12.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is widely used to treat inoperable stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), despite the absence of prospective evidence that this type of treatment improves local control or prolongs overall survival compared with standard radiotherapy. We aimed to compare the two treatment techniques.
METHODS: We did this multicentre, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial in 11 hospitals in Australia and three hospitals in New Zealand. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had biopsy-confirmed stage 1 (T1-T2aN0M0) NSCLC diagnosed on the basis of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET, and were medically inoperable or had refused surgery. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and the tumour had to be peripherally located. Patients were randomly assigned after stratification for T stage and operability in a 2:1 ratio to SABR (54 Gy in three 18 Gy fractions, or 48 Gy in four 12 Gy fractions if the tumour was <2 cm from the chest wall) or standard radiotherapy (66 Gy in 33 daily 2 Gy fractions or 50 Gy in 20 daily 2·5 Gy fractions, depending on institutional preference) using minimisation, so no sequence was pre-generated. Clinicians, patients, and data managers had no previous knowledge of the treatment group to which patients would be assigned; however, the treatment assignment was subsequently open label (because of the nature of the interventions). The primary endpoint was time to local treatment failure (assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0), with the hypothesis that SABR would result in superior local control compared with standard radiotherapy. All efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat analysis. Safety analyses were done on a per-protocol basis, according to treatment that the patients actually received. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01014130) and the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12610000479000). The trial is closed to new participants.
FINDINGS: Between Dec 31, 2009, and June 22, 2015, 101 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive SABR (n=66) or standard radiotherapy (n=35). Five (7·6%) patients in the SABR group and two (6·5%) in the standard radiotherapy group did not receive treatment, and a further four in each group withdrew before study end. As of data cutoff (July 31, 2017), median follow-up for local treatment failure was 2·1 years (IQR 1·2-3·6) for patients randomly assigned to standard radiotherapy and 2·6 years (IQR 1·6-3·6) for patients assigned to SABR. 20 (20%) of 101 patients had progressed locally: nine (14%) of 66 patients in the SABR group and 11 (31%) of 35 patients in the standard radiotherapy group, and freedom from local treatment failure was improved in the SABR group compared with the standard radiotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·32, 95% CI 0·13-0·77, p=0·0077). Median time to local treatment failure was not reached in either group. In patients treated with SABR, there was one grade 4 adverse event (dyspnoea) and seven grade 3 adverse events (two cough, one hypoxia, one lung infection, one weight loss, one dyspnoea, and one fatigue) related to treatment compared with two grade 3 events (chest pain) in the standard treatment group.
INTERPRETATION: In patients with inoperable peripherally located stage 1 NSCLC, compared with standard radiotherapy, SABR resulted in superior local control of the primary disease without an increase in major toxicity. The findings of this trial suggest that SABR should be the treatment of choice for this patient group.
FUNDING: The Radiation and Optometry Section of the Australian Government Department of Health with the assistance of Cancer Australia, and the Cancer Society of New Zealand and the Cancer Research Trust New Zealand (formerly Genesis Oncology Trust).
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Grutters JP, Kessels AG, Pijls-Johannesma M, De Ruysscher D, Joore MA, Lambin P.
Comparison of the effectiveness of radiotherapy with photons, protons and carbon-ions for non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis.
Radiother Oncol. 2010 Apr;95(1):32-40. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2009.08.003. Epub 2009 Sep 3.
Abstract/Text
PURPOSE: To provide a comparison between radiotherapy with photons, protons and carbon-ions in the treatment of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC), performing a meta-analysis of observational studies.
METHODS: Eligible studies on conventional radiotherapy (CRT), stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT), concurrent chemoradiation (CCR), proton therapy and carbon-ion therapy were searched through a systematic review. To obtain pooled estimates of 2- and 5-year disease-specific and overall survival and the occurrence of severe adverse events for each treatment modality, a random effects meta-analysis was carried out. Pooled estimates were corrected for effect modifiers.
RESULTS: Corrected pooled estimates for 2-year overall survival in stage I inoperable NSCLC ranged from 53% for CRT to 74% for carbon-ion therapy. Five-year overall survival for CRT (20%) was statistically significantly lower than that for SBRT (42%), proton therapy (40%) and carbon-ion therapy (42%). However, caution is warranted due to the limited number of patients and limited length of follow-up of the particle studies.
CONCLUSION: Survival rates for particle therapy were higher than those for CRT, but similar to SBRT in stage I inoperable NSCLC. Particle therapy may be more beneficial in stage III NSCLC, especially in reducing adverse events.
Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Rowell NP, Williams CJ.
Radical radiotherapy for stage I/II non-small cell lung cancer in patients not sufficiently fit for or declining surgery (medically inoperable): a systematic review.
Thorax. 2001 Aug;56(8):628-38. doi: 10.1136/thorax.56.8.628.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of radical radiotherapy in medically inoperable stage I/II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and the extent of treatment related morbidity.
METHODS: Randomised trials were sought by electronically searching the Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, and both randomised and non-randomised trials were sought by searching Medline and Excerpta Medica (Embase). Further studies were identified from references cited in those papers already identified by electronic searching. The studies included were those of patients of any age with stage I/II NSCLC receiving radiotherapy at a dose of >40 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or its radiobiological equivalent.
RESULTS: Two randomised and 35 non-randomised studies were identified. One randomised and nine non-randomised studies did not meet the selection criteria, leaving one randomised and 26 non-randomised studies for analysis. In the randomised trial 2 year survival was higher following continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (CHART; 37%) than following 60 Gy in 30 fractions over 6 weeks (24%). An estimated 2003 patients were included in the 26 non-randomised studies; overall survival was 22-72% at 2 years, 17-55% at 3 years, and 0-42% at 5 years. Following treatment, 11-43% of patients died from causes other than cancer. Cancer specific survival was 54-93% at 2 years, 22-56% at 3 years, and 13-39% at 5 years. Complete response rates were 33-61% and local failure rates were 6-70%. Distant metastases developed in approximately 25% of patients. Better response rates and survival were seen in those with smaller tumours and in those receiving higher doses although the reasons for prescribing higher doses were not clearly stated. The outcome was worse in those with prior weight loss or poor performance status. Assessment of treatment related morbidity and effects on quality of life and symptom control were inconclusive because of the lack of prospective evaluation and paucity of data.
CONCLUSIONS: No randomised trials compared a policy of immediate radical radiotherapy with palliative radiotherapy given when patients develop symptoms. In the absence of such trials, radical radiotherapy appears to result in a better survival than might be expected had treatment not been given. A substantial, though variable, proportion of patients died during follow up from causes other than cancer. The optimal radiation dose and treatment technique (particularly with respect to mediastinal irradiation) remain uncertain.
Sibley GS.
Radiotherapy for patients with medically inoperable Stage I nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: smaller volumes and higher doses--a review.
Cancer. 1998 Feb 1;82(3):433-8.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Surgical resection remains the treatment of choice for patients with stage I nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. However, there is a group of patients who are medically inoperable and are treated with radiotherapy alone. This review summarizes findings from published series of radiotherapy for patients with medically inoperable Stage I lung carcinoma.
METHODS: A literature search was used to identify studies of treatment with radiotherapy alone for patients with medically inoperable Stage I nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. Ten studies that utilized megavoltage irradiation to doses of >55 gray (Gy) in conventional fractionation were selected for analysis.
RESULTS: Radiotherapy doses were similar throughout the series, with a median dose of 60-66 Gy. However, treatment volumes varied considerably, from small "postage stamp" fields to comprehensive lymph node coverage. Averaging the results of these studies showed that approximately 15% of patients will be long term survivors, 25% will die of intercurrent disease, 30% will die of distant metastatic disease and 30% will die after local failure only. Eight of ten series report Grade 3-5 complications occurring in <2% of patients. Analysis of treatment factors affecting survival revealed a consistent benefit of higher radiotherapy doses in terms of local control or disease free survival. No benefit from prophylactic lymph node irradiation was demonstrated.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the infirm nature of patients with medically inoperable Stage I lung carcinoma, the majority will ultimately die of uncontrolled lung carcinoma. Because complications are uncommon after doses of 60-66 Gy, trials of dose escalation to limited fields are indicated for patients with medically inoperable nonsmall cell carcinoma in an attempt to improve overall survival.
Qiao X, Tullgren O, Lax I, Sirzén F, Lewensohn R.
The role of radiotherapy in treatment of stage I non-small cell lung cancer.
Lung Cancer. 2003 Jul;41(1):1-11. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5002(03)00152-1.
Abstract/Text
Most information on results with radiotherapy (RT) for stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is based on retrospective studies on RT-treated inoperable NSCLC cases. Thus, the role of RT for stage I NSCLC, as a curative modality, has not yet been established. A literature search for studies on stage I non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) treated by RT alone resulted in 18 papers published between 1988 and 2000. The majority of stage I patients received RT treatment because they were medically inoperable. The main contraindications for surgery were grave impairment of pulmonary function and serious cardiovascular disease. Local recurrence was the most common reason for treatment failure (median value 40%) but varied highly between the studies, ranging from 6.4 to 70%. In contrast with local recurrence, regional failure was not a major problem (0-3.2%). Generally, smaller tumour size, low T-stage and increased dose had a favourable impact on local control and increased local control was followed by increased survival. No serious treatment complications were recorded in the majority of these studies. Overall treatment results were, however, disappointing. The median survival in these studies ranged from 18 to 33 months. The 3- and 5-year overall survival was 34+/-9 and 21+/-8% (mean value+/-1 S.E.), respectively. The cause-specific survival at 3 and 5 years was 39+/-10 and 25+/-9% (mean value+/-1 S.E.), respectively. Dose escalation, in a setting with conformal RT using involved field or stereotactic RT, should be the focus of developmental therapeutic strategies with inoperable stage I NSCLC to improve local control and survival.
Morita K, Fuwa N, Suzuki Y, Nishio M, Sakai K, Tamaki Y, Niibe H, Chujo M, Wada S, Sugawara T, Kita M.
Radical radiotherapy for medically inoperable non-small cell lung cancer in clinical stage I: a retrospective analysis of 149 patients.
Radiother Oncol. 1997 Jan;42(1):31-6. doi: 10.1016/s0167-8140(96)01828-2.
Abstract/Text
PURPOSE: In order to obtain the standard treatment results of medically inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Stage I in the post-CT scan era, a retrospective analysis of patients who were treated by radical radiotherapy was performed.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: 149 cases treated between 1980 and 1989 were accumulated from ten large hospitals in Japan. All patients received a total dose of 55-75 Gy (mean 64.7 Gy) with conventional fractionation. For evaluation of treatment results, complete response (CR) rate, median survival period and long-termed survival rates were used.
RESULTS: The median survival of the all cases was 27.2 months and the actuarial 3- and 5-year survival rates were 34.2% and 22.2%, respectively. CR was obtained in 57 cases (38%). The CR rate was strongly correlated with the long-term survival (5-year survival rate in CR group: 35.1% compared with PR + NC group: 14.1% (P < 0.0001)). The size of tumor was also of prognostic importance. In 116 patients who died within 5 years after treatment, 66 patients (57%) died of local tumor regrowth.
CONCLUSION: Although the medically inoperable NSCLC patients in Stage I should be offered curative radiation therapy, development of some new steps to increase the CR rate and local control rate is urgently needed.
Dudani S, Zhu X, Yokom DW, Yamada A, Ho C, Pantarotto JR, Leighl NB, Zhang T, Wheatley-Price P.
Radical Treatment of Stage II Non-small-cell Lung Cancer With Nonsurgical Approaches: A Multi-institution Report of Outcomes.
Clin Lung Cancer. 2018 Jan;19(1):e11-e18. doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2017.06.007. Epub 2017 Jun 21.
Abstract/Text
INTRODUCTION: Standard management of stage II non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is surgery, often followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. However, some patients do not undergo surgery for various reasons. We examined outcomes in this defined patient group.
METHODS: We reviewed the records of patients with stage II NSCLC treated nonsurgically with curative intent from 2002 to 2012 across 3 academic cancer centers. Data collected included demographics, comorbidities, staging, treatments, and survival. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). We assessed factors associated with treatment choice and OS.
RESULTS: A total of 158 patients were included: the median age was 74 years (range, 50-91 years), 44% were female, and 68% had a performance status of 0 to 1. The stage II groupings of the patients were T2b-T3 N0 in 55% and N1 in 45%. The most common reasons for inoperability were inadequate pulmonary reserve (27%) and medical comorbidities (24%). All patients received radical radiotherapy (RT) (median, 60 Gy [range, 48-75 Gy]). Seventy-three percent received RT alone; 24% received concurrent and 3% sequential chemoradiotherapy (CRT). In multivariate analyses, CRT was less likely in older patients (≥ 70 years) (odds ratio [OR], 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.70; P = .006) and in patients with higher (> 5) Charlson comorbidity scores (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.90; P = .03) or normal (< 10 × 109/L) white blood cell counts (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.09-0.73; P = .01). At the time of our analysis, 74% have died. The median OS was 22.9 months (range, 17.1-26.6 months). Patients who had undergone CRT had a significantly longer median OS than those receiving RT alone (39.1 vs. 20.5 months; P = .0019), confirmed in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.21-0.69; P = .001).
CONCLUSION: Nonsurgical approaches to management of stage II NSCLC are varied. Treatment with CRT was associated with significantly longer survival compared with RT alone. A randomized trial may be warranted.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Hamada C, Tanaka F, Ohta M, Fujimura S, Kodama K, Imaizumi M, Wada H.
Meta-analysis of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with tegafur-uracil in non-small-cell lung cancer.
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Aug 1;23(22):4999-5006. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.09.017.
Abstract/Text
PURPOSE: Recent clinical trials have shown the efficacy of platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy for completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In Japan, many clinical trials of adjuvant chemotherapy with tegafur-uracil (UFT) have been conducted, and some trials showed positive results while others showed negative results. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with UFT in NSCLC.
METHODS: Among nine trials of postoperative adjuvant UFT-containing chemotherapy, six trials comparing surgery alone with surgery plus UFT were identified. Of six trials, two were three-arm trials including cisplatin-based chemotherapy followed by UFT, and data from that arm were not included in the meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Of 2,003 eligible patients, most (98.8%) had squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, and most had stage I disease; the tumor classification was T1 in 1,308 (65.3%), T2 in 674 (33.6%), and the nodal status was N0 in 1,923 (96.0%). The two treatment groups did not differ significantly in major prognostic factors. The median duration of follow-up was 6.44 years. The survival rates at 5 and 7 years were significantly higher in the surgery plus UFT group (81.5% and 76.5%, respectively) than in the surgery alone group (77.2% and 69.5%, respectively; P = .011 and .001, respectively). The overall pooled hazard ratio was 0.74, and its 95% CI was 0.61 to 0.88 (P = .001).
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed that postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with UFT was associated with improved 5- and 7-year survival in a Japanese patient population composed primarily of stage I adenocarcinoma patients.
Kato H, Ichinose Y, Ohta M, Hata E, Tsubota N, Tada H, Watanabe Y, Wada H, Tsuboi M, Hamajima N, Ohta M; Japan Lung Cancer Research Group on Postsurgical Adjuvant Chemotherapy.
A randomized trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with uracil-tegafur for adenocarcinoma of the lung.
N Engl J Med. 2004 Apr 22;350(17):1713-21. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa032792.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: In a previous phase 3 trial of adjuvant chemotherapy after resection of non-small-cell lung cancer, a combination of uracil and tegafur (often referred to as UFT) taken orally was shown to prolong survival. A subgroup analysis disclosed that most patients who benefited had pathological stage I adenocarcinoma.
METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with completely resected pathological stage I adenocarcinoma of the lung to receive either oral uracil-tegafur (250 mg of tegafur per square meter of body-surface area per day) for two years or no treatment. Randomization was performed with stratification according to the pathological tumor category (T1 vs. T2), sex, and age. The primary end point was overall survival.
RESULTS: From January 1994 through March 1997, 999 patients were enrolled. Twenty patients were found to be ineligible and were excluded from the analysis after randomization; 491 patients were assigned to receive uracil-tegafur and 488 were assigned to observation. The median duration of follow-up for surviving patients was 73 months. The difference in overall survival between the two groups was statistically significant in favor of the uracil-tegafur group (P=0.04 by a stratified log-rank test). Grade 3 toxic effects occurred in 10 of the 482 patients (2 percent) who actually received uracil-tegafur.
CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant chemotherapy with uracil-tegafur improves survival among patients with completely resected pathological stage I adenocarcinoma of the lung.
Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society
Arriagada R, Bergman B, Dunant A, Le Chevalier T, Pignon JP, Vansteenkiste J; International Adjuvant Lung Cancer Trial Collaborative Group.
Cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer.
N Engl J Med. 2004 Jan 22;350(4):351-60. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa031644.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: On the basis of a previous meta-analysis, the International Adjuvant Lung Cancer Trial was designed to evaluate the effect of cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy on survival after complete resection of non-small-cell lung cancer.
METHODS: We randomly assigned patients either to three or four cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy or to observation. Before randomization, each center determined the pathological stages to include, its policy for chemotherapy (the dose of cisplatin and the drug to be combined with cisplatin), and its postoperative radiotherapy policy. The main end point was overall survival.
RESULTS: A total of 1867 patients underwent randomization; 36.5 percent had pathological stage I disease, 24.2 percent stage II, and 39.3 percent stage III. The drug allocated with cisplatin was etoposide in 56.5 percent of patients, vinorelbine in 26.8 percent, vinblastine in 11.0 percent, and vindesine in 5.8 percent. Of the 932 patients assigned to chemotherapy, 73.8 percent received at least 240 mg of cisplatin per square meter of body-surface area. The median duration of follow-up was 56 months. Patients assigned to chemotherapy had a significantly higher survival rate than those assigned to observation (44.5 percent vs. 40.4 percent at five years [469 deaths vs. 504]; hazard ratio for death, 0.86; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.76 to 0.98; P<0.03). Patients assigned to chemotherapy also had a significantly higher disease-free survival rate than those assigned to observation (39.4 percent vs. 34.3 percent at five years [518 events vs. 577]; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.74 to 0.94; P<0.003). There were no significant interactions with prespecified factors. Seven patients (0.8 percent) died of chemotherapy-induced toxic effects.
CONCLUSIONS: Cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival among patients with completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer.
Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society
Winton T, Livingston R, Johnson D, Rigas J, Johnston M, Butts C, Cormier Y, Goss G, Inculet R, Vallieres E, Fry W, Bethune D, Ayoub J, Ding K, Seymour L, Graham B, Tsao MS, Gandara D, Kesler K, Demmy T, Shepherd F; National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group; National Cancer Institute of the United States Intergroup JBR.10 Trial Investigators.
Vinorelbine plus cisplatin vs. observation in resected non-small-cell lung cancer.
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jun 23;352(25):2589-97. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa043623.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: We undertook to determine whether adjuvant vinorelbine plus cisplatin prolongs overall survival among patients with completely resected early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer.
METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with completely resected stage IB or stage II non-small-cell lung cancer to vinorelbine plus cisplatin or to observation. The primary end point was overall survival; principal secondary end points were recurrence-free survival and the toxicity and safety of the regimen.
RESULTS: A total of 482 patients underwent randomization to vinorelbine plus cisplatin (242 patients) or observation (240); 45 percent of the patients had pathological stage IB disease and 55 percent had stage II, and all had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1. In both groups, the median age was 61 years, 65 percent were men, and 53 percent had adenocarcinomas. Chemotherapy caused neutropenia in 88 percent of patients (including grade 3 febrile neutropenia in 7 percent) and death from toxic effects in two patients (0.8 percent). Nonhematologic toxic effects of chemotherapy were fatigue (81 percent of patients), nausea (80 percent), anorexia (55 percent), vomiting (48 percent), neuropathy (48 percent), and constipation (47 percent), but severe (grade 3 or greater) toxic effects were uncommon (<10 percent). Overall survival was significantly prolonged in the chemotherapy group as compared with the observation group (94 vs. 73 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.69; P=0.04), as was relapse-free survival (not reached vs. 46.7 months; hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.60; P<0.001). Five-year survival rates were 69 percent and 54 percent, respectively (P=0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant vinorelbine plus cisplatin has an acceptable level of toxicity and prolongs disease-free and overall survival among patients with completely resected early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer.
Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Douillard JY, Rosell R, De Lena M, Carpagnano F, Ramlau R, Gonzáles-Larriba JL, Grodzki T, Pereira JR, Le Groumellec A, Lorusso V, Clary C, Torres AJ, Dahabreh J, Souquet PJ, Astudillo J, Fournel P, Artal-Cortes A, Jassem J, Koubkova L, His P, Riggi M, Hurteloup P.
Adjuvant vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus observation in patients with completely resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (Adjuvant Navelbine International Trialist Association [ANITA]): a randomised controlled trial.
Lancet Oncol. 2006 Sep;7(9):719-27. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70804-X.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Whether adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not known. We aimed to compare the effect of adjuvant vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus observation on survival in patients with completely resected NSCLC.
METHODS: 840 patients with stage IB-IIIA NSCLC from 101 centres in 14 countries were randomly assigned to observation (n=433) or to 30 mg/m(2) vinorelbine plus 100 mg/m(2) cisplatin (n=407). Postoperative radiotherapy was not mandatory and was undertaken according to every centre's policy. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN95053737.
FINDINGS: 367 patients in the chemotherapy group and 431 in the control group received their assigned treatment. 301 (36%) patients had stage IB disease, 203 (24%) had stage II disease, and 325 (39%) had stage IIIA disease. Tolerance to chemotherapy mainly included neutropenia in 335 (92%) patients and febrile neutropenia in 34 (9%); seven (2%) toxic deaths were also recorded. Compliance was greater with cisplatin than with vinorelbine (median dose intensity 89% [range 17-108] vs 59% [17-100]). After a median follow-up of 76 months (range 43-116), median survival was 65.7 months (95% CI 47.9-88.5) in the chemotherapy group and 43.7 (35.7-52.3) months in the observation group. Adjusted risk for death was significantly reduced in patients assigned chemotherapy compared with controls (hazard ratio 0.80 [95% CI 0.66-0.96]; p=0.017). Overall survival at 5 years with chemotherapy improved by 8.6%, which was maintained at 7 years (8.4%).
INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant vinorelbine plus cisplatin extends survival in patients with completely resected NSCLC, better defining indication of adjuvant chemotherapy.
Scagliotti GV, Fossati R, Torri V, Crinò L, Giaccone G, Silvano G, Martelli M, Clerici M, Cognetti F, Tonato M; Adjuvant Lung Project Italy/European Organisation for Research Treatment of Cancer-Lung Cancer Cooperative Group Investigators.
Randomized study of adjuvant chemotherapy for completely resected stage I, II, or IIIA non-small-cell Lung cancer.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Oct 1;95(19):1453-61. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djg059.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Surgery is the primary treatment for patients with stage I, II, or IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, long-term survival of NSCLC patients after surgery alone is largely unsatisfactory, and the role of adjuvant chemotherapy in patient survival has not yet been established.
METHODS: Between January 1994 and January 1999, 1209 patients with stage I, II, or IIIA NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive mitomycin C (8 mg/m2 on day 1), vindesine (3 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8), and cisplatin (100 mg/m2 on day 1) every 3 weeks for three cycles (MVP group; n = 606) or no treatment (control group; n = 603) after complete resection. Randomization was stratified by investigational center, tumor size, lymph-node involvement, and the intention to perform radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival and toxicity associated with adjuvant treatment. Survival curves were analyzed using the log-rank test. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS: After a median follow-up time of 64.5 months, there was no statistically significant difference between the two patient groups in overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.96, 95% confidence interval = 0.81 to 1.13; P =.589) or progression-free survival (hazard ratio = 0.89, 95% confidence interval = 0.76 to 1.03; P =.128). Only 69% of patients received the three planned cycles of MVP. Grades 3 and 4 neutropenia occurred in 16% and 12%, respectively, of patients in the MVP arm. Radiotherapy was completed by 65% of patients in the MVP arm and by 82% of patients in the control group. In the multivariable analysis, only disease stage and sex were associated with survival.
CONCLUSION: This randomized trial failed to prospectively confirm a statistically significant role for adjuvant chemotherapy in completely resected NSCLC. Given the poor compliance with the MVP regimen used in this study, future studies should explore more effective treatments.
Waller D, Peake MD, Stephens RJ, Gower NH, Milroy R, Parmar MK, Rudd RM, Spiro SG.
Chemotherapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer: the surgical setting of the Big Lung Trial.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2004 Jul;26(1):173-82. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.03.041.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVES: The non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) meta-analysis suggested a survival benefit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy when given in addition to surgery, radical radiotherapy or 'best supportive care'. However, it included many small trials and trials with differing eligibility criteria and chemotherapy regimens. The aim of the Big Lung Trial was therefore to run a large pragmatic trial to confirm the survival benefits seen in the meta-analysis.
METHODS: In the surgery setting, a total of 381 patients were randomised to chemotherapy (C, 192 patients) or no chemotherapy (NoC, 189 patients). C was three 3-weekly cycles of cisplatin/vindesine, mitomycin/ifosfamide/cisplatin, mitomycin/vinblastine/cisplatin or vinorelbine/cisplatin.
RESULTS: Chemotherapy was given before surgery in 3% of patients whilst 97% received adjuvant chemotherapy. Baseline characteristics were: median age 61 years, 69% male, 48% squamous cell, 93% WHO PS 0-1, 27% stage I, 38% stage II, and 34% stage III. Complete resection was achieved in approximately 95% of patients. In the C group, 13% received no chemotherapy, 21% one or two cycles, and 64% all three cycles of their prescribed chemotherapy (60% of the latter with no delays or modification). 30% had grade 3/4 toxicity, mainly haematological, nausea/vomiting and neutropenic fever, and six patients were reported as having a treatment-related death. 198 (52%) of patients have died, but there is currently no evidence of a benefit in overall survival to the C group: HR 1.02 (95% CI 0.77-1.35), P = 0.90).
CONCLUSIONS: This trial has failed to observe a survival benefit with adjuvant chemotherapy following complete resection of stage I-III NSCLC. However, the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals are consistent with the previously reported meta-analysis and two large recently reported trials, which suggest a small survival benefit with cisplatin-based chemotherapy.
Pignon JP, Tribodet H, Scagliotti GV, Douillard JY, Shepherd FA, Stephens RJ, Dunant A, Torri V, Rosell R, Seymour L, Spiro SG, Rolland E, Fossati R, Aubert D, Ding K, Waller D, Le Chevalier T; LACE Collaborative Group.
Lung adjuvant cisplatin evaluation: a pooled analysis by the LACE Collaborative Group.
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jul 20;26(21):3552-9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.9030. Epub 2008 May 27.
Abstract/Text
PURPOSE: Several recent trials have shown a significant overall survival (OS) benefit from postoperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of the Lung Adjuvant Cisplatin Evaluation was to identify treatment options associated with a higher benefit or groups of patients who particularly benefit from postoperative chemotherapy.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data were collected and pooled from the five largest trials (4,584 patients) of cisplatin-based chemotherapy in completely resected patients that were conducted after the 1995 NSCLC meta-analysis. The interactions between patient subgroups or treatment types and chemotherapy effect on OS were analyzed using hazard ratios (HRs) and log-rank tests stratified by trial.
RESULTS: With a median follow-up time of 5.2 years, the overall HR of death was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.96; P = .005), corresponding to a 5-year absolute benefit of 5.4% from chemotherapy. There was no heterogeneity of chemotherapy effect among trials. The benefit varied with stage (test for trend, P = .04; HR for stage IA = 1.40; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.06; HR for stage IB = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.10; HR for stage II = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.95; and HR for stage III = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94). The effect of chemotherapy did not vary significantly (test for interaction, P = .11) with the associated drugs, including vinorelbine (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.91), etoposide or vinca alkaloid (HR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.07), or other (HR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.13). Chemotherapy effect was higher in patients with better performance status. There was no interaction between chemotherapy effect and sex, age, histology, type of surgery, planned radiotherapy, or planned total dose of cisplatin.
CONCLUSION: Postoperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy significantly improves survival in patients with NSCLC.
Wu YL, Tsuboi M, He J, John T, Grohe C, Majem M, Goldman JW, Laktionov K, Kim SW, Kato T, Vu HV, Lu S, Lee KY, Akewanlop C, Yu CJ, de Marinis F, Bonanno L, Domine M, Shepherd FA, Zeng L, Hodge R, Atasoy A, Rukazenkov Y, Herbst RS; ADAURA Investigators.
Osimertinib in Resected EGFR-Mutated Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.
N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 29;383(18):1711-1723. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2027071. Epub 2020 Sep 19.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Osimertinib is standard-of-care therapy for previously untreated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The efficacy and safety of osimertinib as adjuvant therapy are unknown.
METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with completely resected EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC in a 1:1 ratio to receive either osimertinib (80 mg once daily) or placebo for 3 years. The primary end point was disease-free survival among patients with stage II to IIIA disease (according to investigator assessment). The secondary end points included disease-free survival in the overall population of patients with stage IB to IIIA disease, overall survival, and safety.
RESULTS: A total of 682 patients underwent randomization (339 to the osimertinib group and 343 to the placebo group). At 24 months, 90% of the patients with stage II to IIIA disease in the osimertinib group (95% confidence interval [CI], 84 to 93) and 44% of those in the placebo group (95% CI, 37 to 51) were alive and disease-free (overall hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.17; 99.06% CI, 0.11 to 0.26; P<0.001). In the overall population, 89% of the patients in the osimertinib group (95% CI, 85 to 92) and 52% of those in the placebo group (95% CI, 46 to 58) were alive and disease-free at 24 months (overall hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.20; 99.12% CI, 0.14 to 0.30; P<0.001). At 24 months, 98% of the patients in the osimertinib group (95% CI, 95 to 99) and 85% of those in the placebo group (95% CI, 80 to 89) were alive and did not have central nervous system disease (overall hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.33). Overall survival data were immature; 29 patients died (9 in the osimertinib group and 20 in the placebo group). No new safety concerns were noted.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stage IB to IIIA EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, disease-free survival was significantly longer among those who received osimertinib than among those who received placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ADAURA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02511106.).
Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Tsuboi M, Herbst RS, John T, Kato T, Majem M, Grohé C, Wang J, Goldman JW, Lu S, Su WC, de Marinis F, Shepherd FA, Lee KH, Le NT, Dechaphunkul A, Kowalski D, Poole L, Bolanos A, Rukazenkov Y, Wu YL; ADAURA Investigators.
Overall Survival with Osimertinib in Resected EGFR-Mutated NSCLC.
N Engl J Med. 2023 Jul 13;389(2):137-147. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2304594. Epub 2023 Jun 4.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Among patients with resected, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated, stage IB to IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adjuvant osimertinib therapy, with or without previous adjuvant chemotherapy, resulted in significantly longer disease-free survival than placebo in the ADAURA trial. We report the results of the planned final analysis of overall survival.
METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned eligible patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive osimertinib (80 mg once daily) or placebo until disease recurrence was observed, the trial regimen was completed (3 years), or a discontinuation criterion was met. The primary end point was investigator-assessed disease-free survival among patients with stage II to IIIA disease. Secondary end points included disease-free survival among patients with stage IB to IIIA disease, overall survival, and safety.
RESULTS: Of 682 patients who underwent randomization, 339 received osimertinib and 343 received placebo. Among patients with stage II to IIIA disease, the 5-year overall survival was 85% in the osimertinib group and 73% in the placebo group (overall hazard ratio for death, 0.49; 95.03% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.73; P<0.001). In the overall population (patients with stage IB to IIIA disease), the 5-year overall survival was 88% in the osimertinib group and 78% in the placebo group (overall hazard ratio for death, 0.49; 95.03% CI, 0.34 to 0.70; P<0.001). One new serious adverse event, pneumonia related to coronavirus disease 2019, was reported after the previously published data-cutoff date (the event was not considered by the investigator to be related to the trial regimen, and the patient fully recovered). Adjuvant osimertinib had a safety profile consistent with that in the primary analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant osimertinib provided a significant overall survival benefit among patients with completely resected, EGFR-mutated, stage IB to IIIA NSCLC. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ADAURA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02511106.).
Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Wu YL, Dziadziuszko R, Ahn JS, Barlesi F, Nishio M, Lee DH, Lee JS, Zhong W, Horinouchi H, Mao W, Hochmair M, de Marinis F, Migliorino MR, Bondarenko I, Lu S, Wang Q, Ochi Lohmann T, Xu T, Cardona A, Ruf T, Noe J, Solomon BJ; ALINA Investigators.
Alectinib in Resected ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.
N Engl J Med. 2024 Apr 11;390(14):1265-1276. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2310532.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy is the recommended adjuvant treatment for patients with resectable, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data on the efficacy and safety of adjuvant alectinib as compared with chemotherapy in patients with resected ALK-positive NSCLC are lacking.
METHODS: We conducted a global, phase 3, open-label, randomized trial in which patients with completely resected, ALK-positive NSCLC of stage IB (tumors ≥4 cm), II, or IIIA (as classified according to the seventh edition of the Cancer Staging Manual of the American Joint Committee on Cancer and Union for International Cancer Control) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral alectinib (600 mg twice daily) for 24 months or intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy in four 21-day cycles. The primary end point was disease-free survival, tested hierarchically among patients with stage II or IIIA disease and then in the intention-to-treat population. Other end points included central nervous system (CNS) disease-free survival, overall survival, and safety.
RESULTS: In total, 257 patients were randomly assigned to receive alectinib (130 patients) or chemotherapy (127 patients). The percentage of patients alive and disease-free at 2 years was 93.8% in the alectinib group and 63.0% in the chemotherapy group among patients with stage II or IIIA disease (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13 to 0.45; P<0.001) and 93.6% and 63.7%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.43; P<0.001). Alectinib was associated with a clinically meaningful benefit with respect to CNS disease-free survival as compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for CNS disease recurrence or death, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.58). Data for overall survival were immature. No unexpected safety findings were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resected ALK-positive NSCLC of stage IB, II, or IIIA, adjuvant alectinib significantly improved disease-free survival as compared with platinum-based chemotherapy. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; ALINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03456076.).
Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Felip E, Altorki N, Zhou C, Csőszi T, Vynnychenko I, Goloborodko O, Luft A, Akopov A, Martinez-Marti A, Kenmotsu H, Chen YM, Chella A, Sugawara S, Voong D, Wu F, Yi J, Deng Y, McCleland M, Bennett E, Gitlitz B, Wakelee H; IMpower010 Investigators.
Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower010): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial.
Lancet. 2021 Oct 9;398(10308):1344-1357. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02098-5. Epub 2021 Sep 20.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Novel adjuvant strategies are needed to optimise outcomes after complete surgical resection in patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to evaluate adjuvant atezolizumab versus best supportive care after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy in these patients.
METHODS: IMpower010 was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study done at 227 sites in 22 countries and regions. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with completely resected stage IB (tumours ≥4 cm) to IIIA NSCLC per the Union Internationale Contre le Cancer and American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system (7th edition). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a permuted-block method (block size of four) to receive adjuvant atezolizumab (1200 mg every 21 days; for 16 cycles or 1 year) or best supportive care (observation and regular scans for disease recurrence) after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy (one to four cycles). The primary endpoint, investigator-assessed disease-free survival, was tested hierarchically first in the stage II-IIIA population subgroup whose tumours expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumour cells (SP263), then all patients in the stage II-IIIA population, and finally the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (stage IB-IIIA). Safety was evaluated in all patients who were randomly assigned and received atezolizumab or best supportive care. IMpower010 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02486718 (active, not recruiting).
FINDINGS: Between Oct 7, 2015, and Sept 19, 2018, 1280 patients were enrolled after complete resection. 1269 received adjuvant chemotherapy, of whom 1005 patients were eligible for randomisation to atezolizumab (n=507) or best supportive care (n=498); 495 in each group received treatment. After a median follow-up of 32·2 months (IQR 27·4-38·3) in the stage II-IIIA population, atezolizumab treatment improved disease-free survival compared with best supportive care in patients in the stage II-IIIA population whose tumours expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumour cells (HR 0·66; 95% CI 0·50-0·88; p=0·0039) and in all patients in the stage II-IIIA population (0·79; 0·64-0·96; p=0·020). In the ITT population, HR for disease-free survival was 0·81 (0·67-0·99; p=0·040). Atezolizumab-related grade 3 and 4 adverse events occurred in 53 (11%) of 495 patients and grade 5 events in four patients (1%).
INTERPRETATION: IMpower010 showed a disease-free survival benefit with atezolizumab versus best supportive care after adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resected stage II-IIIA NSCLC, with pronounced benefit in the subgroup whose tumours expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumour cells, and no new safety signals. Atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy offers a promising treatment option for patients with resected early-stage NSCLC.
FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Zhou C, Thakur MD, Srivastava MK et al. IMpower010：biomarkers of disease-free survival（DFS）in a Phase 3 study of atezolizumab（atezo）vs best supportive care（BSC）after adjuvant chemotherapy in stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. Ann Oncol. 2021;32（Suppl_7:S1373-91.
Forde PM, Spicer J, Lu S, Provencio M, Mitsudomi T, Awad MM, Felip E, Broderick SR, Brahmer JR, Swanson SJ, Kerr K, Wang C, Ciuleanu TE, Saylors GB, Tanaka F, Ito H, Chen KN, Liberman M, Vokes EE, Taube JM, Dorange C, Cai J, Fiore J, Jarkowski A, Balli D, Sausen M, Pandya D, Calvet CY, Girard N; CheckMate 816 Investigators.
Neoadjuvant Nivolumab plus Chemotherapy in Resectable Lung Cancer.
N Engl J Med. 2022 May 26;386(21):1973-1985. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2202170. Epub 2022 Apr 11.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy confers a modest benefit over surgery alone for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In early-phase trials, nivolumab-based neoadjuvant regimens have shown promising clinical activity; however, data from phase 3 trials are needed to confirm these findings.
METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with stage IB to IIIA resectable NSCLC to receive nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or platinum-based chemotherapy alone, followed by resection. The primary end points were event-free survival and pathological complete response (0% viable tumor in resected lung and lymph nodes), both evaluated by blinded independent review. Overall survival was a key secondary end point. Safety was assessed in all treated patients.
RESULTS: The median event-free survival was 31.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 30.2 to not reached) with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 20.8 months (95% CI, 14.0 to 26.7) with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio for disease progression, disease recurrence, or death, 0.63; 97.38% CI, 0.43 to 0.91; P = 0.005). The percentage of patients with a pathological complete response was 24.0% (95% CI, 18.0 to 31.0) and 2.2% (95% CI, 0.6 to 5.6), respectively (odds ratio, 13.94; 99% CI, 3.49 to 55.75; P<0.001). Results for event-free survival and pathological complete response across most subgroups favored nivolumab plus chemotherapy over chemotherapy alone. At the first prespecified interim analysis, the hazard ratio for death was 0.57 (99.67% CI, 0.30 to 1.07) and did not meet the criterion for significance. Of the patients who underwent randomization, 83.2% of those in the nivolumab-plus-chemotherapy group and 75.4% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group underwent surgery. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33.5% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-chemotherapy group and in 36.9% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with resectable NSCLC, neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy resulted in significantly longer event-free survival and a higher percentage of patients with a pathological complete response than chemotherapy alone. The addition of nivolumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not increase the incidence of adverse events or impede the feasibility of surgery. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; CheckMate 816 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02998528.).
Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Wakelee H, Liberman M, Kato T, Tsuboi M, Lee SH, Gao S, Chen KN, Dooms C, Majem M, Eigendorff E, Martinengo GL, Bylicki O, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Chaft JE, Novello S, Yang J, Keller SM, Samkari A, Spicer JD; KEYNOTE-671 Investigators.
Perioperative Pembrolizumab for Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.
N Engl J Med. 2023 Aug 10;389(6):491-503. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2302983. Epub 2023 Jun 3.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Among patients with resectable early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a perioperative approach that includes both neoadjuvant and adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition may provide benefit beyond either approach alone.
METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial to evaluate perioperative pembrolizumab in patients with early-stage NSCLC. Participants with resectable stage II, IIIA, or IIIB (N2 stage) NSCLC were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive neoadjuvant pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo once every 3 weeks, each of which was given with cisplatin-based chemotherapy for 4 cycles, followed by surgery and adjuvant pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo once every 3 weeks for up to 13 cycles. The dual primary end points were event-free survival (the time from randomization to the first occurrence of local progression that precluded the planned surgery, unresectable tumor, progression or recurrence, or death) and overall survival. Secondary end points included major pathological response, pathological complete response, and safety.
RESULTS: A total of 397 participants were assigned to the pembrolizumab group, and 400 to the placebo group. At the prespecified first interim analysis, the median follow-up was 25.2 months. Event-free survival at 24 months was 62.4% in the pembrolizumab group and 40.6% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for progression, recurrence, or death, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.72; P<0.001). The estimated 24-month overall survival was 80.9% in the pembrolizumab group and 77.6% in the placebo group (P = 0.02, which did not meet the significance criterion). A major pathological response occurred in 30.2% of the participants in the pembrolizumab group and in 11.0% of those in the placebo group (difference, 19.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 13.9 to 24.7; P<0.0001; threshold, P = 0.0001), and a pathological complete response occurred in 18.1% and 4.0%, respectively (difference, 14.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.1 to 18.7; P<0.0001; threshold, P = 0.0001). Across all treatment phases, 44.9% of the participants in the pembrolizumab group and 37.3% of those in the placebo group had treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher, including 1.0% and 0.8%, respectively, who had grade 5 events.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resectable, early-stage NSCLC, neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by resection and adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved event-free survival, major pathological response, and pathological complete response as compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone followed by surgery. Overall survival did not differ significantly between the groups in this analysis. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme; KEYNOTE-671 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03425643.).
Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Spicer JD, Gao S, Liberman M, et al. Overall survival in the KEYNOTE-671 study of perioperative pembrolizumab for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer(NSCLC). Ann Oncol, 2023; 34(suppl_2): S1297-8, LBA56.
