Cited by 1,462Lung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesLung Cancer Research Studies

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus lobectomy for operable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of two randomised trials

Open access
Chang, Joe Y, Senan, Suresh, Paul, Marinus A, Mehran, Reza J, Louie, Alexander V, Balter, Peter, Groen, Harry J M, McRae, Stephen E +17 more·2015·The Lancet Oncology

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1470-2045(15)70168-3

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chang, J. Y., Senan, S., Paul, M. A., Mehran, R. J., Louie, A. V., Balter, P., Groen, H. J. M., McRae, S. E., Widder, J., Feng, L., van den Borne, B. E. E. M., Munsell, M. F., Hurkmans, C., Berry, D. A., van Werkhoven, E., Kresl, J. J., Dingemans, A.-M., Dawood, O., Haasbeek, C. J. A., Carpenter, L. S., De Jaeger, K., Komaki, R., Slotman, B. J., Smit, E. F., & Roth, J. A.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
  • Catharina Ziekenhuis (NL)
  • Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
  • Kona Medical (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Chang, Joe Y
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-06
Volume
16
Issue
6
Pages
630-637
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2098354451
Cited by
1,462
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 81 · 2024: 106 · 2023: 102 · 2022: 130 · 2021: 107 · 2020: 132 · 2019: 154 · 2018: 199 · 2017: 185 · 2016: 151 · 2015: 68
FWCI
158.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2015-09-01)
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (80-82310-98-08005)
  • NCI Cancer Center Support (Core) (Grant CA016672)
  • NCI Clinical and Translational Science Award (UL1 RR024148)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Lung Cancer Research Studies
Keywords
stereotactic body radiotherapy, lobectomy, stage I non-small cell lung cancer, mediastinal lymph node dissection, overall survival, recurrence-free survival, pooled analysis, surgical versus radiotherapy comparison, early-stage lung cancer surgery, regional nodal recurrence, quality of life
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Lymph Nodes, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Neoplasm Staging, Netherlands, Radiosurgery, Treatment Outcome, Anterior Temporal Lobectomy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review