Dataset Information

A Propensity-Matched Analysis of Survival of Clinically Diagnosed Early-Stage Lung Cancer and Biopsy-Proven Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Following Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has been increasingly regarded as a reasonable option for early-stage lung cancer patients without pretreatment pathologic results, but the efficacy and safety in a Chinese population remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare survival outcomes and toxicities between patients with clinically diagnosed early-stage lung cancer or biopsy-proven early-stage non-small cell lung cancer and to demonstrate the rationality of this treatment.

Material and methods

From May 2012 to December 2018, 56 patients with clinically diagnosed early-stage lung cancer and 60 patients with early-stage biopsy-proven were selected into non-pathological group and pathological group, respectively. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to reduce patient selection bias. Survival analysis with log-rank test was used to assess the differences of treatment outcomes, which included local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

Results

The median age was 76 (range 47-93) years, and the median follow-up time was 58.3 (range 4.3-95.1) months in the cohort without pathologic results. The median age was 74 (range 57-88) years, and the median follow-up time was 56.3 (range 2.6-94) months in the cohort with pathologic results. 45 matched-pair were analyzed. The 5-year LC, PFS, and OS rates in matched-pair patients with or without pathologic biopsy were 85.5% and 89.8%, 40.6% and 70.9%, and 63.2% and 76.1%, respectively. On Kaplan-Meier survival analysis after PSM analysis, there was no significant difference between patients with pathologic results versus patients with no pathologic results in terms of LC (P= 0.498) and OS (P=0.141). Of the matched-pair patients treated with SBRT, only 1 patient experienced grade 3 or above radiation pneumonitis.

Conclusion

For early-stage lung cancer patients with medically inoperable or not suitable for invasive diagnosis, SBRT may be a good local treatment.

SUBMITTER: Zhang R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8421845 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The incidence of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) among the elderly is expected to rise dramatically owing to demographic trends and increased computed tomographic screening. However, to our knowledge, no modern trials have compared the most common treatments for NSCLC.To determine clinical characteristics and survival outcomes associated with the 3 most commonly used definitive therapies for early-stage NSCLC in the elderly.The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database linked to Medicare was used to determine the baseline characteristics and outcomes of 9093 patients with early-stage, node-negative NSCLC who underwent definitive treatment consisting of lobectomy, sublobar resection, or stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2009.Overall and lung cancer-specific survival were compared using Medicare claims through December 31, 2012. We used proportional hazards regression and propensity score matching to adjust outcomes for key patient, tumor, and practice environment factors.The median age was 75 years, and treatment distribution was 79.3% for lobectomy, 16.5% for sublobar resection, and 4.2% for SABR. Unadjusted 90-day mortality was highest for lobectomy (4.0%) followed by sublobar resection (3.7%; P = .79) and SABR (1.3%; P = .008). At 3 years, unadjusted mortality was lowest for lobectomy (25.0%), followed by sublobar resection (35.3%; P < .001) and SABR (45.1%; P < .001). Proportional hazards regression demonstrated that sublobar resection was associated with worse overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.32 [95% CI, 1.20-1.44]; P < .001) and lung cancer-specific survival (AHR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.29-1.75]; P < .001) compared with lobectomy. Propensity score-matching analysis reiterated these findings for overall survival (AHR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.17-1.58]; P < .001) and lung cancer-specific survival (AHR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.13-1.90]; P = .004). In proportional hazards regression, SABR was associated with better overall survival than lobectomy in the first 6 months after diagnosis (AHR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.27-0.75]; P < .001) but worse survival thereafter (AHR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.39-1.99]; P < .001). Propensity score-matching analysis of well-matched SABR and lobectomy cohorts demonstrated similar overall survival in both groups (AHR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.74-1.38]; P = .94).Lobectomy was associated with better outcomes than sublobar resection in elderly patients with early-stage NSCLC. Propensity score matching suggests that SABR may be a good option among patients with very advanced age and multiple comorbidities.

Project description:Objectives To compare cancer specific survival after thoracoscopic sublobar lung resection and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for tumors ≤2 cm in size and thoracoscopic resection (sublobar resection or lobectomy) and SABR for tumors ≤5 cm in size.Design National population based retrospective cohort study with propensity matched comparative analysis.Setting Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry linked with Medicare database in the United States.Participants Patients aged ≥66 with lung cancer undergoing SABR or thoracoscopic lobectomy or sublobar resection from 1 Oct 2007 to 31 June 2012 and followed up to 31 December 2013.Main outcome measures Cancer specific survival after SABR or thoracoscopic surgery for lung cancer.Results 690 (275 (39.9%) SABR and 415 (60.1%) thoracoscopic sublobar lung resection) and 2967 (714 (24.1%) SABR and 2253 (75.9%) thoracoscopic resection) patients were included in primary and secondary analyses. The average age of the entire cohort was 76. Follow-up of the entire cohort ranged from 0 to 6.25 years, with an average of three years. In the primary analysis of patients with tumors sized ≤2 cm, 37 (13.5%) undergoing SABR and 44 (10.6%) undergoing thoracoscopic sublobar resection died from lung cancer, respectively. The cancer specific survival diverged after one year, but in the matched analysis (201 matched patients in each group) there was no significant difference between the groups (SABR v sublobar lung resection mortality: hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 2.26; P=0.32). Estimated cancer specific survival at three years after SABR and thoracoscopic sublobar lung resection was 82.6% and 86.4%, respectively. The secondary analysis (643 matched patients in each group) showed that thoracoscopic resection was associated with improved cancer specific survival over SABR in patients with tumors sized ≤5 cm (SABR v resection mortality: hazard ratio 2.10, 1.52 to 2.89; P<0.001). Estimated cancer specific survival at three years was 80.0% and 90.3%, respectively.Conclusions This propensity matched analysis suggests that patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgical resection, particularly for larger tumors, might have improved cancer specific survival compared with patients undergoing SABR. Despite strategies used in study design and propensity matching analysis, there are inherent limitations to this observational analysis related to confounding, similar to most studies in healthcare of non-surgical technologies compared with surgery. As the adoption of SABR for the treatment of early stage operable lung cancer would be a paradigm shift in lung cancer care, it warrants further thorough evaluation before widespread adoption in practice.