PURPOSE: Combined modality therapy (CMT; radiation and chemotherapy) is indicated for fit, elderly patients with inoperable, locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. We used population level data to examine effects of CMT on survival. METHODS: Medicare patients who are 66 years or older with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (stages IIIA and IIIB without pleural effusion) from 1997 to 2002 were identified in Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare. Detailed insurance claims were used to characterize treatment modality (none, chemotherapy only, radiotherapy only [XRT-ONLY], or CMT). CMT was further categorized as sequential (CMT-SEQ), or concurrent chemoradiation alone (CMT-ONLY), with induction (CMT-IND), or with consolidation chemotherapy (CMT-CON). Nonparametric models estimated survival effects of treatment regimens, controlling for patient characteristics, including claims-based indicators of performance status. Propensity score analysis adjusted for treatment selection. RESULTS: Of the 6325 patients, 66% received therapy, with 41% (N = 1745) receiving XRT-ONLY and 45% (N = 1909) receiving CMT (12.5% CMT-SEQ, 35.3% CMT-ONLY, 11.3% CMT-IND, and 20.3% with CMT-CON). CMT had a survival benefit relative to XRT-ONLY (hazard ratio: 0.782, 95% confidence interval: 0.750-0.816; additional 4.4 months median survival; adjusted 10.7% increase in 1-year survival). Relative to CMT-SEQ, concurrent CMT-ONLY was associated with an increased mortality risk, whereas CMT-IND regimens provided a survival benefit (hazard ratio: 0.731, 95% confidence interval: 0.600-0.891; additional 3.8 months; and adjusted 14.4% increase in 1-year survival). CONCLUSION: Survival benefits associated with CMT in clinical trials can extend to the elderly in routine care settings. CMT-ONLY is associated with the greatest mortality risk, suggesting that more gradual strategies (CMT-IND) may be more appropriate for the elderly population.
PURPOSE: Combined modality therapy (CMT; radiation and chemotherapy) is indicated for fit, elderly patients with inoperable, locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. We used population level data to examine effects of CMT on survival. METHODS: Medicare patients who are 66 years or older with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (stages IIIA and IIIB without pleural effusion) from 1997 to 2002 were identified in Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare. Detailed insurance claims were used to characterize treatment modality (none, chemotherapy only, radiotherapy only [XRT-ONLY], or CMT). CMT was further categorized as sequential (CMT-SEQ), or concurrent chemoradiation alone (CMT-ONLY), with induction (CMT-IND), or with consolidation chemotherapy (CMT-CON). Nonparametric models estimated survival effects of treatment regimens, controlling for patient characteristics, including claims-based indicators of performance status. Propensity score analysis adjusted for treatment selection. RESULTS: Of the 6325 patients, 66% received therapy, with 41% (N = 1745) receiving XRT-ONLY and 45% (N = 1909) receiving CMT (12.5% CMT-SEQ, 35.3% CMT-ONLY, 11.3% CMT-IND, and 20.3% with CMT-CON). CMT had a survival benefit relative to XRT-ONLY (hazard ratio: 0.782, 95% confidence interval: 0.750-0.816; additional 4.4 months median survival; adjusted 10.7% increase in 1-year survival). Relative to CMT-SEQ, concurrent CMT-ONLY was associated with an increased mortality risk, whereas CMT-IND regimens provided a survival benefit (hazard ratio: 0.731, 95% confidence interval: 0.600-0.891; additional 3.8 months; and adjusted 14.4% increase in 1-year survival). CONCLUSION: Survival benefits associated with CMT in clinical trials can extend to the elderly in routine care settings. CMT-ONLY is associated with the greatest mortality risk, suggesting that more gradual strategies (CMT-IND) may be more appropriate for the elderly population.
Authors: Richard J Cassidy; Xinyan Zhang; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Pretesh R Patel; Joseph W Shelton; Sibo Tian; Ronica H Nanda; Conor E Steuer; Rathi N Pillai; Taofeek K Owonikoko; Suresh S Ramalingam; Felix G Fernandez; Seth D Force; Theresa W Gillespie; Walter J Curran; Kristin A Higgins Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-01-08 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Eric D Miller; James L Fisher; Karl E Haglund; John C Grecula; Meng Xu-Welliver; Erin M Bertino; Kai He; Peter G Shields; David P Carbone; Terence M Williams; Gregory A Otterson; Jose G Bazan Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2018-01-08 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Amy J Davidoff; Ilene H Zuckerman; Naimish Pandya; Franklin Hendrick; Xuehua Ke; Arti Hurria; Stuart M Lichtman; Arif Hussain; Jonathan P Weiner; Martin J Edelman Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Payal D Soni; Philip S Boonstra; Matthew J Schipper; Latifa Bazzi; Robert T Dess; Martha M Matuszak; Feng-Ming Kong; James A Hayman; Randall K Ten Haken; Theodore S Lawrence; Gregory P Kalemkerian; Shruti Jolly Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Kellie J Ryan; Karen E Skinner; Ancilla W Fernandes; Rajeshwari S Punekar; Melissa Pavilack; Mark S Walker; Noam A VanderWalde Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Mark Zaki; Michael Dominello; Gregory Dyson; Shirish Gadgeel; Antoinette Wozniak; Steven Miller; Peter Paximadis Journal: Clin Lung Cancer Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Pedro Masson Domingues; Ricardo Zylberberg; Thalita da Matta de Castro; Clarissa Seródio Baldotto; Luiz Henrique de Lima Araujo Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2013-01-10 Impact factor: 3.064