Dataset Information

Comparison of outcomes in patients with stage III versus limited stage IV non-small cell lung cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Standard therapy for metastatic non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) includes palliative systemic chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Recent studies of patients with limited metastases treated with curative-intent stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) have shown encouraging survival. We hypothesized that patients treated with SBRT for limited metastases have comparable outcomes with those treated with curative-intent radiation for Stage III NSCLC.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the records of NSCLC patients treated with curative-intent radiotherapy at the University of Rochester from 2000-2008. We identified 3 groups of patients with NSCLC: stage III, stage IV, and recurrent stage IV (initial stage I-II). All stage IV NSCLC patients treated with SBRT had ? 8 lesions.

Results

Of 146 patients, 88% had KPS ? 80%, 30% had > 5% weight loss, and 95% were smokers. The 5-year OS from date of NSCLC diagnosis for stage III, initial stage IV and recurrent stage IV was 7%, 14%, and 27% respectively. The 5-year OS from date of metastatic diagnosis was significantly (p < 0.00001) superior among those with limited metastases (? 8 lesions) versus stage III patients who developed extensive metastases not amenable to SBRT (14% vs. 0%).

Conclusion

Stage IV NSCLC is a heterogeneous patient population, with a selected cohort apparently faring better than Stage III patients. Though patients with limited metastases are favorably selected by virtue of more indolent disease and/or less bulky disease burden, perhaps staging these patients differently is appropriate for prognostic and treatment characterization. Aggressive local therapy may be indicated in these patients, though prospective clinical studies are needed.

SUBMITTER: Cheruvu P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3141527 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of outcomes in patients with stage III versus limited stage IV non-small cell lung cancer.

Cheruvu Praveena P Metcalfe Su K SK Metcalfe Justin J Chen Yuhchyau Y Okunieff Paul P Milano Michael T MT

Radiation oncology (London, England) 20110630

<h4>Background</h4>Standard therapy for metastatic non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) includes palliative systemic chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Recent studies of patients with limited metastases treated with curative-intent stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) have shown encouraging survival. We hypothesized that patients treated with SBRT for limited metastases have comparable outcomes with those treated with curative-intent radiation for Stage III NSCLC.<h4>Methods</h4>We retrospect ...[more]

PMID: 21718501

Similar Datasets

Project description:Lobectomy is considered the standard treatment for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, more limited resections are commonly performed. We examined patient and surgeon factors associated with limited resection and compared postoperative and long-term outcomes between sublobar and lobar resections.A population- and health system-based sample of patients newly diagnosed with stage I or II NSCLC between 2003 and 2005 in five geographically defined regions, five integrated health-care delivery systems, and 15 Veterans Affairs hospitals was observed for a median of 55 months, through May 31, 2010. Predictors of limited resection and postoperative outcomes were compared using unadjusted and propensity score-weighted analyses. All P values are from two-sided tests.One hundred fifty-five (23%) patients underwent limited resection and 524 (77%) underwent lobectomy. In adjusted analyses of patient-specific factors, smaller tumor size (P = .004), coverage by Medicare or Medicaid, no insurance or unknown insurance (P = .02), more severe lung disease (P < .001), and a history of stroke (P = .049) were associated with receipt of limited resection. In adjusted analyses of surgeon characteristics, thoracic surgery specialty (P = .02), non-fee-for-service compensation (P = .008), and National Cancer Institute cancer center designation (P = .006) were associated with higher odds of limited resection. Unadjusted 30-day mortality was higher with limited resection than with lobectomy (7.1% vs 1.9%, difference = 5.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5% to 10.8%, P = .003), and the adjusted difference was not statistically significant (6.5% vs 2.9%, difference = 3.6%, 95% CI = -.1% to 9.2%, P = .09). Postoperative complications did not differ by type of surgery (all P > .05). Over the course of the study, a non-statistically significant trend toward improved long-term survival was evident for lobectomy, compared with limited resection, in adjusted analyses (hazard ratio of death = 1.35 for limited resection, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.84, P = .05).Evidence is statistically inconclusive but suggestive that lobectomy, compared with limited resection, is associated with increased long-term survival for early-stage lung cancer. Clinical, socioeconomic, and surgeon factors appear to be associated with the choice of surgical resection.

Project description:BackgroundIn Ontario, Canada, patient-reported outcome (PRO) evaluation through the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) has been integrated into clinical workflow since 2007. As stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is associated with substantial disease and treatment-related morbidity, this province-wide study investigated moderate to severe symptom burden in this population.Materials and methodsESAS collected from patients with stage IV NSCLC diagnosed between 2007 and 2018 linked to the Ontario provincial health care system database were studied. ESAS acquired within 12 months following diagnosis were analyzed and the proportion reporting moderate to severe scores (ESAS ≥4) in each domain was calculated. Predictors of moderate to severe scores were identified using multivariable Poisson regression models with robust error variance.ResultsOf 22,799 patients, 13,289 (58.3%) completed ESAS (84,373 assessments) in the year following diagnosis. Patients with older age, with high comorbidity, and not receiving active cancer therapy had lower ESAS completion. The majority (94.4%) reported at least one moderate to severe symptom. The most prevalent were tiredness (84.1%), low well-being (80.7%), low appetite (71.7%), and shortness of breath (67.8%). Most symptoms peaked at diagnosis and, while declining, remained high in the following year. On multivariable analyses, comorbidity, low income, nonimmigrants, and urban residency were associated with moderate to severe symptoms. Moderate to severe scores in all ESAS domains aside from anxiety were associated with radiotherapy within 2 weeks prior, whereas drowsiness, low appetite and well-being, nausea, and tiredness were associated with systemic therapy within 2 weeks prior.ConclusionThis province-wide PRO analysis showed moderate to severe symptoms were prevalent and persistent among patients with metastatic NSCLC, underscoring the need to address supportive measures in this population especially around treatments.Implications for practiceIn this largest study of lung cancer patient-reported outcomes (PROs), stage IV non-small cell lung cancer patients had worse moderate-to-severe symptoms than other metastatic malignancies such as breast or gastrointestinal cancers when assessed with similar methodology. Prevalence of moderate-to-severe symptoms peaked early and remained high during the first year of follow-up. Symptom burden was associated with recent radiation and systemic treatments. Early and sustained PRO collection is important to detect actionable symptom progression, especially around treatments. Vulnerable patients (e.g., older, high comorbidity) who face barriers in attending in-person clinic visits had lower PRO completion. Virtual PRO collection may improve completion.

Project description:BackgroundASP8273, a novel, small molecule, irreversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) specifically inhibits the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in patients with activating mutations or EGFR T790M resistance mutations. The current study examines the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ASP8273 versus erlotinib or gefitinib in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations not previously treated with an EGFR inhibitor.Patients and methodsThis global, phase III, open-label, randomized study evaluated ASP8273 versus erlotinib/gefitinib in patients with locally advanced, metastatic, or unresectable stage IIIB/IV NSCLC with activating EGFR mutations. They were ineligible if they received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary end points included overall survival, investigator-assessed PFS, best overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate, duration of response (DoR), and the safety/tolerability profile.ResultsPatients (n = 530) were randomized 1 : 1 to receive ASP8273 (n = 267) or erlotinib/gefitinib (n = 263). Patient demographics between both treatment groups were generally balanced. Median PFS was 9.3 months (95% CI 5.6-11.1 months) for patients receiving ASP8273 and 9.6 months (95% CI 8.8-NE) for the erlotinib/gefitinib group, with a hazard ratio of 1.611 (P = 0.992). The ORR in the ASP8273 group was 33% (95% CI 27.4-39.0) versus 47.9% (95% CI 41.7-54.1) in the erlotinib/gefitinib group. Median DoR was similar for both groups (9.2 months for ASP8273 versus 9.0 months for erlotinib/gefitinib). More grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in patients receiving ASP8273 than in those receiving erlotinib/gefitinib (54.7% versus 43.5%). An independent data monitoring committee carried out an interim safety analysis and recommended discontinuing the study due to toxicity and limited predicted efficacy of ASP8273 relative to erlotinib/gefitinib.ConclusionsFirst-line ASP8273 did not show improved PFS or equivalent toxicities versus erlotinib/gefitinib.Clinicaltrial.gov numberNCT02588261.

Project description:PurposeThere are limited clinical data on scanning-beam proton therapy (SPT) in treating locally advanced lung cancer, as most published studies have used passive-scatter technology. There is increasing interest in whether the dosimetric advantages of SPT compared with photon therapy can translate into superior clinical outcomes. We present our experience of SPT and photon intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with clinical dosimetry and outcomes in patients with stage III lung cancer.Methods and materialsPatients with stage III lung cancer treated at our center between 2013 and May 2018 were identified in compliance with our institutional review board (64 patients = 34 SPT + 30 IMRT). Most proton patients were treated with pencil beam scanning (28 of 34), and 6 of 34 were treated with uniform scanning. Fisher exact test, χ2 test, and Mann-Whitney test were used to compare groups. All tests were 2-sided.ResultsPatient characteristics were similar between the IMRT and SPT patients, except for worse lung function in the IMRT group. Mean dose to lung, heart, and esophagus was lower in the SPT group, with most benefit in the low-dose region (lungs, 9.7 Gy vs 15.7 Gy for SPT vs IMRT, respectively [P = .004]; heart, 7 Gy vs 14 Gy [P = .001]; esophagus, 28.2 Gy vs 30.9 Gy [P = .023]). Esophagitis and dermatitis grades were not different between the 2 groups. Grade 2+ pneumonitis was 21% in the SPT group and 40% in the IMRT group (P = .107). Changes in blood counts were not different between the 2 groups. Overall survival and progression-free survival were not different between SPT and IMRT (median overall survival, 41.6 vs 30.7 months, respectively [P = .52]; median progression-free survival, 19.5 vs 14.6 months [P = .50]).ConclusionsWe report our experience with SPT and IMRT in stage III lung cancer. Our cohort of patients treated with SPT had lower doses to normal organs (lungs, heart, esophagus) than our IMRT cohort. There was no statistically significant difference in toxicity rates or survival, although there may have been a trend toward lower rates of pneumonitis.

Dataset Information

Comparison of outcomes in patients with stage III versus limited stage IV non-small cell lung cancer.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparison of outcomes in patients with stage III versus limited stage IV non-small cell lung cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets