Curing Operable Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy: The Force Awakens.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Siva S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4828125 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Curing Operable Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy: The Force Awakens.
The oncologist 20160316 4
Similar Datasets
Project description:Surgery is the gold therapeutic standard for patients affected with stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy is currently considered the preferred treatment option for inoperable patients, representing approximately 25%. Limited data are available directly comparing surgery and SABR in operable patients, none of them prospective. Preliminary results are encouraging, showing that the two treatment modalities are equally effective in terms of tumour control, with expected similar survival projections. Moreover, in elderly patients SABR could represent a valid treatment alternative in comparison to surgery due to the lower morbidity. We here review and discuss the potential role of SABR as an alternative to surgery in operable early stage lung cancer patients.
| S-EPMC4104015 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe standard of care for operable, stage I, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is lobectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection or sampling. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for inoperable stage I NSCLC has shown promising results, but two independent, randomised, phase 3 trials of SABR in patients with operable stage I NSCLC (STARS and ROSEL) closed early due to slow accrual. We aimed to assess overall survival for SABR versus surgery by pooling data from these trials.MethodsEligible patients in the STARS and ROSEL studies were those with clinical T1-2a (<4 cm), N0M0, operable NSCLC. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to SABR or lobectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection or sampling. We did a pooled analysis in the intention-to-treat population using overall survival as the primary endpoint. Both trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (STARS: NCT00840749; ROSEL: NCT00687986).Findings58 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (31 to SABR and 27 to surgery). Median follow-up was 40·2 months (IQR 23·0-47·3) for the SABR group and 35·4 months (18·9-40·7) for the surgery group. Six patients in the surgery group died compared with one patient in the SABR group. Estimated overall survival at 3 years was 95% (95% CI 85-100) in the SABR group compared with 79% (64-97) in the surgery group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·14 [95% CI 0·017-1·190], log-rank p=0·037). Recurrence-free survival at 3 years was 86% (95% CI 74-100) in the SABR group and 80% (65-97) in the surgery group (HR 0·69 [95% CI 0·21-2·29], log-rank p=0·54). In the surgery group, one patient had regional nodal recurrence and two had distant metastases; in the SABR group, one patient had local recurrence, four had regional nodal recurrence, and one had distant metastases. Three (10%) patients in the SABR group had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (three [10%] chest wall pain, two [6%] dyspnoea or cough, and one [3%] fatigue and rib fracture). No patients given SABR had grade 4 events or treatment-related death. In the surgery group, one (4%) patient died of surgical complications and 12 (44%) patients had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events. Grade 3 events occurring in more than one patient in the surgery group were dyspnoea (four [15%] patients), chest pain (four [15%] patients), and lung infections (two [7%]).InterpretationSABR could be an option for treating operable stage I NSCLC. Because of the small patient sample size and short follow-up, additional randomised studies comparing SABR with surgery in operable patients are warranted.FundingAccuray Inc, Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, NCI Cancer Center Support, NCI Clinical and Translational Science Award.
| S-EPMC4489408 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5465166 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) has a role as definitive therapy in many tumor sites; however, its role in the treatment of breast cancer is less well explored. Currently, SABR has been investigated in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting with a number of ongoing feasibility studies. However, its use comes with a number of radiobiological and technical challenges that require further evaluation. We have learned much from other extracranial disease sites such as lung, brain, and spine, where definitive treatment with SABR has shown encouraging outcomes. In women with breast cancer, SABR may eliminate the need for invasive surgery, reducing healthcare costs and hospital stays and providing an additional curative option for early-stage disease. This poses the following question: is there a role for SABR as a definitive therapy in breast cancer?
| S-EPMC5816843 | biostudies-other
Project description:Prostate is the most common non-cutaneous cancer diagnosed among men in North America. Fortunately most prostate cancers are screen detected and non-metastatic on diagnosis. Treatment options for men with localized prostate cancer include surgery ± postoperative radiation or radiation ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Brachytherapy ± external beam radiation treatment (EBRT) appears to have superior long-term disease control over EBRT alone likely because of higher biologic effective dose delivered. Stereotactic ablative body radiation (SABR) is a novel, non-invasive, high-precision EBRT technique that allows safe delivery of biologic doses similar to brachytherapy with similar or lower side effects [measured using toxicity or quality of life (QOL) scales]. Efficacy for SABR appears to be similar to brachytherapy including positive biopsy rates 2-3 years post treatment, biochemical failure (BF) rates out to 10-year and incidence of metastases. SABR dose escalation reduces biopsy positivity and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadirs but increases genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity-no effect on BF has been realized yet. The overall treatment time (OTT) varies in many protocols. Phase 2 randomized data shows that QOL is better in the acute setting with a weekly course of treatment compared to an every other day treatment regimen with no difference in late setting. Follow-up data are immature and likely underpowered to determine efficacy differences. SABR is cheaper and uses less resource than any other radiation technique. Given the healthcare resource challenges (including financial resources), SABR would be a welcomed addition if studies show non-inferiority to other radiation techniques. For patients with de novo or metastatic disease on relapse, there is much enthusiasm regarding the use of SABR in the setting of oligometastatic prostate cancer. SABR appears to be feasible to deliver, well tolerated and may delay the next line of therapy. However, until adequately powered randomized studies confirm a benefit, such an approach cannot be considered standard of care treatment at this time. Enrollment of eligible prostate cancer patients onto SABR clinical trials should be encouraged.
| S-EPMC6043737 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough the choice between stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) and lobectomy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been debated for years, the two procedures have not yet been directly compared in a randomized trial. We conducted a virtual randomized phase III trial stratified by age to compare the effectiveness of lobectomy and SABR for medically operable patients with stage IA (AJCC eighth) NSCLC using the Markov model analysis.MethodsA Markov model was developed to simulate a cohort of patients aged 45-85 years with stage IA NSCLC who had undergone either lobectomy or SABR and were followed up for their remaining lifetime. Each virtual patient was randomly assigned to undergo lobectomy or SABR, and 10 000 patients were allocated to each group. All estimates of the variables were obtained by a systematic review of published articles.ResultsThe lobectomy group showed a better life expectancy than the SABR group, in patients under 75 years of age. However, no statistically significant difference was seen in patients 75 years or older. The predicted life expectancy was 9.43 and 8.70 years in 75-year-old patients in the lobectomy and SABR groups, respectively. However, the 95%CI for the difference in life expectancy between the two groups was - 0.06-1.50 years (P = 0.0689).ConclusionsThe Markov model showed no statistically significant difference in the expected overall survival in stage IA NSCLC patients who were older than 75 years and had undergone SABR or lobectomy.
| S-EPMC6558457 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recently published data from pooled randomised trials conclude that stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) can be considered the treatment of choice in operable lung cancer patients fit for lobectomy. This conclusion comes for comparable 3-year survival and much lower risk of early severe morbidity and mortality. In this editorial comment we discuss the validity of the conclusions due to the prematurity of the survival analysis and to the poor accuracy of patients' staging leading to higher rates of regional relapse in the SABR arm. Besides, therapy-related mortality and morbidity in the pooled cohort is much higher that the internationally accepted standards maybe because surgery was not performed according to the best approaches and procedures currently available. The effectiveness of SABR as the sole therapy for resectable lung cancer is still awaiting for sound evidences. It could be adopted for individual cases only in two situations: (I) the patient does not accept surgical treatment; and (II) in cases were the risk of surgical related mortality is considered to exceed the probability of long-term survival after lung resection. For this, a multidisciplinary team (MDT) assessment, including surgeons and oncologists, is mandatory.
| S-EPMC4758969 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5864629 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this manuscript, developments in the techniques, clinical outcome, toxicity, and future perspectives of SBRT for medically inoperable and operable early stage NCSLC are discussed. SBRT is well tolerated and has limited and acceptable side effects. It has evolved as a standard of care for medically inoperable patients. These excellent results taken together with the morbidity and mortality associated with surgery, might also lead to changes in the treatment for operable patients.
| S-EPMC5658902 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common noncutaneous solid organ malignancy among men worldwide. Radiation therapy is a standard of care treatment option that has historically been delivered in the form of small daily doses of radiation over the span of multiple weeks. PCa appears to have a unique sensitivity to higher doses of radiation per fraction, rendering it susceptible to abbreviated forms of treatment. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRBT) are both modern radiation modalities that allow the precise delivery of ablative doses of radiation to the prostate while maximally sparing sensitive surrounding normal structures. In this review, we highlight the evidence regarding the radiobiology, oncological outcomes, toxicity and dose/fractionation schemes of SBRT and HDRBT monotherapy in men with low-and intermediate-risk PCa.
| S-EPMC7761604 | biostudies-literature