4.7 Article

Stage I-II non-small-cell lung cancer treated using either stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) or lobectomy by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS): outcomes of a propensity score-matched analysis

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 6, Pages 1543-1548

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdt026

Keywords

early stage; lobectomy; non-small-cell lung cancer; SABR; stereotactic radiotherapy; VATS

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) are both used for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. We carried out a propensity score-matched analysis to compare locoregional control (LRC). Patients and methods: VATS lobectomy data from six hospitals were retrospectively accessed; SABR data were obtained from a single institution database. Patients were matched using propensity scores based on cTNM stage, age, gender, Charlson comorbidity score, lung function and performance score. Eighty-six VATS and 527 SABR patients were matched blinded to outcome (1:1 ratio, caliper distance 0.025). Locoregional failure was defined as recurrence in/adjacent to the planning target volume/surgical margins, ipsilateral hilum or mediastinum. Recurrences were either biopsy-confirmed or had to be PET-positive and reviewed by a tumor board. Results: The matched cohort consisted of 64 SABR and 64 VATS patients with the median follow-up of 30 and 16 months, respectively. Post-SABR LRC rates were superior at 1 and 3 years (96.8% and 93.3% versus 86.9% and 82.6%, respectively, P = 0.04). Distant recurrences and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different. Conclusion: This retrospective analysis found a superior LRC after SABR compared with VATS lobectomy, but OS did not differ. Our findings support the need to compare both treatments in a randomized, controlled trial.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available