skip to page content
Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government

Health Systems Research

Go to the VA ORD website
Go to the QUERI website

Non-surgical Therapies for Early-stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review

Click for list of published reports
Click for topic nomination form
Click for list of reports in progress

 Non-surgical Therapies for Early-stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer A Systematic Review

Recommended citation:
Sultan S, Ullman K, Ester E, et al. Non-surgical Therapies for Early-stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review. Washington, DC: Evidence Synthesis Program, Health Services Research and Development Service, Office of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs. VA ESP Project #09-009; 2023.



Download PDF: Complete Report, Executive Summary, Report, Appendices

Takeaway

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality. Surgery is considered standard care for many individuals with early-stage lung cancer. However, evidence is very uncertain on the effectiveness and harms of surgery versus stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for stage I lung cancer. Information on other ablative techniques is limited in quantity and quality, coming from retrospective, non-randomized studies. RCTs are needed to assess the effectiveness of SABR/SBRT vs. surgery for patients with medically operable stage I lung cancer.

Context

We conducted a systematic review of randomized trials to examine the comparative effectiveness of SABR/SBRT vs. surgery. Additionally, we constructed an evidence map describing the characteristics and outcomes of studies evaluating SABR/SBRT, surgery, thermal ablation techniques (e.g., microwave, radiofrequency and laser ablation and cryoablation) and brachytherapy.

Key Findings

Two publications addressed SABR/SBRT vs. surgery. One reported pooled outcomes of the STARS and ROSEL trials. Both were small and ended early due to poor enrollment. Another publication reported quality of life data from the ROSEL trial. As such, the evidence for survival, adverse events, and quality of life is very uncertain. No articles reported on whether benefits and harms of SABR/SBRT vs. surgery varied by patient and intervention characteristics. For the evidence map, no RCTs examined ablation therapies for stage I lung cancer. Six studies reported on ablation vs SBRT/SABR, ten studies reported on ablation vs surgery, two compared SBRT/SABR vs radiofrequency ablation vs surgery. Radiofrequency ablation was most commonly studied (k=11). Most studies had <300 participants (k=12), except for 6 large administrative datasets, and were conducted in the US (k=9), Europe (k=3) or China (k=3). Studies reported on overall survival (k=18), disease-free survival (k=8), local/regional recurrence (k=12), any adverse events (k=11). Most were conducted prior to widespread lung cancer screening.

See also

Non-Surgical Therapies for Early-stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review (Management Brief)


Questions about the HSR website? Email the Web Team

Any health information on this website is strictly for informational purposes and is not intended as medical advice. It should not be used to diagnose or treat any condition.