Mutsaers Adam, Zhang Tina Wanting, Louie Alexander, Rodrigues George, Palma David, Qu Melody
Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre - Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, CAN.
Radiation Oncology, British Columbia (BC) Cancer, Vancouver, CAN.
Cureus. 2023 Apr 27;15(4):e38198. doi: 10.7759/cureus.38198. eCollection 2023 Apr.
Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has been increasingly used for the treatment of inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). It has been shown to provide promising local control (LC) and toxicity in prospective trials. However, randomized trials have shown conflicting results in terms of whether SABR confers an overall survival (OS) advantage compared to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT). A systematic review of Medline and Embase (inception to December 2020) was performed on early-stage NSCLC patients randomized to SABR versus CFRT. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and manuscripts. A random-effects model was used to estimate treatment effects. Toxicity outcomes were compared by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Individual patient data were digitally approximated and pooled as secondary analysis. The literature search identified 1494 studies, and 16 studies were included for full-text review. Two randomized trials were identified, including a total of 203 patients, of which 115 (57%) received SABR, and 88 (43%) received CFRT. The weighted mean age was 74 years and 48% of patients were male. Most patients had T1 cancers (67%). Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy was not associated with a significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio: 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-2.08, p=0.71). There was no significant difference in LC between SABR and CFRT (relative risk: 0.59; CI 0.28-1.23, p=0.16). Of the commonly reported adverse events, one grade 4 toxicity of dyspnea was reported for SABR, while all others i.e., grade 3 or higher toxicities were similar. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy demonstrated less esophagitis, dyspnea, and skin reaction of any grade. Despite widespread adoption and extensive single-arm prospective and retrospective studies suggesting its benefit, this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials fail to confirm improvements in LC, OS, and toxicity profile of SABR over CFRT in early NSCLC. This small study is likely underpowered to detect clinically significant differences.
立体定向消融放疗(SABR)已越来越多地用于治疗无法手术的早期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)。在前瞻性试验中,它已显示出有前景的局部控制(LC)效果和毒性。然而,随机试验在SABR与传统分割放疗(CFRT)相比是否能带来总生存期(OS)优势方面显示出相互矛盾的结果。对随机分配接受SABR与CFRT的早期NSCLC患者进行了Medline和Embase(从创刊到2020年12月)的系统评价。两名独立评审员筛选标题、摘要和手稿。采用随机效应模型估计治疗效果。毒性结果通过 Cochr an-Mantel-Haenszel检验进行比较。对个体患者数据进行数字近似并汇总作为二次分析。文献检索确定了1494项研究,16项研究纳入全文评审。确定了两项随机试验,共203例患者,其中115例(57%)接受SABR,88例(43%)接受CFRT。加权平均年龄为74岁,48%的患者为男性。大多数患者患有T1期癌症(67%)。立体定向消融放疗与OS的显著改善无关(风险比:0.84;95%置信区间(CI)0.34 - 2.08,p = 0.71)。SABR与CFRT之间的LC无显著差异(相对风险:0.59;CI 0.28 - 1.23,p = 0.16)。在常见报告的不良事件中,SABR报告了1例4级呼吸困难毒性,而所有其他3级或更高毒性相似。立体定向消融放疗显示出任何级别的食管炎、呼吸困难和皮肤反应较少。尽管SABR被广泛采用且大量单臂前瞻性和回顾性研究表明其有益,但这项对随机试验的系统评价和荟萃分析未能证实SABR在早期NSCLC中在LC、OS和毒性方面优于CFRT。这项小型研究可能没有足够的能力检测出临床显著差异。