Search Results

Metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is highly heterogeneous, and there are patients with limited areas of metastases (oligometastases) or progression (oligoprogression) whose natural history and prognosis can be considerably more favorable. As a result, local therapy may offer these patients a chance at clinically meaningful disease control and/or cure. This review begins by describing the current status of the existing prospective data, including evidence of overall survival improvements from multiple randomized trials. Given the nascence of this realm, the review then examines ongoing controversies and unresolved issues regarding local therapy for oligometastatic and oligoprogression. First, the role of local therapy in the setting of targeted therapies and immunotherapy is discussed, because most published randomized trials of local therapy have been performed in the context of chemotherapy, which is no longer the standard of care for most patients with metastatic NSCLC. Refining patient selection for local therapy is then reviewed, including clinical factors (such as control of the primary and regional lymph node sites, the heterogeneous definitions of oligometastases/oligoprogression, and the underrepresentation of brain metastases in existing randomized data) and novel pathologic/molecular biomarkers. Next, because there also remains no consensus regarding the optimal modality of local therapy, the advantages and disadvantages of stereotactic radiotherapy, surgery, and other ablative techniques are discussed. Subsequently, methods to optimize radiotherapy are examined, including controversies regarding the optimal dose/fractionation and timing/sequencing scheme. A discussion regarding potentially extending the existing data to polymetastatic NSCLC follows. The review concludes with remarks regarding prudently designing randomized trials of local therapy going forward, including the benefits and drawbacks of specific endpoints meriting further testing in this unique population.

Background: Palliative radiotherapy (RT) is effective, but some patients die during treatment or too soon afterward to experience benefit. This study investigates end-of-life RT patterns to inform shared decision-making and facilitate treatment consistent with palliative goals. Materials and Methods: All patients who died ≤6 months after initiating palliative RT at an academic cancer center between 2015 and 2018 were identified. Associations with time-to-death, early mortality (≤30 days), and midtreatment mortality were analyzed. Results: In total, 1,620 patients died ≤6 months from palliative RT initiation, including 574 (34%) deaths at ≤30 days and 222 (14%) midtreatment. Median survival was 43 days from RT start (95% CI, 41–45) and varied by site (P<.001), ranging from 36 (head and neck) to 53 days (dermal/soft tissue). On multivariable analysis, earlier time-to-death was associated with osseous (hazard ratio [HR], 1.33; P<.001) and head and neck (HR, 1.45; P<.001) sites, multiple RT courses ≤6 months (HR, 1.65; P<.001), and multisite treatments (HR, 1.40; P=.008), whereas stereotactic technique (HR, 0.77; P<.001) and more recent treatment year (HR, 0.82; P<.001) were associated with longer survival. No difference in time to death was noted among patients prescribed conventional RT in 1 to 10 versus >10 fractions (median, 40 vs 47 days; P=.272), although the latter entailed longer courses. The 30-day mortality group included 335 (58%) inpatients, who were 27% more likely to die midtreatment (P=.031). On multivariable analysis, midtreatment mortality among these inpatients was associated with thoracic (odds ratio [OR], 2.95; P=.002) and central nervous system (CNS; OR, 2.44; P=.002) indications, >5-fraction courses (OR, 3.27; P<.001), and performance status of 3 to 4 (OR, 1.63; P=.050). Conversely, palliative/supportive care consultation was associated with decreased midtreatment mortality (OR, 0.60; P=.045). Conclusions: Earlier referrals and hypofractionated courses (≤5–10 treatments) should be routinely considered for palliative RT indications, given the short life expectancies of patients at this stage in their disease course. Providers should exercise caution for emergent thoracic and CNS indications among inpatients with poor prognoses due to high midtreatment mortality.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) address all aspects of management for NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines regarding targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and their respective biomarkers.

The NCCN Guidelines for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) address all aspects of management for NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the targeted therapy and immunotherapy sections in the NCCN Guidelines. For the 2018 update, a new section on biomarkers was added.

The NCCN Guidelines for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) address all aspects of management for NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates in immunotherapy. For the 2020 update, all of the systemic therapy regimens have been categorized using a new preference stratification system; certain regimens are now recommended as “preferred interventions,” whereas others are categorized as either “other recommended interventions” or “useful under certain circumstances.”

NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) provide recommended management for patients with NSCLC, including diagnosis, primary treatment, surveillance for relapse, and subsequent treatment. Patients with metastatic lung cancer who are eligible for targeted therapies or immunotherapies are now surviving longer. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for NSCLC focuses on targeted therapies for patients with metastatic NSCLC and actionable mutations.