INTRODUCTION: Elderly patients account for the majority of lung cancer diagnoses but are poorly represented in clinical trials. We evaluated the overall survival (OS) of elderly patients with stage III NSCLC treated with definitive radiation compared with that of patients treated with definitive chemoradiation. METHODS: We conducted a comparative effectiveness study of radiation therapy versus chemoradiation in elderly (≥70 years old) patients with stage III NSCLC not treated surgically diagnosed from 2003 to 2014; the patients were identified by using the National Cancer Database. Two cohorts were evaluated: patients (n = 5023) treated with definitive radiation (≥59.4 Gy) and patients (n = 18,206) treated with definitive chemoradiation. Chemoradiation was further defined as concurrent (radiation and chemotherapy started within 30 days of each other) or sequential (radiation started >30 days after chemotherapy). We compared OS between the treatment groups by using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression before and after propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: Treatment with chemoradiation was associated with improved OS versus that with radiation both before PSM (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-0.68, p < 0.001) and after PSM (HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.64-0.70, p < 0.001). Relative to concurrent chemoradiation, sequential chemoradiation was associated with a 9% reduction in the risk for death (HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.85-0.96, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: We found that definitive chemoradiation resulted in a survival advantage compared with definitive radiation in elderly patients. Sequential chemotherapy and radiation was superior to concurrent chemoradiation. Although prospective trials are needed, this analysis suggests that chemoradiation should be strongly considered for elderly patients and the optimal sequencing of chemotherapy and radiation remains an unanswered question for this patient population.
INTRODUCTION: Elderly patients account for the majority of lung cancer diagnoses but are poorly represented in clinical trials. We evaluated the overall survival (OS) of elderly patients with stage III NSCLC treated with definitive radiation compared with that of patients treated with definitive chemoradiation. METHODS: We conducted a comparative effectiveness study of radiation therapy versus chemoradiation in elderly (≥70 years old) patients with stage III NSCLC not treated surgically diagnosed from 2003 to 2014; the patients were identified by using the National Cancer Database. Two cohorts were evaluated: patients (n = 5023) treated with definitive radiation (≥59.4 Gy) and patients (n = 18,206) treated with definitive chemoradiation. Chemoradiation was further defined as concurrent (radiation and chemotherapy started within 30 days of each other) or sequential (radiation started >30 days after chemotherapy). We compared OS between the treatment groups by using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression before and after propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: Treatment with chemoradiation was associated with improved OS versus that with radiation both before PSM (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-0.68, p < 0.001) and after PSM (HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.64-0.70, p < 0.001). Relative to concurrent chemoradiation, sequential chemoradiation was associated with a 9% reduction in the risk for death (HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.85-0.96, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: We found that definitive chemoradiation resulted in a survival advantage compared with definitive radiation in elderly patients. Sequential chemotherapy and radiation was superior to concurrent chemoradiation. Although prospective trials are needed, this analysis suggests that chemoradiation should be strongly considered for elderly patients and the optimal sequencing of chemotherapy and radiation remains an unanswered question for this patient population.
Authors: A G Pallis; C Gridelli; U Wedding; C Faivre-Finn; G Veronesi; M Jaklitsch; A Luciani; M O'Brien Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-03-16 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: David A Palma; Suresh Senan; Kayoko Tsujino; Robert B Barriger; Ramesh Rengan; Marta Moreno; Jeffrey D Bradley; Tae Hyun Kim; Sara Ramella; Lawrence B Marks; Luigi De Petris; Larry Stitt; George Rodrigues Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-06-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: A G Pallis; C Fortpied; U Wedding; M C Van Nes; B Penninckx; A Ring; D Lacombe; S Monfardini; P Scalliet; H Wildiers Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2010-03-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Steven E Schild; Sumithra J Mandrekar; Aminah Jatoi; William L McGinnis; Phillip J Stella; Richard L Deming; James R Jett; Yolanda I Garces; Katie L Allen; Alex A Adjei Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Jane F Pendergast; Katherine L Kahn; Robert B Wallace; Daniela C Moga; David P Harrington; Catarina I Kiefe; Jane C Weeks; Dee W West; S Yousuf Zafar; Robert H Fletcher Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-12-28 Impact factor: 44.544
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: 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: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Matthew Q F Hatton; Claire Anne Lawless; Corinne Faivre-Finn; David Landau; Jason F Lester; John Fenwick; Rita Simões; Elaine McCartney; Kathleen Anne Boyd; Tom Haswell; Ann Shaw; James Paul Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 2.692