4.6 Review

Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation (PCI) versus Active MRI Surveillance for Small Cell Lung Cancer: The Case for Equipoise

Journal

JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue 12, Pages 1746-1754

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2017.08.016

Keywords

Brain Metastases; Quality of Life; Cognitive Function; Whole-brain Radiation; Stereotactic Radio-surgery; Review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) for SCLC offers a consistent reduction in the incidence of brain metastases at the cost of measurable toxicity to neurocognitive function and quality of life, in the setting of characteristic pathologic changes to the brain. The sequelae of PCI have historically been justified by the perception of an overall survival advantage specific to SCLC. This rationale has now been challenged by a randomized trial in extensive-stage SCLC demonstrating equivalent progression-free survival and a trend toward improved overall survival with PCI omission in the context of modern magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) staging and surveillance. In this article, we critically examine the randomized trials of PCI in extensive-stage SCLC and discuss their implications on the historical data supporting PCI for limited-stage SCLC from the pre-MRI era. Further, we review the toxicity of moderate doses of radiation to the entire brain that underlie the growing interest in active MRI surveillance and PCI omission. Finally, the evidence supporting prospective investigation of radiosurgery for limited brain metastases in SCLC is reviewed. Overall, our aim is to provide an evidence-based assessment of the debate over PCI versus active MRI surveillance and to highlight the need for contemporary trials evaluating optimal central nervous system management in SCLC. (C) 2017 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available