The American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) produced an evidence-based guideline on treatment of patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Because of the relevance of this guideline to ...American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) membership, ASCO reviewed the guideline, applying a set of procedures and policies used to critically examine guidelines developed by other organizations.
The ACCP guideline on the treatment of SCLC was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Endorsement Panel updated the literature search, reviewed the content, and considered additional recommendations.
The ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the ACCP guideline, published in 2013, are clear, thorough, and based on current scientific evidence. ASCO endorses the ACCP guideline on the treatment of SCLC, with the addition of qualifying statements.
Surgery is indicated for selected stage I SCLC. Limited-stage disease should be treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with good performance status. Thoracic radiotherapy should be administered early in the course of treatment, preferably beginning with cycle one or two of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy should consist of four cycles of a platinum agent and etoposide. Extensive-stage disease should be treated primarily with chemotherapy consisting of a platinum agent plus etoposide or irinotecan. Prophylactic cranial irradiation prolongs survival in patients with limited-stage disease who achieve a complete or partial response to initial therapy and may do so in similarly responding patients with extensive-stage disease as well. Additional information is available at http://www.asco.org/endorsements/sclc and http://www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.
Summary Background Results from phase II studies in patients with stage IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer with ipsilateral mediastinal nodal metastases (N2) have shown the feasibility of resection ...after concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy with promising rates of survival. We therefore did this phase III trial to compare concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy followed by resection with standard concurrent chemotherapy and definitive radiotherapy without resection. Methods Patients with stage T1-3pN2M0 non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to concurrent induction chemotherapy (two cycles of cisplatin 50 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 29, and 36 and etoposide 50 mg/m2 on days 1–5 and 29–33) plus radiotherapy (45 Gy) in multiple academic and community hospitals. If no progression, patients in group 1 underwent resection and those in group 2 continued radiotherapy uninterrupted up to 61 Gy. Two additional cycles of cisplatin and etoposide were given in both groups. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00002550. Findings 202 patients (median age 59 years, range 31–77) were assigned to group 1 and 194 (61 years, 32–78) to group 2. Median OS was 23·6 months (IQR 9·0–not reached) in group 1 versus 22·2 months (9·4–52·7) in group 2 (hazard ratio HR 0·87 0·70–1·10; p=0·24). Number of patients alive at 5 years was 37 (point estimate 27%) in group 1 and 24 (point estimate 20%) in group 2 (odds ratio 0·63 0·36–1·10; p=0·10). With N0 status at thoracotomy, the median OS was 34·4 months (IQR 15·7–not reached; 19 point estimate 41% patients alive at 5 years). Progression-free survival (PFS) was better in group 1 than in group 2, median 12·8 months (5·3–42·2) vs 10·5 months (4·8–20·6), HR 0·77 0·62–0·96; p=0·017); the number of patients without disease progression at 5 years was 32 (point estimate 22%) versus 13 (point estimate 11%), respectively. Neutropenia and oesophagitis were the main grade 3 or 4 toxicities associated with chemotherapy plus radiotherapy in group 1 (77 38% and 20 10%, respectively) and group 2 (80 41% and 44 23%, respectively). In group 1, 16 (8%) deaths were treatment related versus four (2%) in group 2. In an exploratory analysis, OS was improved for patients who underwent lobectomy, but not pneumonectomy, versus chemotherapy plus radiotherapy. Interpretation Chemotherapy plus radiotherapy with or without resection (preferably lobectomy) are options for patients with stage IIIA(N2) non-small-cell lung cancer. Funding National Cancer Institute, Canadian Cancer Society, and National Cancer Institute of Canada.
In lung cancer, randomized trials assessing hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy seem to yield conflicting results regarding the effects on overall (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS). ...The Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Lung Cancer Collaborative Group decided to address the role of modified radiotherapy fractionation.
We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis in patients with nonmetastatic lung cancer, which included trials comparing modified radiotherapy with conventional radiotherapy.
In non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC; 10 trials, 2,000 patients), modified fractionation improved OS as compared with conventional schedules (hazard ratio HR = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.97; P = .009), resulting in an absolute benefit of 2.5% (8.3% to 10.8%) at 5 years. No evidence of heterogeneity between trials was found. There was no evidence of a benefit on PFS (HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.03; P = .19). Modified radiotherapy reduced deaths resulting from lung cancer (HR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98; P = .02), and there was a nonsignificant reduction of non-lung cancer deaths (HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.15; P = .33). In small-cell lung cancer (SCLC; two trials, 685 patients), similar results were found: OS, HR = 0.87, 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.02, P = .08; PFS, HR = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.03, P = .11. In both NSCLC and SCLC, the use of modified radiotherapy increased the risk of acute esophageal toxicity (odds ratio OR = 2.44 in NSCLC and OR = 2.41 in SCLC; P < .001) but did not have an impact on the risk of other acute toxicities.
Patients with nonmetastatic NSCLC derived a significant OS benefit from accelerated or hyperfractionated radiotherapy; a similar but nonsignificant trend was observed for SCLC. As expected, there was increased acute esophageal toxicity.
There are no published survival data after chemoradiotherapy (chemoRT) in pathologically documented stage IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer. Studies of radiotherapy (RT) alone or chemotherapy followed ...by RT yield 5-year survivals less than 10%. The Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) employed the same concurrent chemoRT induction regimen used in its predecessor trimodality trial to determine the efficacy, safety, and long-term outcome of replacing postinduction surgery with additional chemoRT.
Eligible patients for SWOG-9019 had pathologic documentation of T4N0/1, T4N2, or N3 stage IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer. They had pulmonary function adequate to withstand combined-modality therapy, identical to the requirements of the previous trial with postchemoRT surgery. Induction therapy was two cycles of cisplatin plus etoposide (PE) concurrent with once-daily thoracic RT (45 Gy). In the absence of progressive disease, RT was completed to 61 Gy, with two additional cycles of cisplatin plus etoposide.
Fifty eligible patients were accrued with tumor-node (TN) substage confirmed on central review: 18, T4N0/1; 12, T4N2; and 20, N3. Grade 4 neutropenia was the most common toxicity (32%). Grade 3/4 esophagitis occurred in 12% and 8%. Median follow-up was 52 months, and overall median survival was 15 months (10 to 22, 95% confidence interval). Three- and 5-year survivals were 17% and 15% (5-year T4N0/1, 17%; T4N2, 13%; and N3, 15%).
Feasibility and long-term survival support the application of these results as a standard against which mature outcomes of chemoRT trials with new chemotherapy agents can be compared. These results also justify use of the SWOG-9019 approach as a control arm in ongoing phase III trials.
Although small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) makes up a smaller proportion of all lung cancers than it did 25 years ago, it remains a common cause of cancer mortality that requires more clinical and basic ...research than is currently underway. Trials of newer chemotherapy variations have failed to produce a regimen that is clearly superior to the two-drug combination of etoposide and cisplatin, which remains the standard of care for both limited and extensive stage SCLC. Paradoxically, advances in this systemic disease have come from radiotherapy innovations for limited SCLC, including addition of thoracic irradiation to systemic chemotherapy, more intense thoracic irradiation, early integration of thoracic irradiation with systemic chemotherapy, and prophylactic cranial irradiation.
The optimal treatment for medically inoperable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has not been defined.
Cancer and Leukemia Group B trial 39904 prospectively assessed accelerated, once-daily, ...three-dimensional radiotherapy for early-stage NSCLC. The primary objectives were to define the maximally accelerated course of conformal radiotherapy and to describe the short-term and long-term toxicity of therapy. Entry was limited to patients with clinical stage T1N0 or T2N0 NSCLC (< 4 cm) and pulmonary dysfunction. The nominal total radiotherapy dose remained at 70 Gy, while the number of daily fractions in each successive cohort was reduced.
Thirty-nine eligible patients were accrued (eight patients each on cohorts 1 to 4 and seven patients on cohort 5) between January 2001 and July 2005. One grade 3 nonhematologic toxicity was observed in both cohort 3 (dyspnea) and cohort 4 (pain). The major response rate was 77%. After a median follow-up time of 53 months, the actuarial median survival time of all eligible patients was 38.5 months. Local relapse was observed in three patients.
Accelerated conformal radiotherapy was well tolerated in a high-risk population with clinical stage I NSCLC. Outcomes are comparable to prospective reports of alternative therapies, including stereotactic body radiation therapy and limited resection, with less apparent severe toxicity. Further investigation of this approach is warranted.
Of the approximately 170,000 cases of lung cancer diagnosed each year in the United States, 20 percent are small-cell cancers.
1
Staging systems divide small-cell lung cancer into two categories: ...limited and extensive. The former is clinically confined to one side of the chest and is treatable by radiotherapy field sizes (portals) tolerated by normal tissues.
The main treatment for limited small-cell lung cancer is radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Cisplatin plus etoposide has largely supplanted the older regimens of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine. Advantages of the cisplatin–etoposide regimen over the older regimen include the absence of toxic effects on intrathoracic organs and . . .
Small cell lung cancer accounts for less than 20% of all lung cancer. The management of this distinct tumor entity differs from the more common non-small cell lung cancer. Primary prevention of ...smoking exposure remains the most important public health measure.
Although small cell lung is an exquisitely chemosensitive disease it remains ultimately fatal for the great majority of patients. Combination chemotherapy regimens have improved response rate and survival of the last three decades. The combination of cisplatin and etoposide has been considered the standard therapy for over a decade. More intensive triplet combination chemotherapy and high-dose chemotherapy have shown improved response rates and survival. Early concomitant and accelerated radiotherapy improves survival in limited stage disease. This review summarizes the current state of the art and future perspectives in detection, staging and standard therapy of small cell lung cancer. Particular emphasis is given to the importance of concomitant and accelerated radiotherapy and consideration of dose-intensive combination chemotherapy regimens.
High-dose radiation may improve outcomes in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). By using three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy and limiting the target volume, we hypothesized that the dose ...could be safely escalated.
A standard phase I design was used. Five bins were created based on the volume of normal lung irradiated, and dose levels within bins were chosen based on the estimated risk of radiation pneumonitis. Starting doses ranged from 63 to 84 Gy given in 2.1-Gy fractions. Target volumes included the primary tumor and any nodes >or= 1 cm on computed tomography. Clinically uninvolved nodal regions were not included purposely. More recently, selected patients received neoadjuvant cisplatin and vinorelbine.
At the time of this writing, 104 patients had been enrolled. Twenty-four had stage I, four had stage II, 43 had stage IIIA, 26 had stage IIIB, and seven had locally recurrent disease. Twenty-five received chemotherapy, and 63 were assessable for escalation. All bins were escalated at least twice. Although grade 2 radiation pneumonitis occurred in five patients, grade 3 radiation pneumonitis occurred in only two. The maximum-tolerated dose was only established for the largest bin, at 65.1 Gy. Dose levels for the four remaining bins were 102.9, 102.9, 84 and 75.6 Gy. The majority of patients failed distantly, though a significant proportion also failed in the target volume. There were no isolated failures in clinically uninvolved nodal regions.
Dose escalation in NSCLC has been accomplished safely in most patients using three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, limiting target volumes, and segregating patients by the volume of normal lung irradiated.
PDF
