Summary Background We aimed to compare overall survival after standard-dose versus high-dose conformal radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy and the addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation for patients with inoperable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods In this open-label randomised, two-by-two factorial phase 3 study in 185 institutions in the USA and Canada, we enrolled patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, a Zubrod performance status of 0–1, adequate pulmonary function, and no evidence of supraclavicular or contralateral hilar adenopathy. We randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) patients to receive either 60 Gy (standard dose), 74 Gy (high dose), 60 Gy plus cetuximab, or 74 Gy plus cetuximab. All patients also received concurrent chemotherapy with 45 mg/m2 paclitaxel and carboplatin once a week (AUC 2); 2 weeks after chemoradiation, two cycles of consolidation chemotherapy separated by 3 weeks were given consisting of paclitaxel (200 mg/m2) and carboplatin (AUC 6). Randomisation was done with permuted block randomisation methods, stratified by radiotherapy technique, Zubrod performance status, use of PET during staging, and histology; treatment group assignments were not masked. Radiation dose was prescribed to the planning target volume and was given in 2 Gy daily fractions with either intensity-modulated radiation therapy or three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. The use of four-dimensional CT and image-guided radiation therapy were encouraged but not necessary. For patients assigned to receive cetuximab, 400 mg/m2 cetuximab was given on day 1 followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m2, and was continued through consolidation therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All analyses were done by modified intention-to-treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00533949. Findings Between Nov 27, 2007, and Nov 22, 2011, 166 patients were randomly assigned to receive standard-dose chemoradiotherapy, 121 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy, 147 to standard-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab, and 110 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab. Median follow-up for the radiotherapy comparison was 22·9 months (IQR 27·5–33·3). Median overall survival was 28·7 months (95% CI 24·1–36·9) for patients who received standard-dose radiotherapy and 20·3 months (17·7–25·0) for those who received high-dose radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 1·38, 95% CI 1·09–1·76; p=0·004). Median follow-up for the cetuximab comparison was 21·3 months (IQR 23·5–29·8). Median overall survival in patients who received cetuximab was 25·0 months (95% CI 20·2–30·5) compared with 24·0 months (19·8–28·6) in those who did not (HR 1·07, 95% CI 0·84–1·35; p=0·29). Both the radiation-dose and cetuximab results crossed protocol-specified futility boundaries. We recorded no statistical differences in grade 3 or worse toxic effects between radiotherapy groups. By contrast, the use of cetuximab was associated with a higher rate of grade 3 or worse toxic effects (20...

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) focuses on targeted therapies and immunotherapies for metastatic NSCLC, because therapeutic recommendations are rapidly changing for metastatic disease. For example, new recommendations were added for atezolizumab, ceritinib, osimertinib, and pembrolizumab for the 2017 updates.

The higher radiation dose did not increase survival or local/regional control. Although there was a higher treatment-related mortality rate in the patients assigned to the high-dose radiation arm, it did not seem to be related to the higher radiation dose. The standard radiation dose for patients treated with concurrent 5-FU and cisplatin chemotherapy is 50.4 Gy.

Summary Background The standard of care for operable, stage I, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is lobectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection or sampling. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for inoperable stage I NSCLC has shown promising results, but two independent, randomised, phase 3 trials of SABR in patients with operable stage I NSCLC (STARS and ROSEL) closed early due to slow accrual. We aimed to assess overall survival for SABR versus surgery by pooling data from these trials. Methods Eligible patients in the STARS and ROSEL studies were those with clinical T1–2a (<4 cm), N0M0, operable NSCLC. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to SABR or lobectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection or sampling. We did a pooled analysis in the intention-to-treat population using overall survival as the primary endpoint. Both trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (STARS: NCT00840749; ROSEL: NCT00687986). Findings 58 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (31 to SABR and 27 to surgery). Median follow-up was 40.2 months (IQR 23.0–47.3) for the SABR group and 35.4 months (18.9–40.7) for the surgery group. Six patients in the surgery group died compared with one patient in the SABR group. Estimated overall survival at 3 years was 95% (95% CI 85–100) in the SABR group compared with 79% (64–97) in the surgery group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.14 [95% CI 0.017–1.190], log-rank p=0.037). Recurrence-free survival at 3 years was 86% (95% CI 74–100) in the SABR group and 80% (65–97) in the surgery group (HR 0.69 [95% CI 0.21–2.29], log-rank p=0.54). In the surgery group, one patient had regional nodal recurrence and two had distant metastases; in the SABR group, one patient had local recurrence, four had regional nodal recurrence, and one had distant metastases. Three (10%) patients in the SABR group had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (three [10%] chest wall pain, two [6%] dyspnoea or cough, and one [3%] fatigue and rib fracture). No patients given SABR had grade 4 events or treatment-related death. In the surgery group, one (4%) patient died of surgical complications and 12 (44%) patients had grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events. Grade 3 events occurring in more than one patient in the surgery group were dyspnoea (four [15%] patients), chest pain (four [15%] patients), and lung infections (two [7%]). Interpretation SABR could be an option for treating operable stage I NSCLC. Because of the small patient sample size and short follow-up, additional randomised studies comparing SABR with surgery in operable patients are warranted. Funding Accuray Inc, Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, NCI Cancer Center Support, NCI Clinical and Translational Science Award.

Summary Background Retrospective evidence indicates that disease progression after first-line chemotherapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) occurs most often at sites of disease known to exist at baseline. However, the potential benefit of aggressive local consolidative therapy (LCT) on progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with oligometastatic NSCLC is unknown. Methods We conducted a multicenter randomized study (NCT01725165; currently ongoing but not recruiting participants) to assess the effect of LCT on progression-free survival ((PFS). Eligible patients hadwere (1) histologic confirmation of (2) stage IV NSCLC, (3) ≤3 disease sites after systemic therapy, and (4) no disease progression before randomization. Front line therapy was ≥4 cycles of platinum doublet therapy or ≥3 months of inhibitors of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) for patients with EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements. Patients were randomized to either LCT ([chemo]radiation or resection of all lesions) +/− maintenance therapy versus maintenance therapy/observation only. Maintenance therapy was recommended based on a list of approved regimens, and observation was defined as close surveillance without cytotoxic therapy. Randomization was not masked and was balanced dynamically on five factors: number of metastases, response to initial therapy, central nervous system metastases, intrathoracic nodal status, and EGFR/ALK status. The primary endpoint was PFS, powered to detect an increase from 4 months to 7 months (hazard ratio [HR}=0.57) using intent-to-treat analysis. The plan was to study 94 randomized patients, with an interim analysis at 44 events. PFS, overall survival (OS), and time to develop a new lesion were compared between arms with log-rank tests. Results The study was terminated early after treatment of 49 patients (25 LCT, 24 control), when at a median follow-up time for PFS of 18.7 months, the median PFS time in the LCT group was 11.9 months (90% confidence interval [CI] 5.72 ,20.90) versus 3.9 months (90% CI 2.30, 6.64) in the maintenance group (HR=0.35, 90% CI 0.18,0.66, log rank p=0.005). Toxicity was similar between groups, with no grade 4–5 events. Grade 3 or higher adverse events in the maintenance therapy arm were fatigue (n=1) and anemia (n=1). In the LCT arm, Grade 3 events were: esophagitis (n=2), anemia (n=1), pneumothorax (n=1), and abdominal pain (n=1). Overall survival data are immature, with only 14 deaths recorded. Interpretation LCT +/− maintenance therapy for patients with ≤3 metastases from NSCLC that did not progress after initial systemic therapy improved PFS relative to maintenance therapy alone. These findings imply that aggressive local therapy should be further explored in phase III trials as a standard treatment option in this clinical scenario.