Author of

• 11946

  +

  P2.24 - Poster Session 2 - Supportive Care (ID 157)

  • Event: WCLC 2013
  • Type: Poster Session
  • Track: Supportive Care
  • Presentations: 1
  • Moderators:
  • Coordinates: 10/29/2013, 09:30 - 16:30, Exhibit Hall, Ground Level

  • 11967

    +

    P2.24-021 - Adjuvant or Induction chemotherapy for Non Small Cell Lung Cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy: An invidual data metaanalysis of phase II trials (ID 1421)

    09:30 - 09:30  |  Author(s): J.P. Sculier
    • Abstract

    Background
    it is well known that combining chemotherapy and radiation therapy is beneficial to patients with locally advanced non small cell lung cancer compared to radiation alone or compared to a sequential approach using chemotherapy and radiation therapy. However, it is not obvious what is the best schedule. A few randomized trials assessed chemotherapy as induction before chemoradiotherapy (CT -> CTRT) versus chemotherapy as consolidation, after chemoradiotherapy (CTRT -> CT). Most of those trials are phase II trials with moderate sample sizes and were not designed to demonstrate treatment effect in terms of overall survival.

    Methods
    the study coordinators of those trials (T. Berghmans, H. Choy, P. Fournel, P. Garrido, J. Van Meerbeeck) agreed on a protocol for carrying out a meta-analysis of individual patients data and for sharing the individual patients data that were sent to the coordinating institution. Overall survival was the primary outcome, progression-free survival and toxic death occurrence were among the secondary outcomes. The treatment effect was assessed through the estimation of the hazard ratio of the survival distributions using CTRT -> CT as reference. Combined hazard ratio was obtained through Cox regression models (fixed effects) with a stratification by trial. Preplanned interactions between baseline covariates (age, sex, performance status, stage, histology) and treatment effect were assessed. Toxic death rates were analyzed per trial and odds ratios have been estimated to assess the treatment effect. Combined odds ratio was obtained by the Peto method.

    Results
    the data bases of the 5 eligible identified trials (3 with cisplatin based chemotherapy regimens, 2 with carboplatin based regimens) were shared for a total of 534 patients (CT -> CTRT 271, CTRT -> CT 263). Median ages were 60 and 61 years, stage IIIB represented 69%/70% of the patients and EOCG PS > 1 was rare (3%/2%). Median follow-up ranged from 12 months up to 66 months and rates of events from 44% to 88%. No significant difference was detected either for overall survival with an estimated HR of 0.96 (95% CI : 0.79-1.17) without heterogeneity between the 5 trials (I[2]=0) or for progression-free survival (analysis restricted to 4 out of the 5 trials), HR=0.91 (95% CI : 0.75-1.11) and absence of heterogeneity (I[2]=2%). For both outcomes, no interaction between the above specified covariates and treatment effect was found. Toxic deaths occurred overall in 3% of the patients, no detectable impact of treatment arm was found with a combined odds ratio of 0.40 and a 95 % CI overlapping 1 (0.15-1.06).

    Conclusion
    our results suggest that there is no argument in favour of one of the two therapeutic schedules when looking at overall survival or at progression free survival; however, in the absence of benefit in terms of prognosis, a more detailed evaluation of toxicity is warranted and is ongoing.