Postoperative radiotherapy for non‐small cell lung cancer

Sarah Burdett; Larysa Rydzewska; Jayne Tierney; David Fisher; Mahesh KB Parmar; Rodrigo Arriagada; Jean Pierre Pignon; Cecile Le Pechoux; on behalf of the PORT Meta‐analysis Trialists Group

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002142.pub4

استفاده از پرتودرمانی پس از جراحی در سرطان سلول غیر‐کوچک ریه

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

منابع مطالعات واردشده در این مرور

Ir a:

منابع مطالعات خارج‌شده از این مرور
منابع مطالعات در حال انجام
منابع اضافی
منابع دیگر نسخه‌های منتشرشده این مرور

van Houtte P, Rocmans P, Smets P, Goffin JC, Lustman‐Marecal J, Vanderhoeft P, et al. Postoperative radiation therapy in lung cancer: a controlled trial after resection of curative design. International Journal of Radiation, Oncology, Biology and Physics 1980;6:983‐6.

Feng QF, Wang M, Wang LJ, Yang ZY, Zhang YG, Zhang DW, et al. A study of postoperative radiotherapy in patients with non‐small cell lung cancer: a randomized trial. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 2000;47(4):925‐9.

EORTC 08861(unpublished). Phase III randomised trial of adjuvant radiotherapy vs no adjuvant therapy with completely resected non‐small cell lung cancer.

Dautzenberg B, Arriagada R, Chammard AB, Jarema A, Mezzetti M, Mattson K, et al. for the Groupe d'Etude et de Traitement des Cancers Bronchiques. A controlled study of postoperative radiotherapy for patients with completely resected nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. Cancer1999; Vol. 86, issue 2:265‐273.

Google Scholar

Dautzenberg B, Arriagada R, Chammard AB, Jarema A, Mezzetti M, Mattson K, et al. for the Groupe d'Etude et de Traitement des Cancer Bronchiques. A controlled study of postoperative radiotherapy for patients with completely resected nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. Cancer 1999;86(2):265‐73; Vol. 86, issue 2:265‐273.

Trodella L, Granone P, Valente S, Valentini V, Balducci M, Mantini G, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy in non‐small cell lung cancer with pathological stage I: definitive results of a phase III randomised trial. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2002;62:11‐9.

Park JH. Postoperative adjuvant therapy for stage IIIa non‐small cell lung cancer. Journal of Thoracic Oncology 2007;2 (8 Suppl 4):S651.

Lung Cancer Study Group. Effects of postoperative mediastinal radiation on completely resected stage II and stage III epidermoid cancer of the lung. New England Journal of Medicine 1986;315(22):1377‐81.

Enlace al artículo

Lafitte JJ, Ribet ME, Prévost BM, Gosselin BH, Copin M‐C, Brichet AH. Post‐irradiation for T2 N0 M0 non‐small cell carcinoma: a prospective randomized study. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 1996;62:830‐4.

Stephens RJ, Girling DJ, Bleehen NM, Moghissi K, Yosef HMA, Machin D. The role of post‐operative radiotherapy in non‐small cell lung cancer: a multicentre randomised trial in patients with pathologically staged T1‐2, N1‐2, M0 disease. British Journal of Cancer 1996;74:632‐9.

Debevec M, Bitenc M, Vidmar S, Rott T, Orel J, Strojan P, et al. Post‐operative radiotherapy for radically resected N2 non‐small cell lung cancer: randomised clinical study 1988‐92. Lung Cancer 1996;14:99‐107.

منابع مطالعات خارج‌شده از این مرور

Ir a:

منابع مطالعات واردشده در این مرور
منابع مطالعات در حال انجام
منابع اضافی
منابع دیگر نسخه‌های منتشرشده این مرور

Mayer R, Smolle‐Juettner F‐M, Szolar D, Stuecklschweiger GF, Quehenberger F, Friehs G, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy in radically resected non‐small cell lung cancer. Chest 1997;112:954‐9.

Dymek P, Kowalska T, Reinfuss M, Walasek T, Zareba‐Szlubowska M, Mitus J, et al. The efficacy of adjuvant thoracic radiation therapy in NSCLC patients with ipsilateral mediastinal/hilar lymph node involvement [Ocena skutecznosci pooperacyjnej teleradioterapii chorych na NDRP zoperowanych miejscowo doszczetnie z obecnoscia przerzutow w usunietych wezlach chlonnych srodpiersia albo wneki (kontrolowane doswiadczenie kliniczne)]. Pneumonol Alergol Pol 2003;71(11‐12):496‐503.

Lung Cancer Study Group (Unpublished). Phase III randomised study of post‐op radiotherapy vs no radiotherapy following resection of non‐small cell lung cancer.

منابع مطالعات در حال انجام

Ir a:

منابع مطالعات واردشده در این مرور
منابع مطالعات خارج‌شده از این مرور
منابع اضافی
منابع دیگر نسخه‌های منتشرشده این مرور

LUNG ART‐IGR 2006/1202 (ongoing). Phase III study comparing post‐operative conformal radiotherapy to no post‐operative radiotherapy in patients with completely resected non‐small cell lung cancer and mediastinal N2 involvement. NCT00410683 .

منابع اضافی

Ir a:

منابع مطالعات واردشده در این مرور
منابع مطالعات خارج‌شده از این مرور
منابع مطالعات در حال انجام
منابع دیگر نسخه‌های منتشرشده این مرور

American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2007. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2007.

Billiet C, Dealuwe H, Peeters S, Vansteenkiste J, Dooms C, Haustermans K, et al. Corrigendum to "Modern post‐operative radiotherapy for stage III non‐small cell lung cancer may improve local control and survival: A meta‐analysis". Radiotherapy and Oncology 2014;113(2):300‐1.

Datta D, Lahiri B. Preoperative evaluation of patients undergoing lung resection surgery. Chest 2003;123:2096‐103.

Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. In: Chalmers I, Altman DG editor(s). Systematic Reviews. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1995:17‐36.

Google Scholar

Fisher DJ, Copas AJ, Tierney JF, Parmar MKB. A critical review of methods for the assessment of patient‐level interactions in individual patient data (IPD) meta‐analysis of randomised trials, and guidance for practitioners. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64:949‐67.

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2002;21:1539‐58.

Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions ‐ Version 5.0.1 [updated in September 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane‐handbook.org.

Google Scholar

Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2011;61:69‐90.

Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observation. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1958;53:457‐81.

Lefebvre C, Clarke MJ. Identifying randomised trials. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG editor(s). Systematic Reviews in Healthcare. 2nd Edition. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001:69‐87.

Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J, on behalf of the Cochrane Information Retrieval Methods Group. Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2008:95‐150.

Mountain CF. The new international staging system for lung cancer. Surgical Clinics of North America 1987;67(5):925‐35.

Mountain CF. Revisions in the International System for Staging Lung Cancer. Chest 1997;111(6):1710‐7.

Non‐small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group. Chemotherapy in non‐small cell lung cancer: a meta‐analysis using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomised clinical trials. British Medical Journal 1995;311(7010):899‐909.

Parmar MKB, Machin D. Survival Analysis: A Practical Approach. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1995.

Patel SH, Ma Y, Wernicke AG, Nori D, Chao KSC, Parashar B. Evidence supporting contemporary post‐operative radiation therapy (PORT) using linear accelerators in N2 lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2014;84:156‐60.

The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3.5. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.

Schemper M, Smith TL. A note on quantifying follow‐up in studies of failure time. Controlled Clinical Trials 1996;17(4):343‐6.

StataCorp LP. StataCorp 2013. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP, 2013.

Yusuf S, Peto R, Lewis J, Collins R, Sleight P. Beta‐blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomised trials. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases 1985;27(5):335‐71.

منابع دیگر نسخه‌های منتشرشده این مرور

Ir a:

منابع مطالعات واردشده در این مرور
منابع مطالعات خارج‌شده از این مرور
منابع مطالعات در حال انجام
منابع اضافی

PORT Meta‐analysis Trialists Group. Postoperative radiotherapy in non‐small‐cell lung cancer: systematic review and meta‐analysis of individual patient data from nine randomised controlled trials. Lancet 1998;352:257‐63.

Burdett S, Stewart L, on behalf of the PORT Meta‐analysis Trialist Group. Postoperative radiotherapy in non‐small cell lung cancer: update of an individual patient data meta‐analysis. Lung Cancer 2005;47(1):81‐3.

Burdett S, Rydzewska L, Tierney JF, Fisher DJ. A closer look at the effects of postoperative radiotherapy by stage and nodal status: updated results of an individual participant data meta‐analysis in non‐small‐cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2013;80:350‐2.

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

estudios excluidos
estudios en curso

Belgium 1966

Methods	1966 to 1977 RCT
Participants	224 patients Stages I, II, III Trial data used in subgroup analyses for sex, age and histology
Interventions	Surgery + radiotherapy vs surgery alone RT details 60 Gy in 30 fractions in 6 weeks Prescription technique: isodose 90% Machine used: Co60 Average field size (cm): 15 × 9 Clinical target volume: bronchial stump, hilum, mediastinum Technique: spinal cord blocks, oblique fields, lateral fields
Outcomes	Survival
Notes	20 small cell participants excluded from meta‐analysis Unable to supply data for 2 participants
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: stated as randomised in paper; checks run on IPD suggest adequate sequence generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "randomisation carried out via sealed envelope"
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: trial not blinded owing to the nature of the intervention; outcome not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: study apparently free of other sources of bias

CAMS 1981

Methods	1981 to 1995 RCT
Participants	317 patients Stages II, III Trial data used in subgroup analyses for sex, age, histology, stage and nodal status
Interventions	Surgery + radiotherapy vs surgery alone RT details 60 Gy in 30 fractions in 6 weeks Prescription technique: at midplane Machine used: Co60 and linac Average field size (cm): 6 × 12 Clinical target volume: hilum, mediastinum Technique: spinal cord blocks, oblique fields, lateral fields
Outcomes	Survival
Notes	Abstract only
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: stated as randomised in paper; checks run on IPD suggest adequate sequence generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "randomisation carried out via sealed envelope"
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: trial not blinded owing to the nature of the intervention; outcome not likely influenced by lack of blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: study apparently free of other sources of bias

EORTC 08861

Methods	1986 to 1990 RCT
Participants	106 patients Stages II, III Trial data used in subgroup analyses for sex, age, histology, stage and nodal status
Interventions	Surgery + radiotherapy vs surgery alone RT details 56 Gy in 28 fractions in 5.5 weeks Prescription technique: central axis, at the midplane Machine used: linac Average field size (cm): 15 × 10 Clinical target volume: hilum, mediastinum Technique: composite plans
Outcomes	Survival
Notes	Unpublished trial
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: unpublished trial; checks run on IPD suggest adequate sequence generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: unpublished, insufficient information provided, but collection of IPD and correspondence with those who supplied the data reassured that data were adequate
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: trial not blinded owing to the nature of the intervention; outcome not likely influenced by lack of blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: study apparently free of other sources of bias

GETCB 04CB86

Methods	1986 to 1994 RCT
Participants	189 patients Stages I, II, III Trial data used in subgroup analyses for sex, age, stage and nodal status
Interventions	Surgery + radiotherapy vs surgery alone RT details 60 Gy in 24 to 30 fractions in 6 weeks Prescription technique: isocentre Machine used: Co60 and linac (majority linac) Average field size (cm): unavailable Clinical target volume: bronchial stump, hilum, mediastinum Technique: spinal cord blocks, oblique fields, lateral fields
Outcomes	Survival
Notes	Same publication as GETCB 05CB88
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "randomly assigned by centralised telephone procedure" Comment: stated as randomised in paper; checks run on IPD suggest adequate sequence generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: randomisation by central telephone call
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: trial not blinded owing to the nature of the intervention; outcome not likely influenced by lack of blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: study apparently free of other sources of bias

GETCB 05CB88

Methods	1988 to 1994 RCT
Participants	539 patients Stages I, II, III Trial data used in subgroup analyses for sex, age, stage and nodal status
Interventions	Surgery + radiotherapy vs surgery alone RT details 60 Gy in 24 to 30 fractions in 6 weeks Prescription technique: isocentre Machine used: Co60 and linac (majority linac) Average field size (cm): unavailable Clinical target volume: bronchial stump, hilum, mediastinum Technique: spinal cord blocks, oblique fields, lateral fields
Outcomes	Survival
Notes	Same publication as GETCB 04CB86
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "randomly assigned by centralised telephone procedure" Comment: stated as randomised in paper; checks run on IPD suggest adequate sequence generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: randomisation by central telephone call
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: trial not blinded owing to the nature of the intervention; outcome not likely influenced by lack of blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: study apparently free of other sources of bias

Italy 2002

Methods	1989 to 1997 RCT
Participants	104 patients Stage I Trial data used in subgroup analyses for age, sex, histology and stage
Interventions	Surgery + radiotherapy vs surgery alone RT details 50.4 Gy in 1.8 Gy/d in 5 weeks and 3 days Prescription technique: angled field technique machine used: linac Average field size (cm): unavailable Clinical target volume: bronchial stump, hilum, mediastinum Technique: unavailable
Outcomes	Survival
Notes	—
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "by chance" using computer‐generated model Comment: stated as randomised in paper; checks run on IPD suggest adequate sequence generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: computer‐generated randomisation, which was checked by an independent colleague
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: trial not blinded owing to the nature of the intervention; outcome not likely influenced by lack of blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: study apparently free of other sources of bias

Korea 2007

Methods	1989 to 1998 RCT
Participants	111 patients Stages II, III Trial data used in subgroup analyses for sex, age, histology, stage and nodal status
Interventions	Surgery + radiotherapy vs surgery alone RT details 50.4 to 55.8 Gy in 1.8 to 2 Gy fractions, 5 times a week Prescription technique: at midplane Average field size: defined inferiorly by a point 5 cm below the carina and superiorly by the suprasternal notch Clinical target volume: tumour bed, bronchial stump, ipsilateral hilum, vascular shadows of the bilateral mediastinum Technique: combination of parallel opposed, and anterior and posterior oblique fields, or any combination chosen at the discretion of the chest radiation oncologist
Outcomes	Survival
Notes	Abstract only
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: stated as randomised in paper; checks run on IPD suggest adequate sequence generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: insufficient information provided in abstract, but collection of IPD and correspondence with those who supplied the data reassured that data were adequate
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: trial not blinded owing to the nature of the intervention; outcome not likely influenced by lack of blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: study apparently free of other sources of bias

LCSG 773

Methods	1978 to 1985 RCT
Participants	230 patients Stages II, III Trial data used in subgroup analyses for sex, age, histology, stage and nodal status
Interventions	Surgery + radiotherapy vs surgery alone RT details 50 Gy in 25 to 27.5 fractions in 5 to 5.5 weeks Prescription technique: central axis, at midplane Machine used: Co60 and linac Average field size (cm): unavailable Clinical target volume: bronchial stump, hilum, mediastinum Technique: spinal cord blocks, oblique fields, lateral fields
Outcomes	Survival
Notes	—
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "permuted block randomisation" Comment: stated as randomised in paper; checks run on IPD suggest adequate sequence generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: treatment assigned by central office
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: trial not blinded owing to the nature of intervention; outcome not likely influenced by lack of blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: study apparently free of other sources of bias

Lille 1985

Methods	1985 to 1991 RCT
Participants	163 patients Stage I Trial data used in subgroup analyses for sex, age, histology, stage and nodal status
Interventions	Surgery + radiotherapy vs surgery alone RT details 45 to 60 Gy in 22.5 to 30 fractions in 6 weeks Prescription technique: isodose 90% Machine used: Co60 and linac Average field size (cm): 12 × 12 Clinical target volume: hilum, upper mediastinum Technique: spinal cord blocks, oblique fields, lateral fields
Outcomes	Survival
Notes	—
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "randomised with a table of randomisation according to Snedecor and Cochran" Comment: stated as randomised in paper; checks run on IPD suggest adequate sequence generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "randomised with a table of randomisation according to Snedecor and Cochran"; insufficient information provided
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: trial not blinded owing to the nature of the intervention; outcome not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: study apparently free of other sources of bias

MRC LU11

Methods	1986 to 1993 RCT
Participants	308 patients Stages II, III Trial data used in subgroup analyses for sex, age, histology, stage and nodal status
Interventions	Surgery + radiotherapy vs surgery alone RT details 40 Gy in 15 fractions in 3 weeks Prescription technique: central axis, at midplane Machine used: Co60 and linac Average field size (cm): unavailable Clinical target volume: hilum, mediastinum, supraclavicular fossae for upper lobes Technique: spinal cord blocks, oblique fields, lateral fields
Outcomes	Survival
Notes	—
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: stated as randomised in paper; checks run on IPD suggest adequate sequence generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "treatment assigned by central office"
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: trial not blinded owing to the nature of the intervention; outcome not likely influenced by lack of blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: study apparently free of other sources of bias

Slovenia 1988

Methods	1988 to 1992 RCT
Participants	74 patients Stage III Trial data used in subgroup analyses for sex, age, histology, stage and nodal status
Interventions	Surgery + radiotherapy vs surgery alone RT details 30 Gy in 10 to 12 fractions in 2 weeks Prescription technique: central axis, at the midplane Machine used: linac Average field size (cm): 9 × 12 Clinical target volume: hilum, mediastinum Technique: oblique fields, lateral fields
Outcomes	Survival
Notes	Sealed envelope randomisation
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: stated as randomised in paper; checks run on IPD suggest adequate sequence generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "randomisation carried out via sealed envelope"
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: trial not blinded owing to the nature of the intervention; outcome not likely influenced by lack of blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: study apparently free of other sources of bias

All trials supplied individual participant data for analysis and therefore are defined as unpublished data, even though most are published.

IPD = individual participant data.
RCT = randomised controlled trial.
RT = radiotherapy.1G

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

estudios incluidos
estudios en curso

Study	Reason for exclusion
Austria 1996	Data unavailable/eligibility uncertain Reported to be an RCT. Data provided by trialists, but anomalies evident between reported results and data received, and it was not clear if the trial was randomised. We were unable to resolve these problems with the trialists
Dymek 2003	Eligible Data could not be obtained
LCSG 841	Eligible Data could not be obtained (5 participants)

RCT = randomised controlled trial.

Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

estudios incluidos
estudios excluidos

Lung ART‐IGR 2006/1202

Trial name or title	Essai de phase III comparant une radiothérapie médiastinale conformationnelle post‐opératoire à l’absence de radiothérapie après chirurgie complète chez des patients présentant un carcinome bronchique non à petites cellules (CBNPC) avec envahissement médiastinal N2
Methods	Phase III multi‐centric
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes	Evaluation de l’impact de la radiothérapie médiastinale conformationnelle sur la survie sans récidive comparé à l’absence de radiothérapie
Starting date	2006
Contact information	Docteur Cécile Le Péchoux ‐ [email protected]
Notes

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer

Comparison 1. Surgery + PORT versus surgery alone

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Survival Show forest plot	11	2343	Hazard Ratio (95% CI)	1.18 [1.07, 1.31]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.1 Comparison 1 Surgery + PORT versus surgery alone, Outcome 1 Survival.
2 Local recurrence‐free survival Show forest plot	11	2343	Hazard Ratio (95% CI)	1.12 [1.01, 1.23]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.2 Comparison 1 Surgery + PORT versus surgery alone, Outcome 2 Local recurrence‐free survival.
3 Distant recurrence‐free survival Show forest plot	11	2343	Hazard Ratio (95% CI)	1.13 [1.02, 1.24]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.3 Comparison 1 Surgery + PORT versus surgery alone, Outcome 3 Distant recurrence‐free survival.
4 Recurrence‐free survival Show forest plot	11	2343	Hazard Ratio (95% CI)	1.10 [0.99, 1.21]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.4 Comparison 1 Surgery + PORT versus surgery alone, Outcome 4 Recurrence‐free survival.
5 RT delivery method Show forest plot	11	2343	Hazard Ratio (95% CI)	1.18 [1.07, 1.31]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.5 Comparison 1 Surgery + PORT versus surgery alone, Outcome 5 RT delivery method.
5.1 Cobalt‐60 only	1	202	Hazard Ratio (95% CI)	1.48 [1.09, 2.02]
5.2 Cobalt‐60 and linac	6	1746	Hazard Ratio (95% CI)	1.18 [1.05, 1.33]
5.3 Linac only	4	395	Hazard Ratio (95% CI)	1.02 [0.80, 1.31]
6 RT dose Show forest plot	11	2343	Peto Odds Ratio (95% CI)	1.18 [1.07, 1.31]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.6 Comparison 1 Surgery + PORT versus surgery alone, Outcome 6 RT dose.
6.1 < 45 Gy	2	382	Peto Odds Ratio (95% CI)	0.93 [0.75, 1.17]
6.2 ≥ 45 Gy	9	1961	Peto Odds Ratio (95% CI)	1.25 [1.12, 1.40]

Figure 1

Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 2

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 3

Overall survival.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 4

PORT effect on overall survival by trial according to stage.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 5

Hazard ratio (HR) for the interaction between the effect of PORT on survival and (a) stage or (b) nodal status.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 6

Sensitivity analysis 1: only trials with all stage subgroups included.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 7

Sensitivity analysis (2): only trials with stage II and III subgroups represented.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 8

PORT effect on overall survival by trial according to nodal status.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Surgery + PORT versus surgery alone, Outcome 1 Survival.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Surgery + PORT versus surgery alone, Outcome 2 Local recurrence‐free survival.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Surgery + PORT versus surgery alone, Outcome 3 Distant recurrence‐free survival.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Surgery + PORT versus surgery alone, Outcome 4 Recurrence‐free survival.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Surgery + PORT versus surgery alone, Outcome 5 RT delivery method.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Surgery + PORT versus surgery alone, Outcome 6 RT dose.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Table 1. Common meta‐analysis stage scale (original analyses ‐ based on TNM 4th edition)

T stage	N stage	M stage	Meta‐analysis stage	AJCC stage
0, 1, 2, X, iS	0	0	I	I
0, 1, 2, X, iS	1	0	II	II
Any	2, 3	0	III	III non‐metastatic
3, 4	Any	0	III	III non‐metastatic
Any	Any	1	IV	Any metastatic
AJCC = American Joint Committee on Cancer.

Table 1. Common meta‐analysis stage scale (original analyses ‐ based on TNM 4th edition)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 2. Common meta‐analysis stage scale (current analysis ‐ based on TNM 6th edition)

T stage	N stage	M stage	Meta‐analysis stage
1, 2	0	0	I
1, 2	1	0	II
3	0	0	II
1, 2	2	0	III
3	1, 2	0	III
Any	Any	1	IV

Table 2. Common meta‐analysis stage scale (current analysis ‐ based on TNM 6th edition)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 3. Characteristics of participants in PORT meta‐analysis

Characteristic	Postoperative RT	Surgery only	Total
AGE (data from 11 trials)
< 54 years	294	327	621
55 to 59 years	267	261	528
60 to 64 years	290	276	566
> 65 years	312	315	627
Unknown	0	1	1
SEX (data from 11 trials)
Male	988	992	1980
Female	175	187	362
Not recorded	0	1	1
HISTOLOGY (data from 9 trials)
Adenocarcinoma	195	218	413
Squamous	522	545	1067
Other	66	54	120
Unknown	380	363	743
META‐ANALYSIS STAGE (data from 11 trials)
I	328	338	666
II	353	366	719
III	463	455	918
IV	1	0	1
Unknown	18	21	39
WHO PERFORMANCE STATUS (data from 4 trials; not used)
Good (0, 1)	195	196	391
Poor (2, 3, 4)	77	83	160
Unknown	22	21	43

Table 3. Characteristics of participants in PORT meta‐analysis

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 4. Changes in results over time

	Trend or interaction 1998	Trend or interaction 2005	Trend or interaction 2010 'old' methods	Trend or interaction 2010 'new' methods and TNM changes
Age	P = 0.34	P = 0.44	P = 0.32	P = 0.20
Sex	P = 0.94	P = 0.92	P = 0.84	P = 0.49
Histology	P = 0.75	P = 0.61	P = 0.42	P = 0.38
Stage	P = 0.0003	P = 0.003	P = 0.003	P = 0.12
Nodal status	P = 0.016	P = 0.02	P = 0.03	P = 0.39

Table 4. Changes in results over time

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 1. Surgery + PORT versus surgery alone

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Survival Show forest plot	11	2343	Hazard Ratio (95% CI)	1.18 [1.07, 1.31]

2 Local recurrence‐free survival Show forest plot	11	2343	Hazard Ratio (95% CI)	1.12 [1.01, 1.23]

3 Distant recurrence‐free survival Show forest plot	11	2343	Hazard Ratio (95% CI)	1.13 [1.02, 1.24]

4 Recurrence‐free survival Show forest plot	11	2343	Hazard Ratio (95% CI)	1.10 [0.99, 1.21]

5 RT delivery method Show forest plot	11	2343	Hazard Ratio (95% CI)	1.18 [1.07, 1.31]

5.1 Cobalt‐60 only	1	202	Hazard Ratio (95% CI)	1.48 [1.09, 2.02]
5.2 Cobalt‐60 and linac	6	1746	Hazard Ratio (95% CI)	1.18 [1.05, 1.33]
5.3 Linac only	4	395	Hazard Ratio (95% CI)	1.02 [0.80, 1.31]
6 RT dose Show forest plot	11	2343	Peto Odds Ratio (95% CI)	1.18 [1.07, 1.31]

6.1 < 45 Gy	2	382	Peto Odds Ratio (95% CI)	0.93 [0.75, 1.17]
6.2 ≥ 45 Gy	9	1961	Peto Odds Ratio (95% CI)	1.25 [1.12, 1.40]

Comparison 1. Surgery + PORT versus surgery alone

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

	Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane Escoja su idioma de preferencia para las revisiones Cochrane y otros contenidos. Las secciones sin una traducción aparecerán en inglés.

	Idioma de la web Escoja su idioma de preferencia para la web de la Biblioteca Cochrane.

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Referencias

منابع مطالعات واردشده در این مرور

Belgium 1966 {published and unpublished data}

CAMS 1981 {published and unpublished data}

EORTC 08861 {unpublished data only}

GETCB 04CB86 {published and unpublished data}

GETCB 05CB88 {published and unpublished data}

Italy 2002 {published and unpublished data}

Korea 2007 {published and unpublished data}

LCSG 773 {published and unpublished data}

Lille 1985 {published and unpublished data}

MRC LU11 {published and unpublished data}

Slovenia 1988 {published and unpublished data}

منابع مطالعات خارج‌شده از این مرور

Austria 1996 {published data only}

Dymek 2003 {published data only}

LCSG 841 {unpublished data only}

منابع مطالعات در حال انجام

Lung ART‐IGR 2006/1202 {unpublished data only}

منابع اضافی

American Cancer Society 2007

Billiet 2014

Datta 2003

Dickersin 1995

Fisher 2011

Higgins 2002

Higgins 2011

Jemal 2011

Kaplan 1958

Lefebvre 2001

Lefebvre 2008

Mountain 1987

Mountain 1997

NSCLCCG 1995

Parmar 1995

Patel 2014

RevMan 2014 [Computer program]

Schemper 1996

Stata 2013 [Computer program]

Yusuf 1985

منابع دیگر نسخه‌های منتشرشده این مرور

PORT 1998

PORT 2005

PORT 2013

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]

Data and analyses

Copiar o descargar referencia

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Usuarios institucionales

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Otras opciones de acceso