Percutaneous local tumor ablation vs. stereotactic body radiotherapy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
10.1097/CM9.0000000000002131
- VernacularTitle:Percutaneous local tumor ablation vs. stereotactic body radiotherapy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Author:
Dongjie CHEN
1
;
Man ZHAO
;
Xiaoyong XIANG
;
Jun LIANG
Author Information
1. Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital & Shenzhen Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518172, China
- Keywords:
Stereotactic body radiotherapy;
Percutaneous local tumor ablation;
Lung cancer
- From:
Chinese Medical Journal
2022;135(13):1517-1524
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Background::Percutaneous local tumor ablation (LTA) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) have been regarded as viable treatments for early-stage lung cancer patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of LTA with SBRT for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods::PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Ovid, Google scholar, CNKI, and CBMdisc were searched to identify potential eligible studies comparing the efficacy and safety of LTA with SBRT for early-stage NSCLC published between January 1, 1991, and May 31, 2021. Hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were applied to estimate the effect size for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), locoregional progression (LP), and adverse events.Results::Five studies with 22,231 patients were enrolled, including 1443 patients in the LTA group and 20,788 patients in the SBRT group. The results showed that SBRT was not superior to LTA for OS (HR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.87-1.22, P = 0.71). Similar results were observed for PFS (HR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.71-1.67, P = 0.71) and LP (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.25-1.77, P = 0.70). Subgroup analysis showed that the pooled HR for OS favored SBRT in patients with tumors sized >2 cm (HR= 1.32, 95% CI: 1.14-1.53, P = 0.0003), whereas there was no significant difference in patients with tumors sized ≤2 cm (HR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.64-1.35, P = 0.70). Moreover, no significant differences were observed for the incidence of severe adverse events (≥grade 3) (OR = 1.95, 95% CI: 0.63-6.07, P = 0.25) between the LTA group and SBRT group. Conclusions::Compared with SBRT, LTA appears to have similar OS, PFS, and LP. However, for tumors >2 cm, SBRT is superior to LTA in OS. Prospective randomized controlled trials are required to determine such findings.INPLASY Registration Number::INPLASY202160099
