Stereotactic body radiotherapy or stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus surgery for patients with T1-3N0M0 non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors Li M, Yang X, Chen Y, Yang X, Dai X, Sun F, Zhang L, Zhan C, Feng M, Wang Q
Received 3 April 2017
Accepted for publication 9 May 2017
Published 7 June 2017 Volume 2017:10 Pages 2885—2892
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Ashok Kumar Pandurangan
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr William Cho
Ming Li,1,2,* Xiaodong Yang,1,* Yuhan Chen,3 Xinyu Yang,1,2 Xiyu Dai,1,2 Fenghao Sun,1 Li Zhang,3 Cheng Zhan,1 Mingxiang Feng,1 Qun Wang1
1Department of Thoracic Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, 2Eight-Year Program Clinical Medicine, Grade of 2014, Shanghai Medical College, 3Department of Radiation Oncology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
*These authors contributed equally to this work
Background: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) or stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has been reported to be a comparable alternative therapy to surgery for patients with T1-3N0M0 non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it has not been clarified whether SBRT/SABR is as effective as surgery. We conducted this study to compare the efficacy of SBRT/SABR and surgery in the treatment of T1-3N0M0 NSCLC.
Materials and methods: An electronic and a manual search of the literature was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Wiley Online Library in all published data before January 1, 2017. The pooled data included overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and locoregional/distant recurrence rate. Hazard ratio (HR) of OS (SBRT/SABR vs surgery) was used as the measure of differential effects.
Results: Fifteen studies, including 7,810 patients with T1-3N0M0 NSCLC, 2,986 patients in the SBRT/SABR group, and 4,824 patients in the surgery group, were pooled for the meta-analysis. Results showed that patients with SBRT/SABR had a significantly worse 5-year survival rate (HR =1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21, 1.61; P<0.01), and RFS rate (HR =1.84; 95% CI: 1.26, 2.68; P=0.002). Meanwhile, the locoregional recurrence rate (HR =1.17; 95% CI: 0.68, 1.98; P=0.57), and distant recurrence rate (HR =1.36; 95% CI: 0.77, 2.39; P=0.29) were also lower in the surgery group although results were not statistically significant. In subgroup analyses, SBRT/SABR had a significantly lower rate of 5-year survival (HR =1.46; 95% CI: 1.03, 2.06; P=0.03) compared with lobectomy. Similarly, significant differences of OS exist in comparisons of SBRT/SABR versus sublobectomy (HR =1.40; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.80; P=0.008), and wedge resection (HR =1.48; 95% CI: 1.01, 2.16; P=0.04).
Conclusion: Surgery, both lobectomy and sublobectomy, might be superior to SBRT/SABR with regard to survival of patients with T1-3N0M0 NSCLC. Patients with T1-3N0M0 NSCLC should preferably be treated surgically prior to SBRT/SABR.
Keywords: non–small cell lung cancer, stereotactic body radiotherapy, stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, lobectomy, sublobectomy, meta-analysis
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]