ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Management of stage-III-N2 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) based on a multimodal strategy (surgery or radiotherapycombined with systemic drugs) remains controversial. Patients are treated with a curative intent, and available data suggestprolonged survival after complete resection. However, no consensual definition of "tumor resectability" exists. This study aimed to analyze the concordanceamong French tumor board meeting (TBM)-emittedtherapeutic decisions forstage-III-N2 NSCLC. METHODS: Six patients with stage-III-N2 NSCLC discussed at Saint-Etienne University Hospital'sthoracic TBMs were selected, anonymouslyreported, and submitted to the participating TBMs. The primary goal of this multicenter, prospective, observational study was to assess the consistency of TBMpanel decisions for each case. The secondary endpointwas identifying the demographic or technical factors that potentiallyaffected decision-making. RESULTS: Twenty-seven TBMs from university hospitals, a cancer center, general hospitals, and a private hospitalparticipated in this study. None of their decisions for the six cases were unanimous.The decisions were homogenous for three cases (78%, 85%, and 88% TBMs opted for medical treatment, respectively),andmore ambivalent for the other three (medical versus surgical strategies were favored by 44%/56%, 46%/54%, and 58%/42% TBMs, respectively). Interestingly, decisions regarding chemoradiationand perioperative chemotherapyinthe medical and surgical strategies, respectively, were also discordant. Hospital type, specialist participation in TBMs, and activity volumes were not significantly associated with therapeutic decisions. CONCLUSION: The results of this study highlight substantial disparities amongFrench TBMs regarding therapeutic management of stage-III-N2 NSCLC. The decisions were not associated with local conditions.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The role and timing of whole or stereotaxic brain radiotherapy (BR) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and asymptomatic brain metastases (aBMs) are not well established. This study investigates whether deferring BR until cerebral progression was superior to upfront BR for patients with aNSCLC and aBM. METHODS: This open-label, multicenter, phase III trial, randomized (1:1) aNSCLC patients with aBMs to receive upfront BR and chemotherapy: platin-pemetrexed and bevacizumab in eligible patients, followed by maintenance pemetrexed with or without bevacizumab, BR arm, or the same chemotherapy with BR only at cerebral progression, chemotherapy (ChT) arm. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), global, extra-cerebral and cerebral objective response rate (ORR), toxicity, and quality of life [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02162537]. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early because of slow recruitment. Among 95 included patients, 91 were randomized in 24 centers: 45 to BR and 46 to ChT arms (age: 60 ± 8.1, men: 79%, PS 0/1: 51.7%/48.3%; adenocarcinomas: 92.2%, extra-cerebral metastases: 57.8%, without differences between arms.) Significantly more patients in the BR-arm received BR compare with those in the ChT arm (87% versus 20%; p < 0.001); there were no significant differences between BR and ChT arms for median PFS: 4.7, 95% confidence interval (CI):3.4-7.5 versus 4.8, 95% CI: 2.4-6.5 months, for median OS: 8.5, 95% CI:.6-11.1 versus 8.3, 95% CI:4.5-11.5 months, cerebral and extra-cerebral ORR (27% versus 13%, p = 0.064, and 30% versus 41%, p = 0.245, respectively). The ChT arm had more grade 3/4 neutropenia than the BR arm (13% versus 6%, p = 0.045); others toxicities were comparable. CONCLUSION: The significant BR rate difference between the two arms suggests that upfront BR is not mandatory in aNSCLC with aBM but this trial failed to show that deferring BR for aBM is superior in terms of PFS from upfront BR.
