miércoles, 6 de marzo de 2019

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treatment (PDQ®) 2/3 —Health Professional Version - National Cancer Institute

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treatment (PDQ®)—Health Professional Version - National Cancer Institute

National Cancer Institute

Treatment Option Overview for NSCLC

In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), results of standard treatment are poor except for the most localized cancers. All newly diagnosed patients with NSCLC are potential candidates for studies evaluating new forms of treatment.
Surgery is potentially the most curative therapeutic option for this disease. Postoperative chemotherapy may provide an additional benefit to patients with resected NSCLC. Radiation therapy combined with chemotherapy can produce a cure in a small number of patients and can provide palliation in most patients. Prophylactic cranial irradiation may reduce the incidence of brain metastases, but there is no evidence of a survival benefit and the effect of prophylactic cranial irradiation on quality of life is not known.[1,2] In patients with advanced-stage disease, chemotherapy or epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) kinase inhibitors offer modest improvements in median survival, although overall survival is poor.[3,4]
Chemotherapy has produced short-term improvement in disease-related symptoms in patients with advanced NSCLC. Several clinical trials have attempted to assess the impact of chemotherapy on tumor-related symptoms and quality of life. In total, these studies suggest that tumor-related symptoms may be controlled by chemotherapy without adversely affecting overall quality of life;[5,6] however, the impact of chemotherapy on quality of life requires more study. In general, medically fit elderly patients with good performance status obtain the same benefits from treatment as younger patients.
The identification of gene mutations in lung cancer has led to the development of molecularly targeted therapy to improve the survival of subsets of patients with metastatic disease.[7] In particular, genetic abnormalities in EGFR, MAPK, and PI3K signaling pathways in subsets of NSCLC may define mechanisms of drug sensitivity and primary or acquired resistance to kinase inhibitors. EGFR mutations strongly predict the improved response rate and progression-free survival of inhibitors of EGFR. Fusions of ALK with EML4 and other genes form translocation products that occur in ranges from 3% to 7% in unselected NSCLC and are responsive to pharmacological inhibition of ALK by agents such as crizotinib. The MET oncogene encodes hepatocyte growth factor receptor. Amplification of this gene has been associated with secondary resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
The standard treatment options for each stage of NSCLC are presented in Table 7.
Table 7. Standard Treatment Options for NSCLC
Stage (TNM Staging Criteria)Standard Treatment Options
ALK = anaplastic lymphoma kinase; BRAF = V-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1; EGFR = epidermal growth factor receptor; MEK = MAPK kinase 1; NSCLC = non-small cell lung cancer; PD-L1 = programmed death-ligand 1; TKI = tyrosine kinase inhibitors; TNM = T, size of tumor and any spread of cancer into nearby tissue; N, spread of cancer to nearby lymph nodes; M, metastasis or spread of cancer to other parts of body.
Occult NSCLCSurgery
Stage 0 NSCLCSurgery
Endobronchial therapies
Stages IA and IB NSCLCSurgery
Radiation therapy
Stages IIA and IIB NSCLCSurgery
Adjuvant chemotherapy
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Radiation therapy
Stage IIIA NSCLCResected or resectable diseaseSurgery
Neoadjuvant therapy
Adjuvant therapy
Unresectable diseaseRadiation therapy
Chemoradiation therapy
Superior sulcus tumorsRadiation therapy alone
Surgery
Chemoradiation therapy followed by surgery
Tumors that invade the chest wallSurgery
Surgery and radiation therapy
Radiation therapy alone
Chemotherapy combined with radiation therapy and/or surgery
Stages IIIB and IIIC NSCLCSequential or concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy
Radiation therapy dose escalation for concurrent chemoradiation
Additional systemic therapy before or after concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy
Radiation therapy alone
Newly Diagnosed Stage IV, Relapsed, and Recurrent NSCLCCytotoxic combination chemotherapy
Combination chemotherapy with monoclonal antibodies
Maintenance therapy following first-line chemotherapy (for patients with stable or responding disease after four cycles of platinum-based combination chemotherapy)
EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (for patients with EGFR mutations)
ALK inhibitors (for patients with ALK translocations)
ROS1 inhibitors (for patients with ROS1rearrangements)
BRAFV600E and MEK inhibitors (for patients with BRAFV600E mutations
Immune checkpoint inhibitor for PD-L1 expressing NSCLC.
Local therapies and special considerations
Progressive Stage IV, Relapsed, and Recurrent NSCLCChemotherapy
EGFR-directed therapy
ALK-directed TKI
ROS1-directed therapy
BRAFV600E and MEK inhibitors (for patients with BRAFV600E mutations)
Immunotherapy
In addition to the standard treatment options presented in Table 7, treatment options under clinical evaluation include the following:
  • Combining local treatment (surgery).
  • Regional treatment (radiation therapy).
  • Systemic treatments (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted agents).
  • Developing more effective systemic therapy.

Follow-Up

Several small series have reported that reduction in fluorine F 18-fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET) after chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or chemoradiation therapy correlates with pathological complete response and favorable prognosis.[8-15] Studies have used different timing of assessments, 18F-FDG PET parameters, and cutpoints to define 18F-FDG PET response. Reduction in maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) of higher than 80% predicted for complete pathological response with a sensitivity of 90%, specificity of 100%, and accuracy of 96%.[16] Median survival after resection was longer for patients with tumor SUV values of lower than 4 (56 months vs. 19 months).[15] Patients with complete metabolic response following radiation therapy were reported to have median survivals of 31 months versus 11 months.[17]
18F-FDG PET may be more sensitive and specific than computed tomography (CT) scan in assessing response to induction therapy. Optimal timing of imaging remains to be defined; however, one study suggested that greater sensitivity and specificity of 18F-FDG PET is achieved if repeat imaging is delayed until 30 days after radiation therapy.[16]
There is no clear role for routine posttreatment PET-CT scans.[18][Level of evidence: 3iiA]
Evidence (surveillance imaging after radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy):
  1. A prospective multicenter trial led by the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) cooperative group (ACRIN 6668/RTOG 0235 [NCT00083083]) studied the role of posttreatment PET-CT at approximately 14 weeks (range, 12–16 weeks) to predict overall survival (OS) after standard-of-care concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy in 173 patients with stage III disease.
    • The primary endpoint was to determine the relationship between SUVpeak at a prespecified binary cutoff of SUVpeak 3.5 with OS.
    • The study demonstrated no association between OS and SUVpeak of 3.5 or lower compared with SUVpeak higher than 3.5 with 2-year OS estimates of 51% vs. 37% (P = 0.29).
    • Exploratory analyses showed associations between OS and SUVpeak as a continuous variable, and binary cutoffs of SUVpeak 5.0 and 7.0.

Current Clinical Trials

Use our advanced clinical trial search to find NCI-supported cancer clinical trials that are now enrolling patients. The search can be narrowed by location of the trial, type of treatment, name of the drug, and other criteria. General information about clinical trials is also available.
References
  1. Lester JF, MacBeth FR, Coles B: Prophylactic cranial irradiation for preventing brain metastases in patients undergoing radical treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer: a Cochrane Review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63 (3): 690-4, 2005. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Pöttgen C, Eberhardt W, Grannass A, et al.: Prophylactic cranial irradiation in operable stage IIIA non small-cell lung cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: results from a German multicenter randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 25 (31): 4987-92, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer. Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2): CD002139, 2000. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomised clinical trials. Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group. BMJ 311 (7010): 899-909, 1995. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Spiro SG, Rudd RM, Souhami RL, et al.: Chemotherapy versus supportive care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: improved survival without detriment to quality of life. Thorax 59 (10): 828-36, 2004. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Clegg A, Scott DA, Hewitson P, et al.: Clinical and cost effectiveness of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review. Thorax 57 (1): 20-8, 2002. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Pao W, Girard N: New driver mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer. Lancet Oncol 12 (2): 175-80, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. Curran WJ Jr, Paulus R, Langer CJ, et al.: Sequential vs. concurrent chemoradiation for stage III non-small cell lung cancer: randomized phase III trial RTOG 9410. J Natl Cancer Inst 103 (19): 1452-60, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Fournel P, Robinet G, Thomas P, et al.: Randomized phase III trial of sequential chemoradiotherapy compared with concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Groupe Lyon-Saint-Etienne d'Oncologie Thoracique-Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancérologie NPC 95-01 Study. J Clin Oncol 23 (25): 5910-7, 2005. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Zatloukal P, Petruzelka L, Zemanova M, et al.: Concurrent versus sequential chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin and vinorelbine in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized study. Lung Cancer 46 (1): 87-98, 2004. [PUBMED Abstract]
  11. Rowell NP, O'rourke NP: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4): CD002140, 2004. [PUBMED Abstract]
  12. Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Winokur TS, et al.: Repeat FDG-PET after neoadjuvant therapy is a predictor of pathologic response in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 78 (6): 1903-9; discussion 1909, 2004. [PUBMED Abstract]
  13. Pöttgen C, Levegrün S, Theegarten D, et al.: Value of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer for prediction of pathologic response and times to relapse after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 12 (1): 97-106, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
  14. Eschmann SM, Friedel G, Paulsen F, et al.: 18F-FDG PET for assessment of therapy response and preoperative re-evaluation after neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy in stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34 (4): 463-71, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  15. Hellwig D, Graeter TP, Ukena D, et al.: Value of F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography after induction therapy of locally advanced bronchogenic carcinoma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 128 (6): 892-9, 2004. [PUBMED Abstract]
  16. Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS: When is it best to repeat a 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan on patients with non-small cell lung cancer who have received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy? Ann Thorac Surg 84 (4): 1092-7, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  17. Mac Manus MP, Hicks RJ, Matthews JP, et al.: Positron emission tomography is superior to computed tomography scanning for response-assessment after radical radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 21 (7): 1285-92, 2003. [PUBMED Abstract]
  18. Machtay M, Duan F, Siegel BA, et al.: Prediction of survival by [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer undergoing definitive chemoradiation therapy: results of the ACRIN 6668/RTOG 0235 trial. J Clin Oncol 31 (30): 3823-30, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]

Occult NSCLC Treatment

In occult lung cancer, a diagnostic evaluation often includes chest x-ray and selective bronchoscopy with close follow-up (e.g., computed tomography scan), when needed, to define the site and nature of the primary tumor; tumors discovered in this fashion are generally early stage and curable by surgery.
After discovery of the primary tumor, treatment involves establishing the stage of the tumor. Therapy is identical to that recommended for other non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with similar-stage disease.

Standard Treatment Options for Occult NSCLC

Standard treatment options for occult NSCLC include the following:
  1. Surgery.

Current Clinical Trials

Use our advanced clinical trial search to find NCI-supported cancer clinical trials that are now enrolling patients. The search can be narrowed by location of the trial, type of treatment, name of the drug, and other criteria. General information about clinical trials is also available.

Stage 0 NSCLC Treatment

Stage 0 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) frequently progresses to invasive cancer.[1-3] Patients may be offered surveillance bronchoscopies and, if lesions are detected, potentially curative therapies.

Standard Treatment Options for Stage 0 NSCLC

Standard treatment options for stage 0 NSCLC include the following:
  1. Surgery.
  2. Endobronchial therapies, including photodynamic therapy, electrocautery, cryotherapy, and neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (Nd-YAG) laser therapy.

Surgery

Segmentectomy or wedge resection are used to preserve maximum normal pulmonary tissue because patients with stage 0 NSCLC are at a high risk for second lung cancers. Because these tumors are by definition noninvasive and incapable of metastasizing, they should be curable with surgical resection; however, such lesions, when identified, are often centrally located and may require a lobectomy.

Endobronchial therapies

Patients with central lesions may be candidates for curative endobronchial therapy. Endobronchial therapies that preserve lung function include photodynamic therapy, electrocautery, cryotherapy, and Nd-YAG laser therapy.[3-6]
Evidence (endobronchial therapies):
  1. Small case series have reported high complete response rates and long-term survival in selected patients.[7,8][Level of evidence: 3iiiDiii]
Efficacy of these treatment modalities in the management of patients with early NSCLC remains to be proven in definitive randomized controlled trials.
There is a high incidence of second primary cancers developing.[1,2]

Current Clinical Trials

Use our advanced clinical trial search to find NCI-supported cancer clinical trials that are now enrolling patients. The search can be narrowed by location of the trial, type of treatment, name of the drug, and other criteria. General information about clinical trials is also available.
References
  1. Woolner LB, Fontana RS, Cortese DA, et al.: Roentgenographically occult lung cancer: pathologic findings and frequency of multicentricity during a 10-year period. Mayo Clin Proc 59 (7): 453-66, 1984. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Venmans BJ, van Boxem TJ, Smit EF, et al.: Outcome of bronchial carcinoma in situ. Chest 117 (6): 1572-6, 2000. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Jeremy George P, Banerjee AK, Read CA, et al.: Surveillance for the detection of early lung cancer in patients with bronchial dysplasia. Thorax 62 (1): 43-50, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Kennedy TC, McWilliams A, Edell E, et al.: Bronchial intraepithelial neoplasia/early central airways lung cancer: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (2nd edition). Chest 132 (3 Suppl): 221S-233S, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Corti L, Toniolo L, Boso C, et al.: Long-term survival of patients treated with photodynamic therapy for carcinoma in situ and early non-small-cell lung carcinoma. Lasers Surg Med 39 (5): 394-402, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Deygas N, Froudarakis M, Ozenne G, et al.: Cryotherapy in early superficial bronchogenic carcinoma. Chest 120 (1): 26-31, 2001. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. van Boxem TJ, Venmans BJ, Schramel FM, et al.: Radiographically occult lung cancer treated with fibreoptic bronchoscopic electrocautery: a pilot study of a simple and inexpensive technique. Eur Respir J 11 (1): 169-72, 1998. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. van Boxem AJ, Westerga J, Venmans BJ, et al.: Photodynamic therapy, Nd-YAG laser and electrocautery for treating early-stage intraluminal cancer: which to choose? Lung Cancer 31 (1): 31-6, 2001. [PUBMED Abstract]

Stages IA and IB NSCLC Treatment

Standard Treatment Options for Stages IA and IB NSCLC

Standard treatment options for stages IA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and IB NSCLCinclude the following:
  1. Surgery.
  2. Radiation therapy (for patients who cannot have surgery or choose not to have surgery).
Chemotherapy and radiation therapy have not been shown to improve outcomes in stage I NSCLC that has been completely resected.

Surgery

Surgery is the treatment of choice for patients with stage I NSCLC. A lobectomy or segmental, wedge, or sleeve resection may be performed as appropriate. Patients with impaired pulmonary function are candidates for segmental or wedge resection of the primary tumor. Careful preoperative assessment of the patient’s overall medical condition, especially the patient’s pulmonary reserve, is critical in considering the benefits of surgery. The immediate postoperative mortality rate is age related, but a 3% to 5% mortality rate with lobectomy can be expected.[1]
Evidence (surgery):
  1. The Lung Cancer Study Group conducted a randomized study (LCSG-821) that compared lobectomy with limited resection for patients with stage I lung cancer. Results of the study showed the following:[2]
    • A reduction in local recurrence for patients treated with lobectomy compared with those treated with limited excision.
    • No significant difference in overall survival (OS).
  2. Similar results have been reported from a nonrandomized comparison of anatomic segmentectomy and lobectomy.[3]
    • A survival advantage was noted with lobectomy for patients with tumors larger than 3 cm but not for those with tumors smaller than 3 cm.
    • The rate of locoregional recurrence was significantly less after lobectomy, regardless of primary tumor size.
  3. A study of stage I patients showed the following:[4]
    • Those treated with wedge or segmental resections had a local recurrence rate of 50% (i.e., 31 recurrences out of 62 patients) despite having undergone complete resections.[4]
  4. The Cochrane Collaboration reviewed 11 randomized trials with a total of 1,910 patients who underwent surgical interventions for early-stage (I–IIIA) lung cancer.[5] A pooled analysis of three trials reported the following:
    • Four-year survival was superior in patients with resectable stage I, II, or IIIA NSCLC who underwent resection and complete ipsilateral mediastinal lymph node dissection (CMLND), compared with those who underwent resection and lymph node sampling; the hazard ratio (HR) was estimated to be 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–0.93, P = .005).[5][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
    • There was a significant reduction in any cancer recurrence (local or distant) in the CMLND group (relative risk [RR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66–0.95; P = .01) that appeared mainly because of a reduction in the number of distant recurrences (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61–1.00; P = .05).
    • There was no difference in operative mortality.
    • Air leak lasting more than 5 days was significantly more common in patients assigned to CMLND (RR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.01–8.54; P = .05).
  5. CMLND versus lymph node sampling was evaluated in a large randomized phase III trial (ACOSOG-Z0030 [NCT00003831]).[6,7]
    • Preliminary analyses of operative morbidity and mortality showed comparable rates from the procedures.[6,7]
    • There was no difference in OS, disease-free survival, local recurrence, and regional recurrence.[7][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
Current evidence suggests that lung cancer resection combined with CMLND is not associated with improvement in survival compared with lung cancer resection combined with systematic sampling of mediastinal lymph nodes in patients with stage I, II, or IIIA NSCLC.[7][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
Limitations of evidence (surgery):
Conclusions about the efficacy of surgery for patients with local and locoregional NSCLC are limited by the small number of participants studied to date and the potential methodological weaknesses of the trials.

Adjuvant therapy

Many patients treated surgically subsequently develop regional or distant metastases.[8] Such patients are candidates for entry into clinical trials evaluating postoperative treatment with chemotherapy or radiation therapy following surgery. At present, neither chemotherapy nor radiation therapy has been found to improve the outcome of patients with stage I NSCLC that has been completely resected.
Adjuvant radiation therapy
The value of postoperative (adjuvant) radiation therapy (PORT) has been evaluated and has not been found to improve the outcome of patients with completely resected stage I NSCLC.[9]
Evidence (adjuvant radiation therapy):
  1. A meta-analysis, based on the results of ten randomized controlled trials and 2,232 individuals, reported the following:[9]
    • An 18% relative increase in the risk of death for patients who received PORT compared with surgery alone (HR, 1.18; P = .002). This is equivalent to an absolute detriment of 6% at 2 years (95% CI, 2–9), reducing OS from 58% to 52%. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested that this detrimental effect was most pronounced for patients with stage I/II, N0-N1 disease, whereas for patients with stage III, N2 disease, there was no clear evidence of an adverse effect.
    • Results for local (HR, 1.13; P = .02), distant (HR, 1.14; P = .02), and overall (HR, 1.10; P = .06) recurrence-free survival similarly showed a detriment of PORT.[9][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
Further analysis is needed to determine whether these outcomes can potentially be modified with technical improvements, better definitions of target volumes, and limitation of cardiac volume in the radiation portals.
Adjuvant brachytherapy
The value of intraoperative (adjuvant) brachytherapy applied to the suture line has been evaluated in patients undergoing sublobar resections for stage I NSCLC to improve local control; it has not been found to improve outcomes.
Evidence (adjuvant brachytherapy):
  1. A phase III trial that randomly assigned 222 patients to undergo sublobar resection with or without suture line brachytherapy reported the following:[10]
Adjuvant chemotherapy
Based on a meta-analysis, postoperative chemotherapy is not recommended outside of a clinical trial for patients with completely resected stage I NSCLC.[11,12][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
Evidence (adjuvant chemotherapy for stage I NSCLC):
  1. Data on individual patient outcomes from the five largest trials (4,584 patients) that were conducted after 1995 of cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with completely resected NSCLC were collected and pooled into a meta-analysis.[13]
    1. With a median follow-up of 5.2 years, the overall HRdeath was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82–0.96; P = .005), corresponding to a 5-year absolute benefit of 5.4% from chemotherapy.
    2. The benefit varied with stage (test for trend, P = .04; HR for stage IA, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.95–2.06; HR for stage IB, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78–1.10; HR for stage II, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73–0.95; and HR for stage III, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72–0.94).
    3. The effect of chemotherapy did not vary significantly (test for interaction, P = .11) with the associated drugs, including vinorelbine (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70–0.91), etoposide or vinca alkaloid (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.80–1.07), or other drugs (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.84–1.13).
    4. The apparent greater benefit seen with vinorelbine should be interpreted cautiously as vinorelbine and cisplatin combinations generally required that a higher dose of cisplatin be given. Chemotherapy effect was higher in patients with a better performance status.
    5. There was no interaction between chemotherapy effect and any of the following:
      • Sex.
      • Age.
      • Histology.
      • Type of surgery.
      • Planned radiation therapy.
      • Planned total dose of cisplatin.
  2. Several other randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have evaluated the use of postoperative chemotherapy in patients with stages I, II, and IIIA NSCLC.[13-19]
Although there is sufficient evidence that postoperative chemotherapy is effective in patients with stage II or stage IIIA NSCLC, its usefulness in patients with stage IB NSCLC is less clear.
Evidence (adjuvant chemotherapy for stage IB NSCLC):
  1. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B study (CALGB-9633 [NCT00002852]) addressed the results of adjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel versus observation for OS in 344 patients with resected stage IB (i.e., pathological T2, N0) NSCLC. Within 4 to 8 weeks of resection, patients were randomly assigned to postoperative chemotherapy or observation.[20]
    • Survival was not significantly different (HR, 0.83; CI, 0.64–1.08; P = .12) at a median follow-up of 74 months.
    • Grades 3 to 4 neutropenia were the predominant toxicity; there were no treatment-related deaths.
    • A post-hoc exploratory analysis demonstrated a significant survival difference in favor of postoperative chemotherapy for patients who had tumors 4 cm or larger in diameter (HR, 0.69; CI, 0.48–0.99; P = .043).
Given the magnitude of observed survival differences, CALGB-9633 may have been underpowered to detect small but clinically meaningful improvements in survival. In addition, the use of a carboplatin versus a cisplatin combination might have affected the results. At present, there is no reliable evidence that postoperative chemotherapy improves survival of patients with stage IB NSCLC.[20][Level of evidence: 1iiA]

Radiation therapy

Patients with potentially resectable tumors with medical contraindications to surgery or those with inoperable stage I disease and with sufficient pulmonary reserve may be candidates for radiation therapy with curative intent.
Conventional radiation therapy
Historically, conventional primary radiation therapy consisted of approximately 60 Gy to 70 Gy delivered with megavoltage equipment to the midplane of the known tumor volume using conventional fractionation (1.8–2.0 Gy per day).
Prognosis:
In the largest retrospective conventional radiation therapy series, patients with inoperable disease treated with definitive radiation therapy achieved 5-year survival rates of 10% to 30%.[21-23] Several series demonstrated that patients with T1, N0 tumors had better outcomes, and 5-year survival rates of 30% to 60% were found in this subgroup.[21,22,24] However, local-only failure occurs in as many as 50% of patients treated with conventional radiation therapy to doses in the range of 60 Gy to 65 Gy.[25,26]
Evidence (conventional radiation therapy):
  1. A single report of patients older than 70 years who had resectable lesions smaller than 4 cm but who had medically inoperable disease or who refused surgery reported the following:[24]
    • Survival at 5 years after radiation therapy with curative intent was comparable with a historical control group of patients of similar age who were resected with curative intent.
  2. A small case series using matched controls reported the following:[4]
    • The addition of endobronchial brachytherapy improved local disease control compared with external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT).[4][Level of evidence: 3iiiDiii]
A substantial number of patients are ineligible for standard surgical resection because of comorbid conditions that are associated with unacceptably high perioperative risk. Observation and radiation therapy may be considered for these patients.[27-29] Nonrandomized observational studies comparing treatment outcomes associated with resection, radiation therapy, and observation have demonstrated shorter survival times and higher mortality for patients treated with observation only.[27,30]
Improvements in radiation techniques include planning techniques to account for tumor motion, more conformal planning techniques (e.g., 3-D conformal radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy), and image guidance during treatment. Modern approaches to delivery of EBRT include hypofractionated radiation therapy and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).However, there are limited reliable data from comparative trials to determine which approaches yield superior outcomes.[28,29]
Hypofractionated radiation therapy
Hypofractionated radiation therapy involves the delivery of a slightly higher dose of radiation therapy per day (e.g., 2.4–4.0 Gy) over a shorter period of time compared with conventionally fractionated radiation therapy. Multiple prospective phase I/II trials have demonstrated that hypofractionated radiation therapy to a dose of 60 Gy to 70 Gy delivered over 3 to 4 weeks with 2.4 Gy to 4.0 Gy per day resulted in a low incidence of moderate to severe toxicity, 2-year OS of 50% to 60%, and 2-year tumor local control of 80% to 90%.[31-33][Level of evidence: 3iiiA]
Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)
SBRT involves the delivery of highly conformal, high-dose radiation therapy over an extremely hypofractionated course (e.g., one to five treatments) delivered over 1 to 2 weeks. Commonly used regimens include 18 Gy × 3, 12 Gy to 12.5 Gy × 4, and 10 Gy to 12 Gy × 5, and deliver a substantially higher biologically effective dose compared with historic conventional radiation therapy regimens.
Multiple prospective phase I/II trials and institutional series have demonstrated that SBRT results in a low incidence of pulmonary toxicity (<10% risk of symptomatic radiation pneumonitis), 2-year OS of 50% to 60%, and 2-year tumor control of 90% to 95%.[34-40][Level of evidence: 3iiiA]
Evidence (SBRT):
  1. Early phase I/II trials from Indiana University identified the maximum tolerated dose of three-fraction SBRT at 18 Gy × 3 for T1 tumors, and this regimen resulted in 2-year OS of 55% and 2-year local tumor control of 95%.
    • An unacceptably high incidence (8.6%) of grade 5 toxicity was observed in patients with central tumors (defined as within 2 cm of the tracheobronchial tree from the trachea to the level of the lobar bronchi).[35]
  2. A subsequent multicenter trial (RTOG-0236 [NCT00087438]) studied the 18 Gy × 3 regimen in 55 patients with peripheral T1 to T2 tumors only and demonstrated 3-year OS of 56% and 3-year primary tumor control of 98%.
    • The incidence of moderate to severe toxicity was low, with grade 3 toxicity in 24% of patients, grade 4 toxicity in 4% of patients, and no grade 5 toxicity, with a 4% incidence of grade 3 radiation pneumonitis.[39]
  3. In the largest reported series from VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, 676 patients with T1 to T2 tumors were treated with three-, five-, and eight-fraction SBRT using a risk-adapted approach (a tailored fractionation regimen based on tumor proximity to critical organs).
    • With a median follow-up of 32.9 months, the median OS was 40.7 months, and 2-year local tumor control was 95%.[40]
  4. While central location is a contraindication to three-fraction SBRT based on data from the Indiana phase II study, a subsequent systematic review of published reports of 315 patients with 563 central tumors demonstrated a much lower incidence of severe toxicity, including a 1% to 5% risk of grade 5 events with more protracted SBRT regimens (e.g., four to ten fractions).[41] A multicenter phase I/II trial (RTOG-0813[NCT00750269]) is ongoing to identify the maximum tolerated dose for a five-fraction SBRT regimen for central tumors.
Randomized trials of conventional radiation therapy versus SBRT (NCT01014130), and hypofractionated radiation therapy versus SBRT (LUSTRE [NCT01968941]) are ongoing to determine the optimal radiation therapy regimen, but stereotactic body radiation therapy has been widely adopted for patients with medically inoperable stage I NSCLC.

Treatment Options Under Clinical Evaluation

Treatment options under clinical evaluation include the following:
  1. Clinical trials of postoperative chemoprevention (as evidenced in the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) (ECOG-5597 [NCT00008385] trial, for example).
  2. Endobronchial therapies, including photodynamic therapy, for highly selected patients with T1, N0, M0 tumors.

Current Clinical Trials

Use our advanced clinical trial search to find NCI-supported cancer clinical trials that are now enrolling patients. The search can be narrowed by location of the trial, type of treatment, name of the drug, and other criteria. General information about clinical trials is also available.
References
  1. Ginsberg RJ, Hill LD, Eagan RT, et al.: Modern thirty-day operative mortality for surgical resections in lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 86 (5): 654-8, 1983. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. 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 60 (3): 615-22; discussion 622-3, 1995. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Warren WH, Faber LP: Segmentectomy versus lobectomy in patients with stage I pulmonary carcinoma. Five-year survival and patterns of intrathoracic recurrence. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 107 (4): 1087-93; discussion 1093-4, 1994. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Mantz CA, Dosoretz DE, Rubenstein JH, et al.: Endobronchial brachytherapy and optimization of local disease control in medically inoperable non-small cell lung carcinoma: a matched-pair analysis. Brachytherapy 3 (4): 183-90, 2004. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Manser R, Wright G, Hart D, et al.: Surgery for early stage non-small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1): CD004699, 2005. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Allen MS, Darling GE, Pechet TT, et al.: Morbidity and mortality of major pulmonary resections in patients with early-stage lung cancer: initial results of the randomized, prospective ACOSOG Z0030 trial. Ann Thorac Surg 81 (3): 1013-9; discussion 1019-20, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Darling GE, Allen MS, Decker PA, et al.: Randomized trial of mediastinal lymph node sampling versus complete lymphadenectomy during pulmonary resection in the patient with N0 or N1 (less than hilar) non-small cell carcinoma: results of the American College of Surgery Oncology Group Z0030 Trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 141 (3): 662-70, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. Martini N, Bains MS, Burt ME, et al.: Incidence of local recurrence and second primary tumors in resected stage I lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 109 (1): 120-9, 1995. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. PORT Meta-analysis Trialists Group: Postoperative radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2): CD002142, 2005. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Fernando HC, Landreneau RJ, Mandrekar SJ, et al.: Impact of brachytherapy on local recurrence rates after sublobar resection: results from ACOSOG Z4032 (Alliance), a phase III randomized trial for high-risk operable non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 32 (23): 2456-62, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  11. Deygas N, Froudarakis M, Ozenne G, et al.: Cryotherapy in early superficial bronchogenic carcinoma. Chest 120 (1): 26-31, 2001. [PUBMED Abstract]
  12. van Boxem TJ, Venmans BJ, Schramel FM, et al.: Radiographically occult lung cancer treated with fibreoptic bronchoscopic electrocautery: a pilot study of a simple and inexpensive technique. Eur Respir J 11 (1): 169-72, 1998. [PUBMED Abstract]
  13. Pignon JP, Tribodet H, Scagliotti GV, et al.: Lung adjuvant cisplatin evaluation: a pooled analysis by the LACE Collaborative Group. J Clin Oncol 26 (21): 3552-9, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
  14. Winton T, Livingston R, Johnson D, et al.: Vinorelbine plus cisplatin vs. observation in resected non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 352 (25): 2589-97, 2005. [PUBMED Abstract]
  15. Arriagada R, Bergman B, Dunant A, et al.: Cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 350 (4): 351-60, 2004. [PUBMED Abstract]
  16. Scagliotti GV, Fossati R, Torri V, et al.: Randomized study of adjuvant chemotherapy for completely resected stage I, II, or IIIA non-small-cell Lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 95 (19): 1453-61, 2003. [PUBMED Abstract]
  17. Hotta K, Matsuo K, Ueoka H, et al.: Role of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resected non-small-cell lung cancer: reappraisal with a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Oncol 22 (19): 3860-7, 2004. [PUBMED Abstract]
  18. Edell ES, Cortese DA: Photodynamic therapy in the management of early superficial squamous cell carcinoma as an alternative to surgical resection. Chest 102 (5): 1319-22, 1992. [PUBMED Abstract]
  19. Corti L, Toniolo L, Boso C, et al.: Long-term survival of patients treated with photodynamic therapy for carcinoma in situ and early non-small-cell lung carcinoma. Lasers Surg Med 39 (5): 394-402, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  20. Strauss GM, Herndon JE 2nd, Maddaus MA, et al.: Adjuvant paclitaxel plus carboplatin compared with observation in stage IB non-small-cell lung cancer: CALGB 9633 with the Cancer and Leukemia Group B, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, and North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study Groups. J Clin Oncol 26 (31): 5043-51, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
  21. Dosoretz DE, Katin MJ, Blitzer PH, et al.: Radiation therapy in the management of medically inoperable carcinoma of the lung: results and implications for future treatment strategies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 24 (1): 3-9, 1992. [PUBMED Abstract]
  22. Gauden S, Ramsay J, Tripcony L: The curative treatment by radiotherapy alone of stage I non-small cell carcinoma of the lung. Chest 108 (5): 1278-82, 1995. [PUBMED Abstract]
  23. Sibley GS, Jamieson TA, Marks LB, et al.: Radiotherapy alone for medically inoperable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer: the Duke experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 40 (1): 149-54, 1998. [PUBMED Abstract]
  24. Noordijk EM, vd Poest Clement E, Hermans J, et al.: Radiotherapy as an alternative to surgery in elderly patients with resectable lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 13 (2): 83-9, 1988. [PUBMED Abstract]
  25. Dosoretz DE, Galmarini D, Rubenstein JH, et al.: Local control in medically inoperable lung cancer: an analysis of its importance in outcome and factors determining the probability of tumor eradication. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 27 (3): 507-16, 1993. [PUBMED Abstract]
  26. Kaskowitz L, Graham MV, Emami B, et al.: Radiation therapy alone for stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 27 (3): 517-23, 1993. [PUBMED Abstract]
  27. McGarry RC, Song G, des Rosiers P, et al.: Observation-only management of early stage, medically inoperable lung cancer: poor outcome. Chest 121 (4): 1155-8, 2002. [PUBMED Abstract]
  28. Lanni TB Jr, Grills IS, Kestin LL, et al.: Stereotactic radiotherapy reduces treatment cost while improving overall survival and local control over standard fractionated radiation therapy for medically inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 34 (5): 494-8, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  29. Grutters JP, Kessels AG, Pijls-Johannesma M, et al.: Comparison of the effectiveness of radiotherapy with photons, protons and carbon-ions for non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Radiother Oncol 95 (1): 32-40, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  30. Raz DJ, Zell JA, Ou SH, et al.: Natural history of stage I non-small cell lung cancer: implications for early detection. Chest 132 (1): 193-9, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  31. Bradley J, Graham MV, Winter K, et al.: Toxicity and outcome results of RTOG 9311: a phase I-II dose-escalation study using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61 (2): 318-28, 2005. [PUBMED Abstract]
  32. Bogart JA, Hodgson L, Seagren SL, et al.: Phase I study of accelerated conformal radiotherapy for stage I non-small-cell lung cancer in patients with pulmonary dysfunction: CALGB 39904. J Clin Oncol 28 (2): 202-6, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  33. Cheung P, Faria S, Ahmed S, et al.: Phase II study of accelerated hypofractionated three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for stage T1-3 N0 M0 non-small cell lung cancer: NCIC CTG BR.25. J Natl Cancer Inst 106 (8): , 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  34. Timmerman R, Papiez L, McGarry R, et al.: Extracranial stereotactic radioablation: results of a phase I study in medically inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Chest 124 (5): 1946-55, 2003. [PUBMED Abstract]
  35. Timmerman R, McGarry R, Yiannoutsos C, et al.: Excessive toxicity when treating central tumors in a phase II study of stereotactic body radiation therapy for medically inoperable early-stage lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 24 (30): 4833-9, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
  36. Lagerwaard FJ, Haasbeek CJ, Smit EF, et al.: Outcomes of risk-adapted fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for stage I non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70 (3): 685-92, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
  37. Baumann P, Nyman J, Hoyer M, et al.: Outcome in a prospective phase II trial of medically inoperable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 27 (20): 3290-6, 2009. [PUBMED Abstract]
  38. Fakiris AJ, McGarry RC, Yiannoutsos CT, et al.: Stereotactic body radiation therapy for early-stage non-small-cell lung carcinoma: four-year results of a prospective phase II study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 75 (3): 677-82, 2009. [PUBMED Abstract]
  39. Timmerman R, Paulus R, Galvin J, et al.: Stereotactic body radiation therapy for inoperable early stage lung cancer. JAMA 303 (11): 1070-6, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  40. Senthi S, Lagerwaard FJ, Haasbeek CJ, et al.: Patterns of disease recurrence after stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for early stage non-small-cell lung cancer: a retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol 13 (8): 802-9, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  41. Senthi S, Haasbeek CJ, Slotman BJ, et al.: Outcomes of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for central lung tumours: a systematic review. Radiother Oncol 106 (3): 276-82, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]

Stages IIA and IIB NSCLC Treatment

Standard Treatment Options for Stages IIA and IIB NSCLC

Standard treatment options for stages IIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and IIB NSCLC include the following:
  1. Surgery.
  2. Radiation therapy (for patients who cannot have surgery).
Adjuvant radiation therapy has not been shown to improve outcomes in patients with stage II NSCLC.

Surgery

Surgery is the treatment of choice for patients with stage II NSCLC. A lobectomy, pneumonectomy, or segmental resection, wedge resection, or sleeve resection may be performed as appropriate. Careful preoperative assessment of the patient’s overall medical condition, especially the patient’s pulmonary reserve, is critical in considering the benefits of surgery. Despite the immediate and age-related postoperative mortality rate, a 5% to 8% mortality rate with pneumonectomy or a 3% to 5% mortality rate with lobectomy can be expected.
Evidence (surgery):
  1. The Cochrane Collaboration reviewed 11 randomized trials with a total of 1,910 patients who underwent surgical interventions for early-stage (I–IIIA) lung cancer.[1] A pooled analysis of three trials reported the following:
    • Four-year survival was superior in patients with resectable stage I, II, or IIIA NSCLC who underwent resection and complete ipsilateral mediastinal lymph node dissection (CMLND), compared with those who underwent resection and lymph node sampling; the hazard ratio (HR) was estimated to be 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–0.93; P = .005).[1][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
    • There was a significant reduction in any cancer recurrence (local or distant) in the CMLND group (relative risk [RR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66–0.95; P = .01) that appeared mainly as the result of a reduction in the number of distant recurrences (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61–1.00; P = .05).
    • There was no difference in operative mortality.
    • Air leak lasting more than 5 days was significantly more common in patients assigned to CMLND (RR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.01–8.54; P = .05).
  2. CMLND versus lymph node sampling was evaluated in a large randomized phase III trial (ACOSOG-Z0030 [NCT00003831]).[2]
    • Preliminary analyses of operative morbidity and mortality showed comparable rates from the procedures.[2]
    • There was no difference in overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), local recurrence, and regional recurrence.[3][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
Current evidence suggests that lung cancer resection combined with CMLND is not associated with improvement in survival compared with lung cancer resection combined with systematic sampling of mediastinal lymph nodes in patients with stage I, II, or IIIA NSCLC.[3][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
Limitations of evidence (surgery):
Conclusions about the efficacy of surgery for patients with local and locoregional NSCLC are limited by the small number of participants studied to date and potential methodological weaknesses of the trials.
Adjuvant chemotherapy
The preponderance of evidence indicates that postoperative cisplatin combination chemotherapy provides a significant survival advantage to patients with resected stage II NSCLC. Preoperative chemotherapy may also provide survival benefit. The optimal sequence of surgery and chemotherapy and the benefits and risks of postoperative radiation therapy in patients with resectable NSCLC remain to be determined.
After surgery, many patients develop regional or distant metastases.[4] Several randomized, controlled trials and meta-analyses have evaluated the use of postoperative chemotherapy in patients with stage I, II, and IIIA NSCLC.[5-11]
Evidence (adjuvant chemotherapy):
  1. Data on individual patient outcomes were collected and pooled into a meta-analysis from the five largest trials (4,584 patients) that were conducted after 1995 of cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with completely resected NSCLC.[7]
    • With a median follow-up time of 5.2 years, the overall HRdeath was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82–0.96; P = .005), corresponding to a 5-year absolute benefit of 5.4% from chemotherapy.
    • The benefit varied with stage (test for trend, P = .04; HR for stage IA, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.95–2.06; HR for stage IB, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78–1.10; HR for stage II, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73–0.95; and HR for stage III, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72–0.94).
    • The effect of chemotherapy did not vary significantly (test for interaction, P = .11) with the associated drugs, including vinorelbine (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70–0.91), etoposide or vinca alkaloid (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.80–1.07), or other drugs (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.84–1.13).
    • The greater effect on survival observed with the doublet of cisplatin plus vinorelbine compared with other regimens should be interpreted cautiously as the total dose of cisplatin received was significantly higher in patients treated with vinorelbine.
  2. The meta-analysis and the individual studies [5,12] support the administration of postoperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy in combination with vinorelbine.
    1. Superior OS for the trial population and patients with stage II disease was reported for the LACE pooled analysis (pooled HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73–0.95); the Adjuvant Navelbine International Trialist Association (ANITA) trial (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49–1.03); and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group JBR.10 trial (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.42–0.85).
    2. Chemotherapy effect was higher in patients with better performance status (PS).
    3. There was no interaction between chemotherapy effect and any of the following:
      • Sex.
      • Age.
      • Histology.
      • Type of surgery.
      • Planned radiation therapy.
      • Planned total dose of cisplatin.
  3. In a retrospective analysis of a phase III trial of postoperative cisplatin and vinorelbine, patients older than 65 years were found to benefit from treatment.[13]
    • Chemotherapy significantly prolonged OS for elderly patients (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38–0.98; P = .04).
    • There were no significant differences in toxic effects, hospitalization, or treatment-related death by age group, although elderly patients received less treatment.[13]
  4. Several other randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have evaluated the use of postoperative chemotherapy in patients with stages I, II, and IIIA NSCLC.[5-11]
Based on these data, patients with completely resected stage II lung cancer may benefit from postoperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy.[13][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
The role of chemotherapy before surgery was tested in clinical trials. The proposed benefits of preoperative chemotherapy include the following:
  • A reduction in tumor size that may facilitate surgical resection.
  • Early eradication of micrometastases.
  • Better tolerability.
Preoperative chemotherapy may, however, delay potentially curative surgery.
Evidence (neoadjuvant chemotherapy):
  1. The Cochrane Collaboration reported a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled trials that included 988 patients and evaluated the addition of preoperative chemotherapy to surgery versus surgery alone. These trials evaluated patients with stages I, II, and IIIA NSCLC.[14]
    • Preoperative chemotherapy provided an absolute benefit in survival of 6% across all stages of disease, from 14% to 20% at 5 years (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69–0.97; P = .022).[14][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
    • This analysis was unable to address questions such as whether particular types of patients may benefit more or less from preoperative chemotherapy.
  2. In the largest trial reported to date, 519 patients were randomly assigned to receive either surgery alone or three cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy followed by surgery. Most patients (61%) had clinical stage I disease; 31% had stage II disease; and 7% had stage III disease.[15]
    • No survival advantage was seen.[15]
    • Postoperative complications were similar between groups, and no impairment of quality of life was observed.
    • There was no evidence of a benefit in terms of OS (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.80–1.31; P = .86).
    • Updating the systematic review by addition of the present result suggests a 12% relative survival benefit with the addition of neoadjuvant (preoperative) chemotherapy (1,507 patients; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.76–1.01; P = .07), equivalent to an absolute improvement in survival of 5% at 5 years.
Adjuvant radiation therapy
The value of postoperative (adjuvant) radiation therapy (PORT) has been evaluated.[16]
Evidence (adjuvant radiation therapy):
  1. A meta-analysis, based on the results of ten randomized controlled trials and 2,232 individuals, reported the following:[16]
    • An 18% relative increase in the risk of death for patients who received PORT compared with surgery alone (HR, 1.18; P = .002). This is equivalent to an absolute detriment of 6% at 2 years (95% CI, 2%–9%), reducing OS from 58% to 52%. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested that this detrimental effect was most pronounced for patients with stage I/II, N0–N1 disease, whereas for patients with stage III, N2 disease there was no clear evidence of an adverse effect.
    • Results for local (HR, 1.13; P = .02), distant (HR, 1.14; P = .02), and overall (HR, 1.10; P = .06) recurrence-free survival similarly showed a detriment of PORT.[16][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
Further analysis is needed to determine whether these outcomes can potentially be modified with technical improvements, better definitions of target volumes, and limitation of cardiac volume in the radiation portals.

Radiation therapy

Patients with potentially operable tumors with medical contraindications to surgery or those with inoperable stage II disease and with sufficient pulmonary reserve are candidates for radiation therapy with curative intent.[17] Primary radiation therapy often consists of approximately 60 Gy delivered with megavoltage equipment to the midplane of the volume of the known tumor using conventional fractionation. A boost to the cone down field of the primary tumor is frequently used to enhance local control. Careful treatment planning with precise definition of target volume and avoidance of critical normal structures, to the extent possible, is needed for optimal results; this requires the use of a simulator.
Prognosis:
Among patients with excellent PS, a 3-year survival rate of 20% may be expected if a course of radiation therapy with curative intent can be completed.
Evidence (radiation therapy):
  1. In the largest retrospective series reported to date, 152 patients with medically inoperable NSCLC were treated with definitive radiation therapy. The study reported the following:[18]
    • A 5-year OS rate of 10%.
    • Forty-four patients with T1 tumors achieved an actuarial DFS rate of 60%.
    • This retrospective study also suggested that improved DFS was obtained with radiation therapy doses greater than 60 Gy.[18]

Treatment Options Under Clinical Evaluation

Treatment options under clinical evaluation include the following:
  1. Clinical trials of radiation therapy after curative surgery.

Current Clinical Trials

Use our advanced clinical trial search to find NCI-supported cancer clinical trials that are now enrolling patients. The search can be narrowed by location of the trial, type of treatment, name of the drug, and other criteria. General information about clinical trials is also available.
References
  1. Manser R, Wright G, Hart D, et al.: Surgery for early stage non-small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1): CD004699, 2005. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Allen MS, Darling GE, Pechet TT, et al.: Morbidity and mortality of major pulmonary resections in patients with early-stage lung cancer: initial results of the randomized, prospective ACOSOG Z0030 trial. Ann Thorac Surg 81 (3): 1013-9; discussion 1019-20, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Darling GE, Allen MS, Decker PA, et al.: Randomized trial of mediastinal lymph node sampling versus complete lymphadenectomy during pulmonary resection in the patient with N0 or N1 (less than hilar) non-small cell carcinoma: results of the American College of Surgery Oncology Group Z0030 Trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 141 (3): 662-70, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Martini N, Bains MS, Burt ME, et al.: Incidence of local recurrence and second primary tumors in resected stage I lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 109 (1): 120-9, 1995. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Winton T, Livingston R, Johnson D, et al.: Vinorelbine plus cisplatin vs. observation in resected non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 352 (25): 2589-97, 2005. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Arriagada R, Bergman B, Dunant A, et al.: Cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 350 (4): 351-60, 2004. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Pignon JP, Tribodet H, Scagliotti GV, et al.: Lung adjuvant cisplatin evaluation: a pooled analysis by the LACE Collaborative Group. J Clin Oncol 26 (21): 3552-9, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. Scagliotti GV, Fossati R, Torri V, et al.: Randomized study of adjuvant chemotherapy for completely resected stage I, II, or IIIA non-small-cell Lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 95 (19): 1453-61, 2003. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Hotta K, Matsuo K, Ueoka H, et al.: Role of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resected non-small-cell lung cancer: reappraisal with a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Oncol 22 (19): 3860-7, 2004. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Edell ES, Cortese DA: Photodynamic therapy in the management of early superficial squamous cell carcinoma as an alternative to surgical resection. Chest 102 (5): 1319-22, 1992. [PUBMED Abstract]
  11. Corti L, Toniolo L, Boso C, et al.: Long-term survival of patients treated with photodynamic therapy for carcinoma in situ and early non-small-cell lung carcinoma. Lasers Surg Med 39 (5): 394-402, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  12. Douillard JY, Rosell R, De Lena M, et al.: 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 7 (9): 719-27, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
  13. Pepe C, Hasan B, Winton TL, et al.: Adjuvant vinorelbine and cisplatin in elderly patients: National Cancer Institute of Canada and Intergroup Study JBR.10. J Clin Oncol 25 (12): 1553-61, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  14. Burdett SS, Stewart LA, Rydzewska L: Chemotherapy and surgery versus surgery alone in non-small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3): CD006157, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  15. Gilligan D, Nicolson M, Smith I, et al.: Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer: results of the MRC LU22/NVALT 2/EORTC 08012 multicentre randomised trial and update of systematic review. Lancet 369 (9577): 1929-37, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  16. PORT Meta-analysis Trialists Group: Postoperative radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2): CD002142, 2005. [PUBMED Abstract]
  17. Komaki R, Cox JD, Hartz AJ, et al.: Characteristics of long-term survivors after treatment for inoperable carcinoma of the lung. Am J Clin Oncol 8 (5): 362-70, 1985. [PUBMED Abstract]
  18. Dosoretz DE, Katin MJ, Blitzer PH, et al.: Radiation therapy in the management of medically inoperable carcinoma of the lung: results and implications for future treatment strategies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 24 (1): 3-9, 1992. [PUBMED Abstract]

Stage IIIA NSCLC Treatment

Patients with stage IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are a heterogenous group. Patients may have metastases to ipsilateral mediastinal nodes, potentially resectable T3 tumors invading the chest wall, or mediastinal involvement with metastases to peribronchial or hilar lymph nodes (N1). Presentations of disease range from resectable tumors with microscopic metastases to lymph nodes to unresectable, bulky disease involving multiple nodal stations.
Prognosis:
Patients with clinical stage IIIA N2 disease have a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 10% to 15%; however, patients with bulky mediastinal involvement (i.e., visible on chest radiography) have a 5-year survival rate of 2% to 5%. Depending on clinical circumstances, the principal forms of treatment that are considered for patients with stage IIIA NSCLC are radiation therapy, chemotherapy, surgery, and combinations of these modalities.
Treatment options vary according to the location of the tumor and whether it is resectable.

Standard Treatment Options for Resected/Resectable Stage IIIA N2 NSCLC

Despite careful preoperative staging, some patients will be found to have metastases to mediastinal N2 lymph nodes at thoracotomy.
Standard treatment options for resected/resectable disease include the following:
  1. Surgery.
  2. Neoadjuvant therapy.
  3. Adjuvant therapy.
The preponderance of evidence indicates that postoperative cisplatin combination chemotherapy provides a significant survival advantage to patients with resected NSCLC with occult N2 disease discovered at surgery. The optimal sequence of surgery and chemotherapy and the benefits and risks of postoperative radiation therapy in patients with resectable NSCLC are yet to be determined.

Surgery

If complete resection of tumor and lymph nodes is possible, such patients may benefit from surgery followed by postoperative chemotherapy. Current evidence suggests that lung cancer resection combined with complete ipsilateral mediastinal lymph node dissection (CMLND) is not associated with improvement in survival compared with lung cancer resection combined with systematic sampling of mediastinal lymph nodes in patients with stage I, II, or IIIA NSCLC.[1][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
The addition of surgery to chemoradiation therapy for patients with stage IIIA NSCLC did not result in improved OS in a phase III trial but did improve progression-free survival (PFS) and local control.[2][Level of evidence: 1iiDiii]
Evidence (surgery):
  1. The Cochrane Collaboration reviewed 11 randomized trials with a total of 1,910 patients who underwent surgical interventions for early-stage (I–IIIA) lung cancer.[3] A pooled analysis of three trials reported the following:
    • Four-year survival was superior in patients with resectable stage I, II, or IIIA NSCLC who underwent resection and CMLND, compared with those who underwent resection and lymph node sampling; the hazard ratio (HR) was estimated to be 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–0.93; P = .005).[3][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
  2. CMLND versus lymph node sampling was evaluated in a large randomized phase III trial (ACOSOG-Z0030). Preliminary analyses of operative morbidity and mortality showed comparable rates from the procedures.[4]
    • There was no difference in OS, disease-free survival (DFS), local recurrence, and regional recurrence.[1][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
Limitations of evidence (surgery):
Conclusions about the efficacy of surgery for patients with local and locoregional NSCLC are limited by the small number of participants studied to date and by the potential methodological weaknesses of the trials.

Neoadjuvant therapy

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
The role of chemotherapy before surgery in patients with stage III N2 NSCLC has been extensively tested in clinical trials. The proposed benefits of preoperative (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy include the following:
  • A reduction in tumor size that may facilitate surgical resection.
  • Early eradication of micrometastases.
  • Better tolerability.
Evidence (neoadjuvant chemotherapy):
  1. The Cochrane Collaboration provided a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled trials that included 988 patients and evaluated the addition of preoperative chemotherapy to surgery versus surgery alone.[5] These trials evaluated patients with stages I, II, and IIIA NSCLC.
    • Preoperative chemotherapy provided an absolute benefit in survival of 6% across all stages of disease, from 14% to 20% at 5 years (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69–0.97; P = .022).[5][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
    • This analysis was unable to address questions such as whether particular types of patients may benefit more or less from preoperative chemotherapy.[6]
  2. In the largest trial reported to date, 519 patients were randomly assigned to receive either surgery alone or three cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy followed by surgery.[7] Most patients (61%) had clinical stage I disease, 31% had stage II disease, and 7% had stage III disease.
    • Postoperative complications were similar between groups, and no impairment of quality of life was observed.
    • There was no evidence of a benefit in terms of OS (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.80–1.31; P = .86).
    • Updating the systematic review by addition of the present result suggests a 12% relative survival benefit with the addition of preoperative chemotherapy (1,507 patients, HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.76–1.01; P = .07), equivalent to an absolute improvement in survival of 5% at 5 years.[7]
Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy
Administering concurrent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy before surgery may intensify treatment and increase the likelihood of downstaging the tumor burden. Commonly utilized regimens that have been tested in the phase II setting include cisplatin/etoposide (EP5050) and weekly carboplatin/paclitaxel.[8,9] In a randomized trial of neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and surgery versus concurrent chemoradiation therapy alone, there was no difference in OS, but surgery improved PFS and local control.[2][Level of evidence: 1iiDiii]
Evidence (neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy):
  1. The Intergroup-0139 [NCT00002550] trial compared chemoradiation therapy alone with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery in 396 patients with stage IIIA NSCLC.[2]
    • Surgery did not improve OS (5-year OS, 27% vs. 20%; HR: 0.87 [0.70–1.10]; P = .24).
    • Surgery improved PFS (5-year PFS, 22% vs. 11%; HR 0.77 [0.62–0.96]; P = .017) and decreased the risk of local recurrence (10% vs. 22%; P = .002).
    • There was increased treatment mortality with neoadjuvant chemoradiation with surgery (8% vs. 2%), particularly in the subset of patients who underwent pneumonectomy.
A direct comparison of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy using modern treatment regimens has not been performed to date; the optimal neoadjuvant approach remains unclear.

Adjuvant therapy

Adjuvant chemotherapy
Patients with completely resected stage IIIA NSCLC may benefit from postoperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy.[10][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
Evidence (adjuvant chemotherapy):
Evidence from randomized controlled clinical trials indicates that when stage IIIA NSCLC is encountered unexpectedly at surgery, chemotherapy given after complete resection improves survival.
Several randomized, controlled trials and meta-analyses have evaluated the use of postoperative chemotherapy in patients with stages I, II, and IIIA NSCLC.[10-16]
  1. Data on individual patient outcomes from the five largest trials (4,584 patients) that were conducted after 1995 of cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with completely resected NSCLC were collected and pooled into a meta-analysis.[10]
    • With a median follow-up of 5.2 years, the overall HRdeath was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82–0.96; P = .005), corresponding to a 5-year absolute benefit of 5.4% from chemotherapy.
    • The effect of chemotherapy did not vary significantly (test for interaction, P = .11) with the associated drugs, including vinorelbine (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70–0.91), etoposide or vinca alkaloid (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.80–1.07), or other drugs (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.84–1.13).
    • The benefit varied with stage (HR for stage IIIA, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72–0.94).
    • The greater effect on survival observed with the doublet of cisplatin plus vinorelbine compared with other regimens should be interpreted with caution as the total dose of cisplatin received was significantly higher in patients treated with vinorelbine.
  2. Two trials (FRE-IALT and the Adjuvant Navelbine International Trialist Association [ANITA] trial) reported significant OS benefits associated with postoperative chemotherapy in stage IIIA disease.[6,12]
    1. For the subgroup of stage IIIA patients in the ANITA trial (n = 325), the HR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.53–0.90), and the result for the FRE-IALT trial (n = 728) was HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.66–0.95).
    2. The chemotherapy effect was higher in patients with a better performance status (PS).
    3. There was no interaction between the chemotherapy effect and any of the following:
      • Sex.
      • Age.
      • Histology.
      • Type of surgery.
      • Planned radiation therapy.
      • Planned total dose of cisplatin.
  3. In a retrospective analysis of a phase III trial of postoperative cisplatin and vinorelbine, patients older than 65 years were found to benefit from treatment.[17]
    • Chemotherapy significantly prolonged OS for elderly patients (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38–0.98; P = .04).
    • There were no significant differences in toxic effects, hospitalization, or treatment-related death by age group, although elderly patients received less treatment.
Adjuvant chemoradiation therapy
Combination chemotherapy and radiation therapy administered before or following surgery should be viewed as investigational and requiring evaluation in future clinical trials.
Evidence (adjuvant chemoradiation therapy):
  1. Five randomized trials have assessed the value of postoperative combination chemoradiation therapy versus radiation therapy following surgical resection.[5,7,18-20][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
    • Only one trial reported improved DFS and no trial reported improved OS.
  2. Three trials have evaluated platinum-based combination chemotherapy followed by surgery versus platinum-based chemotherapy followed by radiation therapy (60–69.6 Gy) alone to determine whether surgery or radiation therapy was most efficacious.[20-22] Although the studies were small, enrolling 73 (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group [RTOG]) (RTOG 89-01), 107 (The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center), and 333 (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC-08941; NCT00002623]) patients with stage IIIA N2 disease, no trial reported a difference in local control or survival.[20-22][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
    1. In the largest series (EORTC-08941), 579 patients with histologic- or cytologic-proven stage IIIA N2 NSCLC were given three cycles of platinum-based induction chemotherapy.[22] The 333 responding patients were subsequently randomly assigned to surgical resection or radiation therapy. Of the 154 patients (92%) who underwent surgery, 50% had a radical resection, 42% had a pathologic downstaging, and 5% had a pathologic complete response; 4% died after surgery. Postoperative (adjuvant) radiation therapy (PORT) was administered to 62 patients (40%) in the surgery arm. Among the 154 patients (93%) who received radiation therapy, overall compliance to the radiation therapy prescription was 55%, and grade 3 to 4 acute and late esophageal and pulmonary toxic effects occurred in 4% and 7% of patients; one patient died of radiation pneumonitis.
      • Median OS was 16.4 months for patients assigned to resection versus 17.5 months for patients assigned to radiation therapy; 5-year OS was 15.7% for patients assigned to resection versus 14% for patients assigned to radiation therapy (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.84–1.35).[22]
      • Rates of PFS were also similar in both groups. In view of its low morbidity and mortality, it was concluded that radiation therapy should be considered the preferred locoregional treatment for these patients.[22]
Adjuvant radiation therapy
The value of PORT has been assessed.[18] Although some studies suggest that PORT can improve local control for node-positive patients whose tumors were resected, it remains controversial whether it can improve survival. The optimal dose of thoracic PORT is not known at this time. The majority of studies cited used doses ranging from 30 Gy to 60 Gy, typically provided in 2 Gy to 2.5 Gy fractions.[18]
As referred to in the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) Clinical Trials Group JBR.10 study (NCT00002583), PORT may be considered in selected patients to reduce the risk of local recurrence, if any of the following are present:[17]
  • Involvement of multiple nodal stations.
  • Extracapsular tumor spread.
  • Close or microscopically positive resection margins.
Evidence (adjuvant radiation therapy):
Evidence from one large meta-analysis, subset analyses of randomized trials, and one large population study suggest that PORT may reduce local recurrence. Results from these studies on the effect of PORT on OS are conflicting.
  1. A meta-analysis of ten randomized trials that evaluated PORT versus surgery alone showed the following:
  2. Results from a nonrandomized subanalysis of the ANITA trial, comparing 5-year OS in N2 patients who did or did not receive PORT, found the following:[6]
    • Higher survival rates in patients who received radiation therapy in the observation arm (21% in patients who received PORT vs. 17% in patients who did not receive PORT) and in the chemotherapy arm (47% with PORT vs. 34% without PORT); however, statistical tests of comparison were not conducted.[6]
  3. Results from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program [19] suggest the following:
    • The large SEER retrospective study (N = 7,465) found superior survival rates associated with radiation therapy in N2 disease (HR, 0.855; 95% CI, 0.762–0.959).
There is benefit of PORT in stage IIIA N2 disease, and the role of PORT in early stages of NSCLC should be clarified in ongoing phase III trials. Further analysis is needed to determine whether these outcomes can be modified with technical improvements, better definitions of target volumes, and limitation of cardiac volume in the radiation portals.[12]

Standard Treatment Options for Unresectable Stage IIIA N2 NSCLC

Standard treatment options for patients with unresectable NSCLC include the following:
  1. Radiation therapy.
  2. Chemoradiation therapy.

Radiation therapy

For treatment of locally advanced unresectable tumor
Radiation therapy alone, administered sequentially with chemotherapy and concurrently with chemotherapy, may provide benefit to patients with locally advanced unresectable stage III NSCLC.
Prognosis:
Radiation therapy with traditional dose and fractionation schedules (1.8–2.0 Gy per fraction per day to 60–70 Gy in 6–7 weeks) results in reproducible long-term survival benefit in 5% to 10% of patients and significant palliation of symptoms.[23]
Evidence (radiation therapy for locally advanced unresectable tumor):
  1. One prospective randomized clinical study showed the following:[24]
    • Radiation therapy given continuously (including weekends) as three daily fractions (continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiation therapy) improved OS compared with radiation therapy given as one daily fraction.[24][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
    • Patterns of failure for patients treated with radiation therapy alone included both locoregional and distant failures.
Although patients with unresectable stage IIIA disease may benefit from radiation therapy, long-term outcomes have generally been poor because of local and systemic relapse.
For patients requiring palliative treatment
Radiation therapy may be effective in palliating symptomatic local involvement with NSCLC, such as the following:
  • Tracheal, esophageal, or bronchial compression.
  • Pain.
  • Vocal cord paralysis.
  • Hemoptysis.
  • Superior vena cava syndrome.
In some cases, endobronchial laser therapy and/or brachytherapy has been used to alleviate proximal obstructing lesions.[25]
Evidence (radiation therapy for palliative treatment):
  1. A systematic review identified six randomized trials of high-dose rate endobronchial brachytherapy (HDREB) alone or with external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) or laser therapy.[26]
    • Better overall symptom palliation and fewer re-treatments were required in previously untreated patients using EBRT alone.[26][Level of evidence: 1iiC]
    • Although EBRT is frequently prescribed for symptom palliation, there is no consensus about when the fractionation scheme should be used.
    • For EBRT, different multifraction regimens appear to provide similar symptom relief;[27-32] however, single-fraction radiation therapy may be insufficient for symptom relief compared with hypofractionated or standard regimens, as seen in the NCIC Clinical Trials Group trial (NCT00003685).[29][Level of evidence: 1iiC]
    • Evidence of a modest increase in survival in patients with better PS given high-dose EBRT is available.[27,28][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
    • HDREB provided palliation of symptomatic patients with recurrent endobronchial obstruction previously treated by EBRT, when it was technically feasible.

Chemoradiation therapy

The addition of sequential and concurrent chemotherapy to radiation therapy has been evaluated in prospective randomized trials and meta-analyses. Overall, concurrent treatment may provide the greatest benefit in survival with an increase in toxic effects.
Concomitant platinum-based radiation chemotherapy may improve survival of patients with locally advanced NSCLC. However, the available data are insufficient to accurately define the size of such a potential treatment benefit and the optimal schedule of chemotherapy.[33]
Evidence (chemoradiation therapy):
  1. A meta-analysis of patient data from 11 randomized clinical trials showed the following:[34]
    • Cisplatin-based combinations plus radiation therapy resulted in a 10% reduction in the risk of death compared with radiation therapy alone.[34][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
  2. A meta-analysis of 13 trials (based on 2,214 evaluable patients) showed the following:[35]
    • The addition of concurrent chemotherapy to radical radiation therapy reduced the risk of death at 2 years (relative risk [RR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88–0.98; P = .01).
    • For the 11 trials with platinum-based chemotherapy, RR was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87–0.99; P = .02).[35]
  3. A meta-analysis of individual data from 1,764 patients was based on nine trials and showed the following:[33]
    • The HRdeath among patients treated with radiation therapy and chemotherapy compared with radiation therapy alone was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81–0.98; P = .02), corresponding to an absolute benefit of chemotherapy of 4% at 2 years.
    • The combination of platinum with etoposide appeared to be more effective than platinum alone.
Concurrent versus sequential chemoradiation therapy
The results from two randomized trials (including RTOG-9410 [NCT01134861]) and a meta-analysis indicate that concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy may provide greater survival benefit, albeit with more toxic effects, than sequential chemotherapy and radiation therapy.[36-38][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
Evidence (concurrent vs. sequential chemoradiation therapy):
  1. In the first trial, the combination of mitomycin C, vindesine, and cisplatin were given concurrently with split-course daily radiation therapy to 56 Gy compared with chemotherapy followed by continuous daily radiation therapy to 56 Gy.[36]
    • Five-year OS favored concurrent therapy (27% vs. 9%).
    • Myelosuppression was greater among patients in the concurrent arm, but treatment-related mortality was less than 1% in both arms.[36]
  2. In the second trial, 610 patients were randomly assigned to sequential chemotherapy with cisplatin and vinblastine followed by 60 Gy of radiation therapy, concurrent chemotherapy, or concurrent chemotherapy with cisplatin and vinblastine with twice-daily radiation therapy.[38]
    • Median and 5-year survival were superior in the concurrent chemotherapy with daily radiation therapy arm (17 months vs. 14.6 months and 16% vs. 10% for sequential regimen [P = .046]).[38]
  3. Two smaller studies also reported OS results that favored concurrent over sequential chemotherapy and radiation, although the results did not reach statistical significance.[37,39][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
  4. A meta-analysis of three trials evaluated concurrent versus sequential treatment (711 patients).[35]
    • The analysis indicated a significant benefit of concurrent over sequential treatment (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78–0.95; P = .003). All studies used cisplatin-based regimens and once-daily radiation therapy.[35]
    • More deaths (3% OS rate) were reported in the concurrent arm, but this did not reach statistical significance (RR, 1.60; CI, 0.75–3.44; P = .2).
    • There was more acute esophagitis (grade 3 or worse) with concurrent treatment (range, 17%–26%) compared with sequential treatment (range, 0%–4%; RR, 6.77; P = .001). Overall, the incidence of neutropenia (grade 3 or worse) was similar in both arms.
Radiation therapy dose escalation for concurrent chemoradiation
With improvement in radiation therapy–delivery technology in the 1990s, including tumor-motion management and image guidance, phase I/II trials demonstrated the feasibility of dose-escalation radiation therapy to 74 Gy with concurrent chemotherapy.[40-42] However, a phase III trial of a conventional dose of 60 Gy versus dose escalation to 74 Gy with concurrent weekly carboplatin/paclitaxel did not demonstrate improved local control or PFS, and OS was worse with dose escalation (HR, 1.38 [1.09–1.76]; P = .004). There was a nonsignificant increase in grade 5 events with dose escalation (10% vs. 2%) and higher incidence of grade 3 esophagitis (21% vs. 7%; P =.0003). Thus, there is no clear benefit in radiation dose escalation beyond 60 Gy for stage III NSCLC.[43][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
Choice of systemic therapy for concurrent chemoradiation
Evidence (systemic therapy for concurrent chemoradiation):
  1. The randomized phase III PROCLAIM study [NCT00686959] enrolled 598 patients with newly diagnosed, stage IIIA/B, unresectable, nonsquamous NSCLC.[44] Patients were randomly assigned on a 1:1 ratio to either of two arms:
    • Arm A: Pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) and cisplatin (75 mg/m2) intravenously every 3 weeks for three cycles plus concurrent thoracic radiation therapy (60 to 66 Gy) followed by pemetrexed consolidation every 3 weeks for four cycles.
    • Arm B: Standard therapy with etoposide (50 mg/m2) and cisplatin (50 mg/m2) intravenously every 4 weeks for two cycles plus concurrent thoracic radiation therapy (60 to 66 Gy) followed by two cycles of consolidation platinum-based doublet chemotherapy.
    The primary objective was OS. The study was designed as a superiority trial with 80% power to detect an OS HR of 0.74 with a type 1 error of .05. This study randomly assigned 598 patients (arm A, 301; arm B, 297) and treated 555 patients (arm A, 283; arm B, 272).
    • Enrollment was stopped early because of futility.
    • OS in arm A was not superior to arm B (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79–1.20; median, 26.8 vs. 25.0 months; P = .831).
    • Arm A had a significantly lower incidence of any drug-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events (64.0% vs. 76.8%; P = .001), including neutropenia (24.4% vs. 44.5%; P < .001), during the overall treatment period.
Additional systemic therapy before or after concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy
The addition of induction chemotherapy before concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy has not been shown to improve survival.[45][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
Consolidation Immunotherapy
Durvalumab
Durvalumab is a selective human IgG1 monoclonal antibody that blocks programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) binding to programmed death 1 (PD-1) and CD80, allowing T cells to recognize and kill tumor cells.[46]
Evidence (durvalumab):
  1. The phase III PACIFIC trial (NCT02125461) enrolled 713 patients with stage III NSCLC whose disease had not progressed after two or more cycles of platinum-based chemoradiation therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive durvalumab (10 mg/kg intravenously) or placebo (every 2 weeks for up to 12 months).[46] The coprimary endpoints were PFS assessed by blinded independent central review and OS (unplanned for the interim analysis).
    • At the interim analysis, the coprimary endpoint of PFS was met. The median PFS was 16.8 months with durvalumab versus 5.6 months with placebo (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42–0.65; P< .001).[46][Level of evidence:1iiDiii] The 18-month PFS rate was 44.2% with durvalumab versus 27% with placebo.
    • PFS benefit was seen across all prespecified subgroups and was irrespective of PD-L1 expression before chemoradiation therapy or smoking status. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations were observed in 6% of patients (29 treated with durvalumab vs. 14 treated with placebo). The unstratified HR for the EGFR-mutated subgroup was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.35–1.64).
    • Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 29.9% of patients treated with durvalumab and in 26.1% of patients treated with placebo. The most common adverse event of grade 3 or 4 was pneumonia in 4.4% of the patients receiving durvalumab and in 3.8% of the patients receiving placebo.
    • OS was not assessed at the interim analysis.
Other systemic consolidation therapies
Randomized trials of other consolidation systemic therapies, including docetaxel,[47] gefitinib,[48] and tecemotide (MUC1 antigen-specific immunotherapy) [49] have not shown an improvement in OS.[Level of evidence: 1iiA]

Standard Treatment Options for Superior Sulcus Tumors (T3, N0 or N1, M0)

Standard treatment options for superior sulcus tumors include the following:
  1. Radiation therapy alone.
  2. Surgery.
  3. Chemoradiation therapy followed by surgery.
NSCLC of the superior sulcus, frequently termed Pancoast tumors, occurs in less than 5% of patients.[50,51] Superior sulcus tumors usually arise from the apex of the lung and are challenging to treat because of their proximity to structures at the thoracic inlet. At this location, tumors may invade the parietal pleura, chest wall, brachial plexus, subclavian vessels, stellate ganglion, and adjacent vertebral bodies. However, Pancoast tumors are amenable to curative treatment, especially in patients with T3, N0 disease.
Adverse prognostic factors include the presence of mediastinal nodal metastases (N2 disease), spine or subclavian-vessel involvement (T4 disease), and limited resection (R1 or R2).

Radiation therapy alone

While radiation therapy is an integral part of the treatment of Pancoast tumors, variations in dose, treatment technique, and staging that were used in various published series make it difficult to determine its effectiveness.[50,51]
Prognosis:
Small, retrospective series of radiation therapy in patients who were only clinically staged have reported 5-year survival rates of 0% to 40%, depending on T stage, total radiation dose, and other prognostic factors. Induction radiation therapy and en-bloc resection was shown to be potentially curative.
Evidence (radiation therapy):
  1. In the preoperative setting, a dose of 45 Gy over 5 weeks is generally recommended, while a dose of approximately 61 Gy is required when using definitive radiation therapy as the primary modality.[50,51]

Surgery

Evidence (surgery):
  1. Retrospective case series have reported that complete resection was achieved in only 64% of T3, N0 tumors and 39% of T4, N0 tumors.[52]

Chemoradiation therapy followed by surgery

Evidence (chemoradiation therapy):
  1. Two large, prospective, multicenter phase II trials have evaluated induction chemoradiation therapy followed by resection.[53,54]
    1. In the first trial (NCT00002642), 110 eligible patients were enrolled with mediastinoscopy negative, clinical T3–4, N0–1 tumors of the superior sulcus.[54] Induction treatment was two cycles of etoposide and cisplatin with 45 Gy of concurrent radiation therapy.
      • The induction regimen was well tolerated, and only five participants had grade 3 or higher toxic effects.
      • Induction chemoradiation therapy could sterilize the primary lesion. Induction therapy was completed by 104 patients (95%). Of the 95 patients eligible for surgery, 88 (80%) underwent thoracotomy, two (1.8%) died postoperatively, and 83 (76%) had complete resections.
      • Pathologic complete response or minimal microscopic disease was seen in 61 (56%) resection specimens. Pathologic complete response led to better survival than when any residual disease was present (P = .02).
      • Five-year survival was 44% for all patients and 54% after complete resection, with no difference between T3 and T4 tumors. Disease progression occurred mainly in distant sites.
    2. In the second trial, 75 patients were enrolled and treated with induction therapy with mitomycin C, vindesine, and cisplatin combined with 45 Gy of radiation therapy.[53] Fifty-seven patients (76%) underwent surgical resection, and complete resection was achieved in 51 patients (68%).
      • There were 12 patients with pathologic complete response.
      • Major postoperative morbidity, including chylothorax, empyema, pneumonitis, adult respiratory distress syndrome, and bleeding, was observed in eight patients. There were three treatment-related deaths.
      • At 3 years, the DFS rate was 49%, and the OS rate was 61%; at 5 years, the DFS rate was 45%, and the OS rate was 56%.[53][Level of evidence: 3iiiDi]
Radiation therapy dose escalation for concurrent chemoradiation
With improvement in radiation therapy–delivery technology in the 1990s, including tumor-motion management and image guidance, phase I/II trials demonstrated the feasibility of dose-escalation radiation therapy to 74 Gy with concurrent chemotherapy.[40-42] However, a phase III trial of a conventional dose of 60 Gy versus dose escalation to 74 Gy with concurrent weekly carboplatin/paclitaxel did not demonstrate improved local control or PFS, and OS was worse with dose escalation (HR, 1.38 [1.09–1.76]; P = .004). There was a nonsignificant increase in grade 5 events with dose escalation (10% vs. 2%) and higher incidence of grade 3 esophagitis (21% vs. 7%; P = .0003). Thus, there is no clear benefit in radiation dose escalation beyond 60 Gy for stage III NSCLC.[43][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
Choice of systemic therapy for concurrent chemoradiation
Evidence (systemic therapy for concurrent chemoradiation):
  1. The randomized phase III PROCLAIM study [NCT00686959] enrolled 598 patients with newly diagnosed stage IIIA/B unresectable nonsquamous NSCLC.[44] Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either of two arms:
    • Arm A: Pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) and cisplatin (75 mg/m2) intravenously every 3 weeks for three cycles plus concurrent thoracic radiation therapy (60 to 66 Gy) followed by pemetrexed consolidation every 3 weeks for four cycles.
    • Arm B: Standard therapy with etoposide (50 mg/m2) and cisplatin (50 mg/m2) intravenously every 4 weeks for two cycles plus concurrent thoracic radiation therapy (60 to 66 Gy) followed by two cycles of consolidation platinum-based doublet chemotherapy.
    The primary objective was OS. The study was designed as a superiority trial with 80% power to detect an OS HR of 0.74 with a type 1 error of .05. This study randomly assigned 598 patients (arm A, 301; arm B, 297) and treated 555 patients (arm A, 283; arm B, 272).
    • Enrollment was stopped early because of futility.
    • OS in arm A was not superior to arm B (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79–1.20; median, 26.8 vs. 25.0 months; P = .831).
    • Arm A had a significantly lower incidence of any drug-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events (64.0% vs. 76.8%; P = .001), including neutropenia (24.4% vs. 44.5%; P < .001), during the overall treatment period.
Additional systemic therapy before or after concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy
The addition of induction chemotherapy before concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy has not been shown to improve survival.[45][Level of evidence: 1iiA]
The role of consolidation systemic therapy after concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy for unresectable NSCLC remains unclear. Randomized trials of consolidation systemic therapy including docetaxel,[47] gefitinib,[48] and tecemotide (MUC1 antigen-specific immunotherapy) [49] have not shown an improvement in OS.[Level of evidence: 1iiA]

Standard Treatment Options for Tumors That Invade the Chest Wall (T3, N0 or N1, M0)

Standard treatment options for tumors that invade the chest wall include the following:
  1. Surgery.
  2. Surgery and radiation therapy.
  3. Radiation therapy alone.
  4. Chemotherapy combined with radiation therapy and/or surgery.
Selected patients with bulky primary tumors that directly invade the chest wall can obtain long-term survival with surgical management provided that their tumor is completely resected.
Evidence (radical surgery):
  1. In a small case series of 97 patients, the 5-year survival rate of patients who had completely resected T3, N0, M0 disease was 44.2%. For patients with completely resected T3, N1, M0 disease, the 5-year survival rate was 40.0%. In patients with completely resected T3, N2, M0 disease, the 5-year survival rate was 6.2%.[55][Level of evidence: 3iiiDi]
  2. In a small case series of 104 patients, the 5-year survival rate of patients who had completely resected T3, N0, M0 disease was 67.3%. For patients with completely resected T3, N1, M0 disease, the 5-year survival rate was 100.0%. In patients with completely resected T3, N2, M0 disease, the 5-year survival rate was 17.9%.[56][Level of evidence: 3iiiDi]
  3. In a case series of 309 patients treated at three centers, patients who underwent en bloc resection had superior outcomes compared with patients who underwent extrapleural resections (60.3% vs. 39.1%; P = .03).[57][Level of evidence: 3iiiDi]
Adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended and radiation therapy is reserved for cases with unclear resection margins. Survival rates were lower in patients who underwent incomplete resection and had mediastinal lymph node involvement. Combined-modality approaches have been evaluated to improve ability to achieve complete resection.
Publicado por en

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario

Suscribirse a: Enviar comentarios (Atom)