Varun Puri

Treatment of stage I lung cancer in high-risk and inoperable patients: Comparison of prospective clinical trials using stereotactic body radiotherapy (RTOG 0236), sublobar resection (ACOSOG Z4032), and radiofrequency ablation (ACOSOG Z4033)

OBJECTIVE The purpose of the present study was to compare the selection criteria and short-term outcomes among 3 prospective clinical trials using stereotactic body radiotherapy (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group [RTOG] trial 0236), sublobar resection (American College of Surgeons Oncology Group [ACOSOG] trial Z4032), and radiofrequency ablation (ACOSOG trial Z4033). METHODS The selection criteria and outcomes were compared among RTOG 0236 (n = 55), ACOSOG Z4032 (n = 211), and ACOSOG Z4033 (n = 51). Age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and percentage of predicted carbon monoxide diffusing capacity of the lung were used to perform a propensity-matched analysis among patients with clinical stage 1A in RTOG 0236 and ACOSOG Z4032. RESULTS The patients in ACOSOG Z4033 undergoing radiofrequency ablation were older (75.6 ± 7.5 years) than those in RTOG 0236 (72.5 ± 8.8 years) and ACOSOG Z4032 (70.2 ± 8.5 years; P = .0003). The pretreatment percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second was 61.3% ± 33.4% for RTOG 0236, 53.8% ± 19.6% for ACOSOG Z4032, and 48.8% ± 20.3% for ACOSOG Z4033 (P = .15). The pretreatment percentage of predicted carbon monoxide diffusing capacity of the lung was 61.6% ± 30.2% for RTOG 0236, 46.4% ± 15.6% for ACOSOG Z4032, and 43.7% ± 18.0% for ACOSOG Z4033 (P = .001). The overall 90-day mortality for stereotactic body radiotherapy, surgery, and radiofrequency ablation was 0%, 2.4% (5/211), and 2.0% (1/51), respectively (P = .5). Overall, the unadjusted 30-day grade 3+ adverse events were more common with surgery than with stereotactic body radiotherapy (28% vs 9.1%, P = .004), although no difference was between the 2 groups at 90 days. Among the patients with clinical stage IA in ACOSOG Z4032, 29.3% had a more advanced pathologic stage at surgery. A propensity-matched comparison showed no difference between stereotactic body radiotherapy and surgery for 30-day grade 3+ adverse events (odds ratio, 2.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-9.90; P = .18). CONCLUSIONS Among appropriately matched patients, no difference was seen in early morbidity between sublobar resection and stereotactic body radiotherapy. These results underscore the need for a randomized trial to delineate the relative survival benefit of each modality and to help stratify patients considered high risk.

Patterns of failure after stereotactic body radiation therapy or lobar resection for clinical stage I non-small-cell lung cancer.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare patterns of failure between lobar resection (lobectomy or pneumonectomy) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for patients with clinical stage I non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: From January 2004 to January 2008, 338 patients underwent definitive treatment for pathologically confirmed clinical stage I NSCLC with lobar resection (n = 260) or SBRT (n = 78). Most surgical patients underwent lobectomy (n = 237). SBRT patients received a biologically effective dose of at least 100 Gy10. Lobar resection patients were younger, healthier, and had superior pulmonary function, whereas most of the patients in the SBRT group had T1 tumors. Final pathology upstaged 32.7% of surgery patients, and 20.0% received adjuvant chemotherapy. No SBRT patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. Results: In an unmatched comparison, 4-year lobar local control (98.7% versus 93.6%, p = 0.015) was greater for lobar resection versus SBRT, respectively, though primary tumor (98.7% versus 95.3%, p = 0.088), regional (82.9% versus 78.1%, p = 0.912), and distant control (76.1% versus 54.0%, p = 0.152) were similar. Overall survival (OS, 63.5% versus 29.6%, p < 0.0001) was greater for lobar resection, though cause-specific survival (CSS, 81.3% versus 75.3%, p = 0.923) was similar. In a T-stage matched comparison of 152 patients, there was no significant difference in patterns of failure or CSS, whereas OS favored surgery. Conclusion: Lobectomy/pneumonectomy or SBRT results in comparable patterns of failure for clinical stage I NSCLC. In this retrospective comparison, OS was superior for surgery, though CSS was similar. Randomized trials are necessary to control for fundamental differences in comorbidity, which impact interpretation of both tumor control and survival.

Postoperative Radiotherapy for Pathologic N2 Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Adjuvant Chemotherapy: A Review of the National Cancer Data Base

PURPOSE To investigate the impact of modern postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) on overall survival (OS) for patients with N2 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated nationally with surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with pathologic N2 NSCLC who underwent complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy from 2006 to 2010 were identified from the National Cancer Data Base and stratified by use of PORT (≥ 45 Gy). A total of 4,483 patients were identified (PORT, n = 1,850; no PORT, n = 2,633). The impact of patient and treatment variables on OS was explored using Cox regression. RESULTS Median follow-up time was 22 months. On univariable analysis, improved OS correlated with younger age, treatment at an academic facility, female sex, urban population, higher income, lower Charlson comorbidity score, smaller tumor size, multiagent chemotherapy, resection with at least a lobectomy, and PORT. On multivariable analysis, improved OS remained independently predicted by younger age, female sex, urban population, lower Charlson score, smaller tumor size, multiagent chemotherapy, resection with at least a lobectomy, and PORT (hazard ratio, 0.886; 95% CI, 0.798 to 0.988). Use of PORT was associated with an increase in median and 5-year OS compared with no PORT (median OS, 45.2 v 40.7 months, respectively; 5-year OS, 39.3% [95% CI, 35.4% to 43.5%] v 34.8% [95% CI, 31.6% to 38.3%], respectively; P = .014). CONCLUSION For patients with N2 NSCLC after complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy, modern PORT seems to confer an additional OS advantage beyond that achieved with adjuvant chemotherapy alone.

Treatment of Malignant Pleural Effusion: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND Patients with malignant pleural effusion (MPE) have varied expected survival and treatment options. We studied the relative cost-effectiveness of various interventions. METHODS Decision analysis was used to compare repeated thoracentesis (RT), tunneled pleural catheter (TPC), bedside pleurodesis (BP), and thoracoscopic pleurodesis (TP). Outcomes and utility data were obtained from institutional data and review of literature. Medicare allowable charges were used to ensure uniformity. Base case analysis was performed for two scenarios: expected survival of 3 months and expected survival of 12 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated as the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the patients remaining lifetime. RESULTS Under base case analysis for 3-month survival, RT was the least expensive treatment (

Lung transplantation and donation after cardiac death: a single center experience.

4,946) and provided the fewest utilities (0.112 quality-adjusted life-years). The cost of therapy for the other options was TPC

A comparison of surgical intervention and stereotactic body radiation therapy for stage I lung cancer in high-risk patients: A decision analysis

6,450, BP

Short- and long-term outcomes of 1000 adult lung transplant recipients at a single center

11,224, and TP

International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Donation After Circulatory Death Registry Report

18,604. Tunneled pleural catheter dominated both pleurodesis arms, namely, TPC was both less expensive and more effective. The ICER for TPC over RT was

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in pediatric lung transplantation.

49,978. The ICER was sensitive to complications and ability to achieve pleural sclerosis with TPC. Under base case analysis for 12-month survival, BP was the least expensive treatment (

Endoscopic Ultrasound for Early Stage Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: Implications for Staging and Survival

13,057) and provided 0.59 quality-adjusted life-years. The cost of treatment for the other options was TPC