Accepted Manuscript Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Resectable Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Benefit or Harm? Linda W. Martin, MD, MPH, FCCP, FACS, Gail E. Darling, M.D., FRCSC FACS, Dennis A. Wigle, MD, PhD PII:
S0022-5223(15)01570-6
DOI:
10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.09.003
Reference:
YMTC 9899
To appear in:
The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Received Date: 31 August 2015 Accepted Date: 1 September 2015
Please cite this article as: Martin LW, Darling GE, Wigle DA, Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Resectable Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Benefit or Harm?, The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.09.003. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
Invited Editorial:
2
Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Resectable Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung
3
Cancer: Benefit or Harm?
RI PT
4 Linda W. Martin, MD, MPH, FCCP, FACS Vice- Chair, Thoracic Surgery Committee, Alliance for Clinical Trials Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery Division of Thoracic Surgery University of Maryland Medical School 29 S. Greene St., Suite 504 Baltimore, MD 21201 410-328-6366 410-328-0693 fax
[email protected]
40 41
None of the authors have any financial disclosures. No potential conflicts of interest exist.
M AN U
SC
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
TE D
Gail E. Darling, M.D., FRCSC FACS Surgical Chair, NRG Lung Cancer Committee Kress Family Chair Esophageal Cancer University of Toronto Chair Royal College Thoracic Surgery Specialty Committee Director Clinical Research in Thoracic Surgery Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network 200 Elizabeth Street, 9N-955 Toronto, ON M5G 2C4 Canada 1 416 340-3121 1 416 340-3660 (fax)
[email protected]
AC C
EP
Dennis A. Wigle, MD, PhD Chair, Thoracic Surgery Committee, Alliance for Clinical Trials Associate Professor and Chair, Division of Thoracic Surgery Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic 200 First Street SW Rochester, MN 55905 1 507 284-8462 1 507 284-0058 (fax)
[email protected]
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Central message
43
Adjuvant radiation in NSCLC is controversial and never proven to improve survival.
44
Technical improvements warrant re-evaluation.
45
(128 characters)
RI PT
42
46 Perspective Statement
48
The INT 0139 trial has increased the application of chest radiation in neoadjuvant
49
protocols for surgically resectable locally advanced NSCLC, while PORT meta-analysis
50
results dampened enthusiasm for its use in the adjuvant setting. Emerging modern data
51
challenge this thinking. We discuss issues with old and new data, and review potential
52
trials that could settle the question.
53
(379 Characters)
54
EP AC C
56
TE D
55
M AN U
SC
47
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The use of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) for the patient with surgically resected,
58
N2+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) continues to generate significant controversy.
59
Advocates argue that if mediastinal radiation is beneficial in providing local control, then
60
whether it is given pre- or post-operatively should not matter. Detractors counter with the
61
results of the PORT meta-analysis,1 quoting not only lack of benefit, but outright harm for
62
adjuvant radiation at least for stage I-II. Who is right and how did we get here?
RI PT
57
SC
63
Approximately 30% of NSCLC cases are stage IIIA or IIIB, and most are inoperable
65
either oncologically, technically, or medically, and are treated with concurrent
66
chemoradiation to “definitive” doses of 60+Gy. At best, 30-40% of patients in the N2+,
67
IIIA category may be operable.2,3 In North America, the standard of care treatment
68
algorithms are the protocols used in the Intergroup 0139 trial.4 This study randomized
69
patients with T1-3, N2+ NSCLC to either receive induction chemotherapy plus
70
radiotherapy to 45 Gy, followed by surgery if no disease progression, or patients
71
continued radiotherapy uninterrupted up to 61+ Gy. Approximately 200 patients were
72
randomized to each arm. The study was widely interpreted as showing no benefit to
73
trimodality therapy. Despite the overall conclusion, there were a number of key findings
74
including: 1) Patients with N0 status at the time of thoracotomy following induction
75
treatment have an improved overall 5-year survival than those who have residual
76
mediastinal nodal disease; 2) Patients undergoing pneumonectomy following induction
77
chemoradiation to 45 Gy had worse treatment-related and overall outcomes when
78
compared with patients undergoing lobectomy; 3) Chemoradiation to 60+ Gy (without
79
surgery) has a measureable cure rate; 4) Chemotherapy plus concurrent radiotherapy
80
with and without resection are both acceptable treatment options for N2 NSCLC with
81
measurable cure rates; 5) Patients with tumors that are resectable with lobectomy
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
64
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
following chemoradiation (to 45 Gy) may have improved outcomes when compared with
83
patients undergoing chemoradiation alone (to 60 Gy); 6) Disease Free Survival was
84
higher in the trimodality arm; 7) Overall survival curves cross and then separate, with
85
survival in the trimodality arm lower due to excess mortality in the intial postoperative
86
deaths, mainly due to pneumonectomies, and then higher survival as patients were
87
followed out to 5 years.
RI PT
82
SC
88
The results of this trial remain very controversial, with differing interpretations both from
90
medical and radiation oncologists and from surgeons with regard to the respective value
91
of their treatments within a multimodality regimen. However, all agree that surgery alone
92
is clearly not an acceptable treatment strategy, with inferior outcomes compared to
93
combination with either adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy. Many surgeons, ourselves
94
included, have contested the perceived morbidity of operating after irradiation with either
95
45 or 60 Gy, and a number of small trials and retrospective studies have suggested that
96
this could be done safely with far better outcomes than those achieved within the INT
97
0139 study.5
99
TE D
EP
98
M AN U
89
Despite these data, an important question persists: is radiation a critical part of neoadjuvant regimens for surgically resectable N2+ disease? Many groups have
101
contested this assumption, with a number of leading cancer centers advocating
102
neoadjuvant chemotherapy only and reserving adjuvant radiation for persistent N2
103
disease at the time of surgery, or skipping it entirely for surgically resected disease.
104
Furthermore, what about the surprise N2+ disease situation, which occurs 5-10% of the
105
time even in the era of modern imaging and invasive mediastinal staging?6 If radiation
106
adds value in the neoadjuvant setting, why wouldn’t it in the adjuvant setting?
AC C
100
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
107 A key study in the field is the PORT meta-analysis.1 This includes results of 11 trials,
109
involving 2343 patients in randomized studies. Overall, the results revealed 5%
110
decreased survival at 2 years with PORT for stages I-III (from 58% to 53%). This
111
represents an 18% increased relative risk of death for all groups who received PORT.
112
However, subset analysis indicated that pN0-N1 patients experienced an inferior
113
outcome with adjuvant radiation whereas N2 patients did not experience increased risk
114
of death and notably had improved local control. Lally et al.7 showed that patients in the
115
SEER database who were pN0 or pN1 had worse outcomes with PORT, similar to the
116
findings in the ANITA trial post-hoc analysis.8 These modern, confirmatory findings lead
117
to the conclusion that PORT should not be recommended for completely resected stage
118
1 and 2 NSCLC.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
108
119
There are important limitations of the PORT meta-analysis. Patient accrual to the trials
121
was from 1965-1995; there was no CT planning; no CT-PETs; 7 of the 11 trials used
122
Cobalt radiation; there were many more squamous than adenocarcinoma patients (in
123
some studies this was the exclusive histology which is not reflective of current
124
epidemiology); follow up was only 4.4 years on average; the interval between surgery
125
and radiation was beyond standard of care in many cases; and information and quality
126
control of the extent of surgical lymph node sampling or resection was not available.
127
Despite these problems, there still was a substantial reduction in local recurrence. The
128
lack of survival benefit is likely due to death from excessive early and late toxicity.
AC C
EP
TE D
120
129 130
With modern techniques both toxicity and effectiveness are improved. CT and PET/CT
131
simulation, 3 dimensional planning, and respiratory gating yield better target coverage
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
and lower normal tissue irradiation. Several studies using more modern techniques7,9,10
133
noted insignificant increases in deaths from intercurrent disease rather than death due to
134
lung cancer. Specifically, the incidence of cardiac deaths over different time periods
135
decreased as radiation techniques became modernized. These improvements decrease
136
the risk of treatment related death compared to the historical studies evaluated in the
137
PORT meta-analysis.
RI PT
132
SC
138
Should adjuvant radiation for locally advanced, N2+ disease be considered? From the
140
PORT meta-analysis, in pN2 patients, local control is 25-35% better with PORT. Local
141
recurrence after treatment of clinical N2 disease with induction chemotherapy alone
142
followed by surgery is 20 to 40% at 5 years.11,12 Such patients may benefit from PORT if
143
only from the perspective of local control.
M AN U
139
144
More recent, albeit retrospective data, suggests PORT enhances survival as well as
146
local control in pN2+ cases. In the SEER study, N2 patients achieved 5 year survival of
147
27% with PORT, 20% without.7 In the ANITA unplanned analysis, pN2 patients who got
148
radiation in addition to chemo had the best outcome: 47% 5 year survival compared to
149
34% with adjuvant chemotherapy alone.8 A recent analysis13 of the National Cancer
150
Database of 4483 patients who had surgery with at least lobectomy, followed by
151
sequential adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation indicates that PORT was associated
152
with enhanced overall survival on multivariable analysis: 5 year survival increased from
153
34.8% to 39.3%, median survival 40.7 months to 45.2 months, p = 0.014.
AC C
EP
TE D
145
154 155
There is currently no actively accruing, cooperative group trial in North America for
156
resectable stage IIIA disease. In Europe, Lung Adjuvant Radiation Trial (Lung ART) is
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
randomizing pN2 patients to adjuvant radiation, 54 Gy, after chemotherapy and
158
complete resection.14 It has been relatively slow to accrue (300 patients in 8 years,
159
target of 700) but is picking up some momentum as it opens across more European
160
sites. Results from well-designed, prospective clinical trials are needed in this era of
161
better surgery, better postoperative care, rigorously defined and documented nodal
162
dissection, better staging, and modern radiotherapy that is less toxic, well executed and
163
targeted. We expect a positive impact of PORT on outcomes for surgically resected pN2
164
patients, but await confirmatory trial data to change practice for this difficult and
165
controversial disease stage.
166
(1225 words)
M AN U
SC
RI PT
157
AC C
EP
TE D
167
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
168
References
169 170
Group PM-aT: Postoperative radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev:CD002142, 2005
172
2.
RI PT
171
1.
Cerfolio RJ, Maniscalco L, Bryant AS: The treatment of patients with
stage IIIA non-small cell lung cancer from N2 disease: who returns to the surgical arena
174
and who survives. Ann Thorac Surg 86:912-20; discussion 912-20, 2008
175
Wigle DA: Current readings: management of N2 disease for lung cancer.
Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 26:67-70, 2014
177
4.
M AN U
176
3.
SC
173
Albain KS, Swann RS, Rusch VW, et al: Radiotherapy plus chemotherapy
178
with or without surgical resection for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III
179
randomised controlled trial. Lancet 374:379-86, 2009
180
5.
Darling GE, Li F, Patsios D, et al: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation and
surgery improves survival outcomes compared with definitive chemoradiation in the
182
treatment of stage IIIA N2 non-small-cell lung cancerdagger. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg,
183
2015 6.
Obiols C, Call S, Rami-Porta R, et al: Survival of patients with
EP
184
TE D
181
unsuspected pN2 non-small cell lung cancer after an accurate preoperative mediastinal
186
staging. Ann Thorac Surg 97:957-64, 2014
187
AC C
185
7.
Lally BE, Zelterman D, Colasanto JM, et al: Postoperative radiotherapy
188
for stage II or III non-small-cell lung cancer using the surveillance, epidemiology, and
189
end results database. J Clin Oncol 24:2998-3006, 2006
190
8.
Douillard JY, Rosell R, De Lena M, et al: Impact of postoperative radiation
191
therapy on survival in patients with complete resection and stage I, II, or IIIA non-small-
192
cell lung cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy: the adjuvant Navelbine
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
193
International Trialist Association (ANITA) Randomized Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
194
72:695-701, 2008
195
9.
Machtay M, Moughan J, Trotti A, et al: Factors associated with severe
late toxicity after concurrent chemoradiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer:
197
an RTOG analysis. J Clin Oncol 26:3582-9, 2008
198
10.
RI PT
196
Wakelee HA, Stephenson P, Keller SM, et al: Post-operative radiotherapy
(PORT) or chemoradiotherapy (CPORT) following resection of stages II and IIIA non-
200
small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) does not increase the expected risk of death from
201
intercurrent disease (DID) in Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) trial E3590.
202
Lung Cancer 48:389-97, 2005 11.
M AN U
203
SC
199
Billiet C, Decaluwe H, Peeters S, et al: Modern post-operative
204
radiotherapy for stage III non-small cell lung cancer may improve local control and
205
survival: a meta-analysis. Radiother Oncol 110:3-8, 2014 12.
Kim BH, Kim HJ, Wu HG, et al: Role of postoperative radiotherapy after
TE D
206
curative resection and adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with pathological stage N2
208
non-small-cell lung cancer: a propensity score matching analysis. Clin Lung Cancer
209
15:356-64, 2014
210
13.
EP
207
Robinson CG, Patel AP, Bradley JD, et al: Postoperative radiotherapy for
pathologic N2 non-small-cell lung cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy: a review
212
of the National Cancer Data Base. J Clin Oncol 33:870-6, 2015
213 214
AC C
211
14.
Le Pechoux C: Role of postoperative radiotherapy in resected non-small
cell lung cancer: a reassessment based on new data. Oncologist 16:672-81, 2011
215
9
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT