Article and Video CATEGORIES

Cancer Journey

Search By

Dr. Jack West is a medical oncologist and thoracic oncology specialist who is the Founder and previously served as President & CEO, currently a member of the Board of Directors of the Global Resource for Advancing Cancer Education (GRACE)

 

Rattling the SABR: Provocative but Limited Data Supporting a Non-Surgical Approach to Early Stage NSCLC
Author
Howard (Jack) West, MD

Surgery, specifically a lobectomy or possibly pneumonectomy, has been the longtime historical standard of care for fit patients with early-stage, operable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).  As focal radiation techniques have been refined, however, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), now alternatively known by the racier abbreviation SABR (sounds like "saber", stands for Stereotactic ABlative Radiation) has led to a growing body of evidence that this can lead to very good local control and also an encouraging overall survival (OS) for patients with stage I NSCLC who were considered "medically inoperable" due to medical issues that made surgery infeasible or far more dangerous than usual, though survival in such patients is very limited in large part due to their competing comorbidities. But as we have come to accept that SABR is a strong option for patients who cannot safely undergo surgery, patients and physicians have begun to ask the question of whether this approach might serve as a perfectly good alternative to surgery even for people who are fit enough to pursue it.

Most of the research addressing this question has come from series of patients at a single center with a clinical stage I NSCLC who are fit for surgery but declined to pursue it.  This work has largely supported the conclusion that SABR leads to good local control and OS rates that rival those of the patient to undergo surgical resection. In this setting, 3 different randomized clinical trials were launched several years ago to directly compare surgery to SABR in patients with smaller clinical stage I, resectable NSCLC. But because patients and their doctors tend to have feelings in favor of one approach or the other, it has been extremely hard to complete trials that randomize patients.  In fact, these trials have all closed after failing to enroll sufficient patients in a reasonable time. 

Is there any way to salvage any useful conclusions from these aborted trials?  Because two of them, known as  STARS and ROSEL, share very similar patient populations and trial designs, investigators pooled their results and published the preliminary findings, which are very provocative, albeit still with small numbers, even pooled together: SABR looks like a very strong alternative, if not preferable.

In both studies with stage I, node-negative NSCLC by pre-treatment workup were randomized to either SABR or lobectomy and mediastinal node sampling or dissection; the primary endpoint was OS for both trials. Even pooling results, there were only 58 patients (31 receiving SABR, 27 undergoing surgery), who were followed for a median of approximately three years after being treated.

The 3-year OS was 95%, with a single death, in the recipients of SABR, vs 79%, with six deaths, among surgery patients which was a significant difference (HR 0.14, log rank p = 0.037). Recurrence-free survival at 3 years was comparable whether patients underwent SABR or surgery, at 86% and 80%, respectively (HR 0.69, log-rank p = 0.54).

Chang SABR vs. Surgery Stage I NSCLC

The side effect profile of SABR also looked encouraging. Only 3 patients (10%) experienced moderate or severe adverse effects, and none died from treatment. Among surgery patients,  there was a single death (4%) from operative complications, while 12 patients (44%) experienced moderate to severe treatment-related side effects.

Obviously, while these results suggest SABR is an attractive option, it would be a mistake to interpret the results from just a few dozen patients as a definitive answer. Importantly as well, we need longer follow up of these early stage patients, who are at risk for recurrences over a long period of many years.  It's certainly possible that patients on the surgery arm may fare better with longer follow-up.  And it's worth noting that patients who undergo SABR have essentially uninterpretable scan results around their treated lesion for years, as a "post-treatment scarring" effect leaves a hazy mess that requires us to scratch our heads for years before determining whether it will shrink, remain stable, or grow over time.

It may not be possible to ever answer this question definitively with a large, randomized head-to-head comparison of SABR vs. resection in fit patients with early stage disease, but that won't stop us from trying.  Additional trials are being developed through the VA system in the US, and also in the UK.  One potential modification is to have the trial discussed with patients, and consent obtained, by a “neutral party” such as a pulmonologist, research nurse, and/or multidisciplinary team, instead of by a thoracic surgeon or radiation oncologist who may convey bias that undermines the randomization.  

This work doesn't provide a definitive answer to whether SABR provides equivalent or even potentially superior OS in these operable, clinical stage I NSCLC patients, but we can at least say that these results corroborate the favorable findings in single institutional series with SABR. I think that even if SABR isn't a new standard of care, it is very fair to consider SABR as a reasonable alternative to surgery in early stage patients, even if they are candidates for surgery.  

Next Previous link

Previous PostNext Post

Related Content

Article
Advance directives are a powerful way to take control of healthcare choices. These documents allow you to outline preferences for medical care and specify end-of-life wishes. These documents can also be a way to appoint loved ones who you would like to help with these decisions, such as a healthcare proxy (someone to make decisions on your behalf, if you cannot). As cancer treatments can involve aggressive treatments and/or complex medical management, having advance directives ensures that your desires regarding treatment options and end-of-life care are clearly communicated. 
Image
2024-25 patient perspectives header
Article
Tell your story and help us help others! Apply online now for this paid opportunity. This program gives a voice to those who have experience in participating in a clinical trial for a cancer diagnosis. Your voice helps to educate and advocate for others who are in or who may be considering a clinical trial.  We want to hear from you!
Image
Foro de Pacientes de Terapias Dirigidas de Cáncer de Pulmón
Video
¡El vídeo completo bajo demanda está disponible para verlo!

Forum Discussions

Hello Linda, my name is Alexandra Beneke, I'm the Outreach Manager for GRACE. Your willingness to share your experiences and knowledge with the cancer community is truly inspiring. Your dedication to...

Hi Bluebird,  Welcome to GRACE.  I'm sorry you're going through this scare and hope it's just inflammation or from an infection you didn't know you had. 

 

A CT would be...

Radiation + Brain Operation has just been discarded due to high risk. They will double Tagrisso dosis and then wait to see if it works, then try traditional Chemo. I would...

Hi and welcome to GRACE.  I'm sorry to know you are entering a new stage.  I'm not about to comment just now but wanted to let you know I see your...

Edit to say, we can't give advice but we can comment with views and facts.  :)

 

My first thought is to ask if she has been seen at a large...

Hi Barbro, Welcome to GRACE. I'm sorry you're worrying about this. We aren't able to give feedback on scan reports. Interpreting scan reports in this setting is not only unethical but...

Recent Comments

JOIN THE CONVERSATION
Tagrix FDA Approval
By mariachristian on
Hi Judy! It is so good to…
By JanineT GRACE … on
Tagrix vs Tagrisso
By Dipakchavan on
Hello Linda, my name is…
By AlexandraGBeneke on