BACKGROUND: A neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) is a feasible second-option other than an adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT); however, no definite conclusions have been drawn about whether or not a NCT is associated with better clinical outcomes for IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. METHODS: We reviewed 68 clinical IIIA NSCLC patients who received preoperative chemotherapy (NCT group), and 535 pathological IIIA NSCLC patients who received ACT after surgery (ACT group). After a 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), we compared the relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) rates as the long-term clinical outcomes, and hospital stay, surgery duration, postoperative complications as the short-term clinical outcomes. To evaluate the predictive value of the NCT response, we also assessed the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) response to NCT. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in RFS or OS between the NCT group and ACT group (RFS: P=0.1138; OS: P=0.4234). On multivariate analysis, large cell lung carcinoma (P=0.0264), bilobectomy (P=0.0039) and clinical N2 stage (P=0.0309) were independent predictive factors of a worse OS. Short-term clinical outcomes including the hospital stay and postoperative complications had no statistically distinct difference between the ACT and NCT groups. Meanwhile, the OS of the partial response (PR) patients group was better than the stable disease/progressive disease (SD/PD) (P=0.0205) and ACT (P=0.0442) group, but none of the clinical features we tested was found to be a predictive factor for a PR response. CONCLUSIONS: There was a non-significant difference between the long-term and short-term clinical outcomes of both NCT and ACT. The OS of PR patients was better than SD/PD and ACT, indicating that NCT response acts as a predictor for a higher long-term survival rate.
BACKGROUND: A neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) is a feasible second-option other than an adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT); however, no definite conclusions have been drawn about whether or not a NCT is associated with better clinical outcomes for IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. METHODS: We reviewed 68 clinical IIIA NSCLC patients who received preoperative chemotherapy (NCT group), and 535 pathological IIIA NSCLC patients who received ACT after surgery (ACT group). After a 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), we compared the relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) rates as the long-term clinical outcomes, and hospital stay, surgery duration, postoperative complications as the short-term clinical outcomes. To evaluate the predictive value of the NCT response, we also assessed the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) response to NCT. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in RFS or OS between the NCT group and ACT group (RFS: P=0.1138; OS: P=0.4234). On multivariate analysis, large cell lung carcinoma (P=0.0264), bilobectomy (P=0.0039) and clinical N2 stage (P=0.0309) were independent predictive factors of a worse OS. Short-term clinical outcomes including the hospital stay and postoperative complications had no statistically distinct difference between the ACT and NCT groups. Meanwhile, the OS of the partial response (PR) patients group was better than the stable disease/progressive disease (SD/PD) (P=0.0205) and ACT (P=0.0442) group, but none of the clinical features we tested was found to be a predictive factor for a PR response. CONCLUSIONS: There was a non-significant difference between the long-term and short-term clinical outcomes of both NCT and ACT. The OS of PR patients was better than SD/PD and ACT, indicating that NCT response acts as a predictor for a higher long-term survival rate.
Authors: Giorgio V Scagliotti; Ugo Pastorino; Johan F Vansteenkiste; Lorenzo Spaggiari; Francesco Facciolo; Tadeusz M Orlowski; Luigi Maiorino; Martin Hetzel; Monika Leschinger; Carla Visseren-Grul; Valter Torri Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-11-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Katherine M W Pisters; Eric Vallières; John J Crowley; Wilbur A Franklin; Paul A Bunn; Robert J Ginsberg; Joe B Putnam; Kari Chansky; David Gandara Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Xiang-Lin Tan; Ann M Moyer; Brooke L Fridley; Daniel J Schaid; Nifang Niu; Anthony J Batzler; Gregory D Jenkins; Ryan P Abo; Liang Li; Julie M Cunningham; Zhifu Sun; Ping Yang; Liewei Wang Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-07-20 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Enriqueta Felip; Rafael Rosell; José Antonio Maestre; José Manuel Rodríguez-Paniagua; Teresa Morán; Julio Astudillo; Guillermo Alonso; José Manuel Borro; José Luis González-Larriba; Antonio Torres; Carlos Camps; Ricardo Guijarro; Dolores Isla; Rafael Aguiló; Vicente Alberola; José Padilla; Abel Sánchez-Palencia; José Javier Sánchez; Eduardo Hermosilla; Bartomeu Massuti Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jean-Pierre Pignon; Hélène Tribodet; Giorgio V Scagliotti; Jean-Yves Douillard; Frances A Shepherd; Richard J Stephens; Ariane Dunant; Valter Torri; Rafael Rosell; Lesley Seymour; Stephen G Spiro; Estelle Rolland; Roldano Fossati; Delphine Aubert; Keyue Ding; David Waller; Thierry Le Chevalier Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David Gilligan; Marianne Nicolson; Ian Smith; Harry Groen; Otilia Dalesio; Peter Goldstraw; Matthew Hatton; Penelope Hopwood; Christian Manegold; Franz Schramel; Hans Smit; Jan van Meerbeeck; Matthew Nankivell; Mahesh Parmar; Cheryl Pugh; Richard Stephens Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-06-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Michiel A IJsseldijk; Richard P G Ten Broek; Bastiaan Wiering; Edo Hekma; Marnix A J de Roos Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Date: 2021-05-10
Authors: Pieter W J Lozekoot; Jean H T Daemen; Robert R van den Broek; Jos G Maessen; Michiel H M Gronenschild; Yvonne L J Vissers; Karel W E Hulsewé; Erik R de Loos Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2021-08