Shaodong Tong1,2, Zhaohui Qin3, Minghui Wan4, Longzhen Zhang1, Yan Cui5, Yuanhu Yao1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou 221000, China. 2. Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Biological Therapies for Tumors, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou 221000, China. 3. School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou 221000, China. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 510260, China. 5. Leibniz Institute on Aging-Fritz Lipmann Institute, Jena, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 85% to 90% of lung cancer cases. At diagnosis, around 30% of NSCLC patients are already at stage IIIA (N2). One standard treatment for this stage is induction chemotherapy followed by surgery, whether induction chemoradiotherapy is superior to induction chemotherapy remains uncertain. We therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized control trials to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and toxicity of induction chemoradiotherapy versus induction chemotherapy for potentially resectable stage IIIA (N2) NSCLC. METHODS: We systematically searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library from the inception of each database to September 10, 2017. The primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), pathological complete response (pCR) rate of mediastinal lymph nodes, toxicity (grade 3-4 adverse events, i.e., nausea and vomiting, infections, leukopenia and anemia), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager v5.3. RESULTS: Four studies, containing 461 patients in total, were included for meta-analysis. Our analyses suggest that compared with induction chemotherapy, induction chemoradiotherapy improved ORR [odds ratio (OR) =1.97, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.25-3.10, P<0.05] and pCR rate of mediastinal lymph nodes (OR =1.97, 95% CI: 1.00-3.86, P=0.05); but it did not significantly improve OS [hazard ratio (HR) =0.91, 95% CI: 0.73-1.14, P=0.42] or PFS (HR =1.01, 95% CI: 0.81-1.26, P=0.91); also it did not exacerbate the toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Induction chemoradiotherapy may have limited value concerning tumor response and pCR of mediastinal lymph nodes. However, current evidence does not support that addition of radiotherapy to induction chemotherapy followed by surgery can bring significant benefits to operable stage IIIA (N2) NSCLC patients. More studies are required to draw a better conclusion.
BACKGROUND: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 85% to 90% of lung cancer cases. At diagnosis, around 30% of NSCLC patients are already at stage IIIA (N2). One standard treatment for this stage is induction chemotherapy followed by surgery, whether induction chemoradiotherapy is superior to induction chemotherapy remains uncertain. We therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized control trials to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and toxicity of induction chemoradiotherapy versus induction chemotherapy for potentially resectable stage IIIA (N2) NSCLC. METHODS: We systematically searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library from the inception of each database to September 10, 2017. The primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), pathological complete response (pCR) rate of mediastinal lymph nodes, toxicity (grade 3-4 adverse events, i.e., nausea and vomiting, infections, leukopenia and anemia), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager v5.3. RESULTS: Four studies, containing 461 patients in total, were included for meta-analysis. Our analyses suggest that compared with induction chemotherapy, induction chemoradiotherapy improved ORR [odds ratio (OR) =1.97, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.25-3.10, P<0.05] and pCR rate of mediastinal lymph nodes (OR =1.97, 95% CI: 1.00-3.86, P=0.05); but it did not significantly improve OS [hazard ratio (HR) =0.91, 95% CI: 0.73-1.14, P=0.42] or PFS (HR =1.01, 95% CI: 0.81-1.26, P=0.91); also it did not exacerbate the toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Induction chemoradiotherapy may have limited value concerning tumor response and pCR of mediastinal lymph nodes. However, current evidence does not support that addition of radiotherapy to induction chemotherapy followed by surgery can bring significant benefits to operable stage IIIA (N2) NSCLC patients. More studies are required to draw a better conclusion.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David S Ettinger; Wallace Akerley; Gerold Bepler; Matthew G Blum; Andrew Chang; Richard T Cheney; Lucian R Chirieac; Thomas A D'Amico; Todd L Demmy; Apar Kishor P Ganti; Ramaswamy Govindan; Frederic W Grannis; Thierry Jahan; Mohammad Jahanzeb; David H Johnson; Anne Kessinger; Ritsuko Komaki; Feng-Ming Kong; Mark G Kris; Lee M Krug; Quynh-Thu Le; Inga T Lennes; Renato Martins; Janis O'Malley; Raymond U Osarogiagbon; Gregory A Otterson; Jyoti D Patel; Katherine M Pisters; Karen Reckamp; Gregory J Riely; Eric Rohren; George R Simon; Scott J Swanson; Douglas E Wood; Stephen C Yang Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: W Eberhardt; H Wilke; G Stamatis; M Stuschke; A Harstrick; H Menker; B Krause; M R Müeller; M Stahl; M Flasshove; V Budach; D Greschuchna; N Konietzko; H Sack; S Seeber Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N C Choi; R W Carey; W Daly; D Mathisen; J Wain; C Wright; T Lynch; M Grossbard; H Grillo Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Asad A Shah; Mark F Berry; Ching Tzao; Mihir Gandhi; Mathias Worni; Ricardo Pietrobon; Thomas A D'Amico Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2009-07-21 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: R Rosell; J Gómez-Codina; C Camps; J Maestre; J Padille; A Cantó; J L Mate; S Li; J Roig; A Olazábal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1994-01-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Renato G Martins; Thomas A D'Amico; Billy W Loo; Mary Pinder-Schenck; Hossein Borghaei; Jamie E Chaft; Apar Kishor P Ganti; Feng-Ming Spring Kong; Mark G Kris; Inga T Lennes; Douglas E Wood Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Diego Muñoz-Guglielmetti; David Sanchez-Lorente; Roxana Reyes; Daniel Martinez; Carmen Lucena; Marc Boada; Pilar Paredes; Marta Parera-Roig; Ivan Vollmer; Joel Mases; Roberto Martin-Deleon; Sergi Castillo; Mariana Benegas; Silvia Muñoz; Maria Mayoral; Carla Cases; Meritxell Mollà; Francesc Casas Journal: World J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-11-24
Authors: Ha Eun Kim; Woo Sik Yu; Chang Young Lee; Jin Gu Lee; Dae Joon Kim; Seong Yong Park Journal: Thorac Cancer Date: 2021-12-14 Impact factor: 3.500