Lung Cancer / Mesothelioma
(0 votes, average: 0 out of 5)
Loading ...One of the more common approaches to treating stage IIIA NSCLC with N2 lymph nodes (mediastinal, or mid-chest, on the same side as the primary tumor) is chemotherapy or chemoradiation before surgery. For those who recommend induction therapy (treatment before planned resection), there is a pretty even split between those who recommend chemotherapy alone and those who recommend chemo with concurrent radiation. So how do knowledgeable people come to different conclusions, and who is right?
Pursuing at least chemotherapy before surgery, rather than just surgery alone, for stage IIIA N2 NSCLC, has been pretty well established for more than a decade. In 1994, two small trials were reported that had randomized patients to either surgery alone or chemotherapy before surgery. One study, conducted by Rafael Rosell and the Spanish Lung Cancer Group (abstract here), stopping after a preliminary analysis with the first 60 patients showed a dramatic benefit in favor of the recipients of chemotherapy. While limited because of the small size, a second trial done in the US by Jack Roth and colleagues from MD Anderson Cancer Center (abstract here) also randomized patients to up front surgery or chemo followed by surgery, and this study also was stopped after 60 patients were enrolled after 60 patients were enrolled because of very significant benefits in favor of the patients who received chemo before surgery. This trial was published just months after the Spanish trial, and alhough there were issues with some of the specifics of the trials, and they only enrolled 120 patients between them, the benefits were so striking that it made pre-operative therapy with chemotherapy a standard approach. The results of these trials are summarized in the following slide/figure:
Other studies showed encouraging results with an approach of chemo and radiation together before surgery. In the SWOG 8805 trial(abstract here), 126 patients with stage IIIA or IIIB NSCLC (the IIIB patients mostly having advanced primary tumors rather than N3 nodal disease, which is lymph node involvement in the side of the mid-chest opposite the primary tumor) received two cycles of cisplatin/etoposide along with radiation to an induction dose of 45 Gray (just under 3/4 the “full dose” used when radiation is given as a curative therapy). This trial produced quite encouraging results, particularly in the patients in whom mediastinal nodes were sterilized (no evidence of disease after induction therapy), as shown here:
A subsequent trial (descibed in a prior post) randomized patients to chemo and radiation as induction therapy before surgery or chemo and a higher dose of radiation without surgery, the overall survival was not significantly different but trended toward higher long-term survival with surgery. However, the patients who underwent surgery were more likely to die from fatal side effects of treatment. In other words, an approach of chemo and radiation followed by surgery reached a point where the benefits of aggressive treatment were counteracted, at least partly, by people dying from the aggressiveness of the treatment. So if chemo alone before surgery is also an option, could that be a less toxic but equally effective option than chemoradiation before surgery. What is radiation adding to the picture?
That’s not an easy answer. The evidence suggests that patients who receive radiation with chemo before surgery are more likely to have no evidence of any tumor remaining at the time of surgery than patients who received chemo alone (a “pathologic complete response”). On the other hand, we don’t have evidence that the higher rate of radiation induced complete responses translates to better long term survival. There have really been no good studies of this question, but the small exploratory trials that compared induction chemo to chemo and radiation before surgery have showed no survival benefit despite a higher response rate, both on scans and under a microscope. The results from a French trial of 92 patients (abstract here), showed that the response rate was higher for chemoradiation than chemo (86 vs 55%), as was the rate of pathologic downstaging (58% vs. 50%), but the 3 year survival was actually better for chemotherapy alone (40% vs. 33%) for the stage IIIA patients, and the same trends were seen for the stage IIIB patients they included. The few other small trials also suggest that chemoradiation is not associated with a higher survival, even if it does possibly produce better responses and local responses. This may be because survival in this setting may be driven more by control of distant disease, which is presumably mediated more by chemotherapy than radiation, but nothing definitive is known.
The question of whether patients with resectable, non-bulky stage IIIA NSCLC should receive chemotherapy or chemoradiation as induction therapy was considered such a relevant “next question” for the field that two different cancer cooperative groups decided that this was worth conducting as a national trial. The RTOG and SWOG ended up writing and starting this trial together, planning to enroll 574 patients over several years, with a plan to treat patients with cisplatin and taxotere with or without radiation before surgery, which would then be followed by taxotere alone for three cycles:
Unfortunately, after years of developing the trial (I was one of the leaders), the enrollment was too slow, and it closed down last year. We may never get an answer, so we are left with either chemo or chemo and radiation as a very reasonable option before surgery. And neither can be said to be the best choice.
Posted in: Chemotherapy, Core Concepts, Locally Advanced (Stage III) NSCLC, Lung Cancer, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC), Radiation therapy, Resectable locally advanced NSCLC, Stage III/Locally Advanced NSCLC, Treatment
email to a friend
printer friendly
Interesting reading. Thanks for the post. However, why do oncologist refer to surgery as “curative.” We all know that it comes back eventually and you die from it. I have read about stage 1a patients undergoing surgery and three years later they are stage 4!!! Are we ever going to be able to cure lung cancer. I think not, at least not in my lifetime.
When my mother was first dx in 2003 with stage iiia non-resectable nsclc, the onc/surgeon both told her the best form of treatment would be chemo/rad with a “curative” intent. She, along with the entire family, left that meeting thinking that she had a chance of being cured. Although she has done remarkably well considering the advanced stage (N2,T2,MO), (poorly differentiated) she has, however, had a relapse and is undergoing chemo again. I just think it is a tragedy to mislead families about “curing” lung cancer.
Thank you for listening and any comment/suggestion you may have will be appreciated. Again, thank you for your extrodinary efforts on behalf of all of us.
Lisa Smith
Lisa,
I think we’re a long way away from being able to cure most lung cancer, but the term curative is used when that’s a possibility. For stage I, it is true that far too many people have relapses and ultimately die from recurrent lung cancer, but a majority don’t: about 75% of patients with stage IA disease are truly cured, as in they can live a normal lifespan without ever dealing with their lung cancer again. And even for stage IIIA N2 disease, where the cure rate is definitely in the low range, there are people who I follow who are 3 or 4 or more years out from treatment and have no evidence of disease, who are very likely never going to have it come back.
I don’t think I’m one to offer false hope, but I don’t think it’s inappropriate to use the phrase curative or cure in lung cancer, at least outside of advanced disease (NSCLC or SCLC). While you may be someone who feels that a small chance of long-term survival is too far short of a guarantee to have that kind of conversation, my perception is that a far, far greater proportion of patients and family members would be crushed by working with a doctor who doesn’t offer them meaningful hope, especially when there is a real chance, even a rather small one, that they will be truly cured, that 5 years later they’ll be without any evidence of disease and will never have that cancer shorten their survival.
To say that a disease is curable doesn’t mean that it’s definite someone will be cured. I give patients and family members a sense of the challenge, that in locally advanced disease the chance of cure is low, but I can look them in the eye and say that I have long-term survivors living very well, likely never to have their cancer come back. I don’t say that this is most of my patients, but it’s not lottery odds either.
-Dr. West
Posts
| Core Concepts
| Subject Archives
| Monthly Archives
| Resources
| 
Donate
| Forums
| GRACE Home
Disclaimer: The information provided at GRACE is for informational purposes only. The faculty of GRACE is not providing medical advice, diagnosis or treatment and cannot replace the medical advice of your doctor or health care provider. (Full Disclaimer)
© 2007-2008 GRACE. All rights reserved.
(click to enlarge)
2 Comments
Login (Must Be Logged In To Comment)