These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The optimal treatment for patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer: minimally invasive lobectomy versus stereotactic ablative radiotherapy - a nationwide cohort study.
    Author: de Ruiter JC, van der Noort V, van Diessen JNA, Smit EF, Damhuis RAM, Hartemink KJ, ESLUNG group.
    Journal: Lung Cancer; 2024 May; 191():107792. PubMed ID: 38621343.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The aim of the Early-Stage LUNG cancer (ESLUNG) study was to compare outcomes after minimally invasive lobectomy (MIL) and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients with clinical stage I NSCLC (according to TNM7), treated in 2014-2016 with MIL or SABR, were included. 5-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were calculated and compared between patients treated with MIL and a propensity score (PS)-weighted SABR population with characteristics comparable to those of the MIL group. RESULTS: 1211 MIL and 972 SABR patients were included. Nodal upstaging occurred in 13.0 % of operated patients. 30-day mortality was 1.0 % after MIL and 0.2 % after SABR. After SABR, the 5-year regional recurrence rate (18.1 versus 14.2 %; HR 0.74, 95 % CI 0.58-0.94) and distant metastasis rate (26.2 versus 20.2 %; HR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.59-0.88) were significantly higher than after MIL, with similar local recurrence rate (13.1 versus 12.1 %; HR 0.90, 95 % CI 0.68-1.19). Unadjusted 5-year OS and RFS were 70.2 versus 40.3 % and 58.0 versus 25.1 % after MIL and SABR, respectively. PS-weighted, multivariable analyses showed no significant difference in OS (HR 0.89, 95 % CI 0.65-1.20) and better RFS after MIL (HR 0.70, 95 % CI 0.49-0.99). CONCLUSION: OS was not significantly different between stage I NSCLC patients treated with MIL and the PS-weighted population of patients treated with SABR. For operable patients with stage I NSCLC, SABR could therefore be an alternative treatment option with comparable OS outcome. However, RFS was better after MIL due to fewer regional recurrences and distant metastases. Future studies should focus on optimization of patient selection for MIL or SABR to further reduce postoperative mortality and morbidity after MIL and nodal failures after SABR.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]