Dataset Information

Surgery Plus Chemotherapy Versus Surgery Alone for Limited-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Population-Based Survival Outcome Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

For patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC), effective treatment methods still remain a clinical challenge. The aim of this study is to evaluate the survival outcome of surgery plus chemotherapy vs. surgery alone in patients with LS-SCLC.

Methods

LS-SCLC patients selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database diagnosed between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2015. Comparison of overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) between two groups performed propensity score matching (PSM), inverse probability of treatment weight (IPTW), and overlap weighting analysis.

Results

Of the 477 LS-SCLC patients identified from the SEER database between 2004 and 2015, 262 (54.9%) received surgery-plus-chemotherapy treatment and the others received surgery-alone treatment. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that treatment option (P< 0.001), tumor location (P= 0.02) and AJCC stage (P< 0.001) were independent prognostic predictors of OS in LS-SCLC patients. Median OS was 35 months in surgery-plus-chemotherapy group vs. 23 months in surgery-alone group. Survival analysis showed that surgery plus chemotherapy offered significantly improved OS as compared with surgery-alone treatment before and after IPTW, PSM and overlap weighting method (all P< 0.05). According to AJCC stage stratification, OS of the unmatched patients with stage I (P= 0.049) and II (P= 0.001) SCLC who received surgery-plus-chemotherapy treatment was significantly better than that of surgery-alone patients.

Conclusions

This cohort study showed that surgery plus chemotherapy was associated with longer survival time than surgery alone in LS-SCLC patients, especially in those with stage I and II SCLC. Further prospective studies are required to confirm our conclusions.

SUBMITTER: Ye P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8165284 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhether a combination of chemotherapy and erlotinib is beneficial for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains controversial. This study aimed to summarize the currently available evidence and compare the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy plus erlotinib versus chemotherapy alone for treating advanced NSCLC.MethodsEMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant studies. Our protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42014015015).ResultsNine randomized controlled trials with a total of 3599 patients were included. Compared to chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus erlotinib was superior in PFS (HR = 0.76 [95% CI 0.62, 0.92], P = 0.006), and no statistically significant difference was observed in OS (HR = 0.94 [95% CI 0.86, 1.03], P = 0.16). Intercalated erlotinib plus chemotherapy demonstrated improvements in PFS (HR = 0.67 [95% CI 0.50, 0.91], P = 0.009) and OS (HR = 0.82 [95% CI 0.69, 0.98], P = 0.03). Continuous erlotinib plus chemotherapy treatment failed to demonstrate improvements in PFS (HR = 0.91 [95% CI 0.80, 1.04], P = 0.16) and OS (HR = 0.98 [95% CI 0.89, 1.09], P = 0.75). The association of chemotherapy plus erlotinib with improvement in PFS was significant in never smoking patients (HR = 0.46 [95% CI 0.37, 0.56], P<0.00001) but not in smoking patients (HR = 0.70 [95% CI 0.49, 1.00], P = 0.05). Among patients with EGFR mutant tumors, chemotherapy plus erlotinib demonstrated significant improvements in PFS (HR = 0.31 [95% CI 0.17, 0.58], P = 0.0002) and OS (HR = 0.52 [95% CI 0.30, 0.88], P = 0.01). Among patients with EGFR wild-type tumors, no statistically significant difference was observed with respect to PFS (HR = 0.87 [95% CI 0.70, 1.08], P = 0.21) and OS (HR = 0.78 [95% CI 0.59, 1.01], P = 0.06).ConclusionCombination of chemotherapy and erlotinib is a viable treatment option for patients with NSCLC, especially for patients who never smoked and patients with EGFR mutation-positive disease. In addition, intercalated administration is an effective combinatorial strategy.

Project description:BackgroundRituximab has been shown to improve response rates and progression free survival when added to chemotherapy in patients with indolent and mantle cell lymphoma. However, the impact of R on overall survival (OS) when given in combination with chemotherapy (R-chemo) has remained unclear so far.ObjectivesWe thus performed a comprehensive systematic review in this group of patients to compare R-chemo with chemotherapy alone with respect to OS. Other endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), toxicity and disease control as assessed by measures such as time to treatment failure (TTF), event free-survival (EFS), progression free-survival (PFS) and time to progression (TTP).Search strategyWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and conference proceeding from 1990 to 2005.Selection criteriaOnly randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing R-chemo with chemotherapy alone in patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed indolent lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) were included.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors extracted data and assessed the study quality. Number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated to facilitate interpretation.Main resultsSeven randomised controlled trials involving 1943 patients with follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, or other indolent lymphomas were included in the meta-analysis. Five studies were published as full-text articles, and two were in abstract form. Patients treated with R-chemo had better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] for mortality 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.78), overall response (relative risk of tumour response 1.21; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.27), and disease control (HR of disease event 0.62; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.71) than patients treated with chemotherapy alone. R-chemo improved overall survival in patients with follicular lymphoma (HR for mortality 0.63; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.79) and in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (HR for mortality 0.60; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.98). However, in the latter case, there was heterogeneity among the trials (P 0.07), making the survival benefit less reliable.Authors' conclusionsThe systematic review demonstrated improved OS for patients with indolent lymphoma, particularly in the subgroups of follicular and in mantle cell lymphoma when treated with R-chemo compared to chemotherapy alone.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A previous systematic review found that giving neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery improved survival compared with radiotherapy. However, the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone is still unclear. OBJECTIVES:To assess the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with early or locally-advanced cervical cancer. SEARCH METHODS:We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library) (to Issue 8, 2012), MEDLINE (OVID) (to Aug 2012), LILACS (to Aug 2012), Physician's Data Query (PDQ) (to Aug 2012). We sought both published and unpublished trials and undertook systematic searches of a number of trial sources with no restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA:Randomised trials comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with surgery in women with early or locally-advanced cervical cancer who had not undergone any prior treatment likely to interfere with the treatment comparison. Trials giving radical radiotherapy for inoperable tumours and/or post-operative radiotherapy were also eligible. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), local and distant recurrence, rates of resection and surgical morbidity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two authors independently extracted and checked data from trial reports, Depending on the type of outcome, trial hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) were obtained or estimated from trial reports, or sought from trial investigators. MAIN RESULTS:Six trials (1078 women) were identified for inclusion in this updated review. All six trials provided data on OS (1071 women) and PFS (1027 women). Data on resection rates and pathological response were only available for five trials (908 to 940 women) and data on recurrence were only available for four trials (737 women). Both OS (HR 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.96, P = 0.02) and PFS (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93, P = 0.008) were significantly improved with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The estimate for local recurrence was in favour of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.99, P = 0.04), although heterogeneity was observed. The result was no longer significant when the random-effects model was used (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.12, P = 0.11). Whilst not significant, estimates for distant recurrence (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.14, P = 0.16) and rates of resection (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.50, P = 0.07) tended to favour neoadjuvant chemotherapy, although heterogeneity was observed. Exploratory analyses of pathological response showed a significant decrease in adverse pathological findings with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.73, P = < 0.0001 for lymph node status; OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.82, P = 0.002 for parametrial infiltration) which, despite substantial heterogeneity, was still significant when the random-effects model was used. There were also no differences in the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on survival according to total cisplatin dose, chemotherapy cycle length or by cervical cancer stage. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Both OS and PFS were improved with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Although the effects were less clear on all other pre-specified outcomes, they all tended to be in favour of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Whilst these results appear to indicate that neoadjuvant chemotherapy may offer a benefit over surgery alone for women with early-stage or locally-advanced cervical cancer, the evidence is based on only a small number of trials, and further research may be warranted.

Project description:BackgroundToripalimab is the first domestic anti-tumor programmed death 1 antibody marketed in China. The CHOICE-01 trial (identifier: NCT03856411) demonstrated that toripalimab plus chemotherapy can significantly improve the clinical outcomes of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, whether it is cost-effective remains unknown. Given the high cost of combination therapy, a cost-effectiveness analysis of toripalimab plus chemotherapy (TC) versus chemotherapy alone (PC) for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC is required.MethodsA partitioned survival model was adopted to predict the course of disease in advanced NSCLC patients on TC or PC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system over a 10-year horizon. The survival data were obtained from the CHOICE-01 clinical trial. Cost and utility values were obtained from local hospitals and kinds of literature. Based on these parameters, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of TC vs. PC was measured, and one-way sensitivity analyses, probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA), and scenario analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model.ResultsIn the base case, TC was associated with an incremental cost of $18510 and an incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of 0.57 compared with PC, resulting in an ICER of $32237/QALY which was lower than the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold ($37654/QALY), TC was cost-effective. The health utility value of progression-free survival, the price of toripalimab, and the cost of best supportive care were factors that significantly influenced the ICER, but no change in any of them could change the model result. TC showed a 90% probability of being a cost-effective option at a WTP threshold of $37,654/QALY. In the 20 and 30-year time horizons, the results remained unchanged and TC remained cost-effective when the second-line treatment was switched to docetaxel.ConclusionAt a WTP threshold of $37,654 per QALY, TC was cost-effective compared to PC for patients with advanced NSCLC in China.