It has recently become clear that stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can be treated with curative intent either by concurrent chemoradiation or combined modality approaches including surgery in wellselected patient populations [1–3]. Nevertheless, the relapse pattern of stage III NSCLC generally indicates that systemic relapse still accounts for about 40% of the first failures following initial curatively intended therapy [4]. Therefore, systemic drug treatment − similar to that in stage II and stage IV disease – will also have to remain an integrated part of the management for these patient groups [5,6]. Cisplatinbased chemotherapy combinations have proven to be systemically effective on micro-metastatic disease of stage III patients in the adjuvant setting following local treatment with surgery [7,8]. Currently, there is no clear evidence for carboplatin-based protocols or nonplatinum-containing regimens in contrast to cisplatinbased regimens in these stages [6,9–11]. Even in stage IV, cisplatin-based combinations with newer drugs lead to increased response rates and a clear trend for increased overall survival when directly compared to carboplatin-based combinations [12]. However, it should be noted that combination chemotherapy only exerts a systemic risk reduction-effect on relapses outside the brain and cannot adequately protect the central nervous system [4]. When given in combination with local treatment such as definitive chemoradiation or surgery in stage III NSCLC, two different approaches can potentially be pursued. One is to give a small number of chemotherapy cycles as induction prior to definitive local therapy [13,14], while alternatively the other method tries to give adjuvant chemotherapy as post-local treatment [2,15]. With the most effective cisplatin-based protocols, it has to be stated that no large randomised comparison between these two strategies within trials is currently available. However, single agent consolidation therapy with docetaxel following concurrent chemoradiation did not generate a survival benefit within a randomised trial of the Hoosier Oncology Group (HOG), although the multicentre phase-II pilot of the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) had generated encouraging longterm survival data [16]. The probable reason for the ultimate failure of the randomised trial was an increased treatment-related toxicity and toxic death rate in the single agent docetaxel consolidation arm during the pneumonitis phase of the post-radiation setting [17]. Currently, a randomised German trial is looking at consolidation cisplatin and oral vinorelbine versus observation following definitive concurrent chemoradiation [18]. However, it is probably unfair to expect definitive conclusions from this rather small randomised trial alone. In the adjuvant setting of early disease, a meta-analysis of more than 4000 patients was needed to prove a survival benefit of about 5% to 6% with adjuvant chemotherapy at 5 years [8]. When looking at the literature of currently published datasets, the largest and best selected patient group has been that from the chemoradiation arm of the Intergroup Trial 0139 [2]. Treatment was based on a concurrent chemoradiation of two cycles of cisplatin and etoposide together with 61 Gray (Gy) conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. Then, two cycles of consolidation chemotherapy with cisplatin and etoposide were added. A 5-year overall survival rate of 20.3% has been reached in stage IIIA(N2) patients with pathologically proven mediastinal N2status, representing probably the best survival data so far in a comparable patient population with chemoradiation within a randomised trial. Therefore, at the moment, the two-drug combinations with the largest evidence from randomised trials available in this concurrent chemoradiation setting are cisplatin and etoposide as well as cisplatin and vinorelbine [19]. There are also randomised trials including carboplatin and paclitaxel, but their results should be interpreted with caution as carboplatin lacks clinical data for being a significant radiation sensitiser in stage III (see Table 1) [9,10,20–22]. Furthermore, its systemic efficacy may be significantly inferior to platinumbased protocols on the micro-metastatic disease [12].
Read full abstract