Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) versus surgery for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by means of a meta-analysis of comparative studies. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines, searches were performed on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library for eligible studies. The meta-analysis compared the hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and local control (LC). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses evaluated the association of extent of surgical resection, study publication year, tumor staging, propensity score matching, proportion of chemotherapy use, and proportion of pathological lymph node involvement with CSS and OS. Results: Thirty studies involving 29,511 patients were included (surgery group: 17,146 patients and SBRT group: 12,365 patients). There was a significant difference in favor of surgery vs. SBRT in the 3-year OS (HR = 1.35; 95% CI: 1.22-1.44; I2 = 66%) and 3-year CSS (HR = 1.23; 95% CI: 1.09-1.37; I2 = 17%), but not in the 3-year LC (HR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.93-1.08; I2 = 19%). In the subgroup analysis for OS, no significant difference between surgery and SBRT groups was observed in the T1N0M0 subgroup (HR = 1.26; 95% CI: 0.95-1.68; I2 = 0%). In subgroup analysis for CSS, no significant difference was detected between the sublobar resection subgroup and the SBRT group (HR = 1.21; 95% CI: 0.96-1.53; I2 = 16%). Conclusions: Surgery generally resulted in better 3-year OS and CSS than did SBRT; however, publication bias and heterogeneity may have influenced these findings. In contrast, SBRT produced LC results similar to those of surgery regardless of the extent of surgical resection. These findings may have important clinical implications for patients with comorbidities, advanced age, poor pulmonary reserve, and other factors that may contraindicate surgery.
Keywords: Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/surgery; Radiosurgery; Meta-analysis.
Background:The objective to assess the outcomes from different palliative radiotherapy (RT) schedules in incurable head and neck cancer (HNC), to evaluate if there is a relationship between RT dose, technique, and fractionation with tumor response in contrast to the occurrence of adverse effects.
Materials and methods:Eligible studies were identified on Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and annual meetings proceedings through June 2020. Following PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines, a cumulative meta-analysis of studies for overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), pain/dysphagia relief, and toxicity was performed. A meta-regression analysis was done to assess if there is a connection between RT dose, schedule, and technique with ORR.
Results:Twenty-eight studies with 1,986 patients treated with palliative RT due to incurable HNC were included. The median OS was 6.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.6-7.4], and PFS was 3.6 months (95% CI: 2.7-4.3). The ORR, pain and dysphagia relief rates were 72% (95% CI: 0.6-0.8), 83% (95% CI: 52-100%), and 75% (95% CI: 52-100%), respectively. Conventional radiotherapy (2D-RT) or conformational radiotherapy (3D-RT) use were significantly associated with a higher acute toxicity rate (grade ≥ 3) than intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). On meta-regression analyses, the total biological effective doses (BED) of RT (p = 0.001), BED > 60 Gy10 (p = 0.001), short course (p = 0.01) and SBRT (p = 0.02) were associated with a superior ORR.
Conclusions:Palliative RT achieves tumor response and symptom relief in incurable HNC patients. Short course RT of BED > 60 Gy using IMRT could improve its therapeutic ratio. SBRT should be considered when available.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.