Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Princess Alexandra Hospital and University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Apr;20(4):494-503. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30896-9. Epub 2019 Feb 12.
Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is widely used to treat inoperable stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), despite the absence of prospective evidence that this type of treatment improves local control or prolongs overall survival compared with standard radiotherapy. We aimed to compare the two treatment techniques.
We did this multicentre, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial in 11 hospitals in Australia and three hospitals in New Zealand. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had biopsy-confirmed stage 1 (T1-T2aN0M0) NSCLC diagnosed on the basis of F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET, and were medically inoperable or had refused surgery. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and the tumour had to be peripherally located. Patients were randomly assigned after stratification for T stage and operability in a 2:1 ratio to SABR (54 Gy in three 18 Gy fractions, or 48 Gy in four 12 Gy fractions if the tumour was <2 cm from the chest wall) or standard radiotherapy (66 Gy in 33 daily 2 Gy fractions or 50 Gy in 20 daily 2·5 Gy fractions, depending on institutional preference) using minimisation, so no sequence was pre-generated. Clinicians, patients, and data managers had no previous knowledge of the treatment group to which patients would be assigned; however, the treatment assignment was subsequently open label (because of the nature of the interventions). The primary endpoint was time to local treatment failure (assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0), with the hypothesis that SABR would result in superior local control compared with standard radiotherapy. All efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat analysis. Safety analyses were done on a per-protocol basis, according to treatment that the patients actually received. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01014130) and the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12610000479000). The trial is closed to new participants.
Between Dec 31, 2009, and June 22, 2015, 101 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive SABR (n=66) or standard radiotherapy (n=35). Five (7·6%) patients in the SABR group and two (6·5%) in the standard radiotherapy group did not receive treatment, and a further four in each group withdrew before study end. As of data cutoff (July 31, 2017), median follow-up for local treatment failure was 2·1 years (IQR 1·2-3·6) for patients randomly assigned to standard radiotherapy and 2·6 years (IQR 1·6-3·6) for patients assigned to SABR. 20 (20%) of 101 patients had progressed locally: nine (14%) of 66 patients in the SABR group and 11 (31%) of 35 patients in the standard radiotherapy group, and freedom from local treatment failure was improved in the SABR group compared with the standard radiotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·32, 95% CI 0·13-0·77, p=0·0077). Median time to local treatment failure was not reached in either group. In patients treated with SABR, there was one grade 4 adverse event (dyspnoea) and seven grade 3 adverse events (two cough, one hypoxia, one lung infection, one weight loss, one dyspnoea, and one fatigue) related to treatment compared with two grade 3 events (chest pain) in the standard treatment group.
In patients with inoperable peripherally located stage 1 NSCLC, compared with standard radiotherapy, SABR resulted in superior local control of the primary disease without an increase in major toxicity. The findings of this trial suggest that SABR should be the treatment of choice for this patient group.
The Radiation and Optometry Section of the Australian Government Department of Health with the assistance of Cancer Australia, and the Cancer Society of New Zealand and the Cancer Research Trust New Zealand (formerly Genesis Oncology Trust).
立体定向消融体放射治疗(SABR)广泛用于治疗无法手术的 1 期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC),尽管缺乏前瞻性证据表明这种治疗方法可以改善局部控制或延长总生存期,而不是标准放射治疗。我们旨在比较这两种治疗技术。
我们在澳大利亚的 11 家医院和新西兰的 3 家医院进行了这项多中心、3 期、随机、对照试验。符合条件的患者为年龄在 18 岁或以上、基于 F-氟脱氧葡萄糖 PET 诊断为 1 期(T1-T2aN0M0)、经医学评估无法手术或拒绝手术的活检证实的 NSCLC 患者。患者的东部合作肿瘤学组表现状态必须为 0 或 1,并且肿瘤必须位于外周。患者根据 T 期和可操作性进行分层,按照 2:1 的比例随机分配至 SABR(54 Gy 分 3 次 18 Gy 剂量,或如果肿瘤距胸壁<2 cm,则 48 Gy 分 4 次 12 Gy 剂量)或标准放射治疗(66 Gy 分 33 次 2 Gy 剂量,或根据机构偏好,50 Gy 分 20 次 2.5 Gy 剂量),使用最小化方法进行分组,因此没有预先生成序列。临床医生、患者和数据管理员之前对患者将被分配到的治疗组没有任何了解;然而,治疗分配随后是开放性的(因为干预的性质)。主要终点是局部治疗失败的时间(根据实体瘤反应评估标准 1.0 评估),假设 SABR 与标准放射治疗相比将导致更好的局部控制。所有疗效分析均基于意向治疗分析。安全性分析是根据患者实际接受的治疗方案进行的。该试验在 ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT01014130)和澳大利亚和新西兰临床试验注册处(ACTRN12610000479000)注册,并已关闭新参与者。
2009 年 12 月 31 日至 2015 年 6 月 22 日期间,纳入了 101 名符合条件的患者,并随机分配接受 SABR(n=66)或标准放射治疗(n=35)。SABR 组中有 5 名(7.6%)患者和标准放射治疗组中有 2 名(6.5%)患者未接受治疗,另有 4 名患者在研究结束前退出。截至数据截止日期(2017 年 7 月 31 日),随机分配至标准放射治疗组的患者中位局部治疗失败随访时间为 2.1 年(IQR 1.2-3.6),随机分配至 SABR 组的患者中位局部治疗失败随访时间为 2.6 年(IQR 1.6-3.6)。101 名患者中有 20 名(20%)局部进展:SABR 组 66 名患者中有 9 名(14%),标准放射治疗组 35 名患者中有 11 名(31%),SABR 组的局部治疗失败无进展率优于标准放射治疗组(危险比 0.32,95%CI 0.13-0.77,p=0.0077)。两组均未达到中位局部治疗失败时间。在接受 SABR 治疗的患者中,与标准放射治疗组的 2 级 3 项不良事件(胸痛)相比,有 1 项 4 级不良事件(呼吸困难)和 7 项 3 级不良事件(2 项咳嗽、1 项缺氧、1 项肺部感染、1 项体重减轻、1 项呼吸困难和 1 项疲劳)。
对于无法手术的外周 1 期非小细胞肺癌患者,与标准放射治疗相比,SABR 可改善原发性疾病的局部控制,而不会增加主要毒性。这项试验的结果表明,SABR 应该是该患者群体的治疗选择。
澳大利亚政府卫生部的放射和验光科在癌症澳大利亚、新西兰癌症协会和新西兰癌症研究信托基金(前身为 Genesis Oncology Trust)的协助下提供资金。