Abstract
Several guidelines including radiotherapy recommendations exist worldwide for the treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC). To evaluate the differences in radiotherapy recommendations we conducted a systematic review. PubMed and the sites of medical societies were searched for SCLC guidelines published in either English, Chinese, or Dutch. This was limited to January 2018 till February 2021 to only include up-to-date recommendations. Data was extracted and compared regarding the guideline's development method and radiotherapy recommendations. Eleven guidelines were identified (PubMed n=4, societies n=7) from Spain (n=1), Canada (n=1), America (n=3), United Kingdom (n=1), the Netherlands (n=1), and China (n=3), respectively. Nine guidelines assessed the strength of evidence (SOE) and specified the strength of recommendation (SOR), although methods were different. The major radiotherapy recommendations are similar although differences exist in thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) dose, time, and volume. Controversial areas are TRT in resected stage I-IIA (pN1), prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) in resected as well as unresected stage I-IIA, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in unresected stage I-IIA, PCI time, and PCI versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance in stage IV. The existence of several overlapping guidelines for SCLC treatment indicates that guideline development is (unnecessarily) repeated by different organizations or societies. Improvement could be made by better international collaboration to avoid duplicating unnecessary work, which would spare a lot of time and resources. Efforts should be made to work together on controversial or unknown fields.
Keywords: Small cell lung cancer, Guideline, Radiotherapy
1. Introduction
Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) accounts for approximately 13%-20% of all newly diagnosed lung cancers1,2. As a rapidly aggressive disease, the 5-year survival is only 7%3. Although significant progress has been made in the treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), such as the introduction of targeted therapy and immunotherapy, in the last decades only limited progress has been made in the treatment of SCLC. Recent developments in SCLC treatment are mainly regarding stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in very early stage SCLC4, 5, 6, and the use of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI)7,8, thoracic radiotherapy (TRT)9,10, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI)11, 12, 13, 14 in metastatic SCLC. Several guidelines have been updated accordingly. Based on different interpretation of clinical trials, the specific conditions of different countries and regions, and the respective state of economy and social development, guidelines could be different across organizations and countries. In this systematic review we provide an overview of existing guidelines with a focus on guideline developing methods and radiotherapy recommendations.
2. Methods
We systematically searched PubMed for existing SCLC guidelines according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline15. As we selected only the most up-to-date versions, we limited our search to guidelines published from January 1, 2018 till the search date (Feb 28, 2021). Specific guidelines only providing recommendations on radiotherapy techniques and target volumes were excluded. The main searched terms were “SCLC” and “guideline” (Appendix 1). This search was limited to English language only.
Furthermore, we searched whether national and international societies [the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) (America), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) (Europe), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (United Kingdom, UK), the Federatie Medisch Specialisten (FMS) (Netherlands), and the Chinese societies] had a SCLC guideline in either English, Chinese, or Dutch (languages in which guidelines could be interpreted by the authors) and we also selected these guidelines.
Data from these guidelines was extracted and compared regarding the method of development of the guideline, as well as the recommendations regarding the use of radiotherapy in the different disease stage (very early, limited, and extensive disease) and in relation to ICI use. Details about radiotherapy techniques were not specified in this review.
3. Results
3.1. Guidelines selection
A total of 64 records were yielded in PubMed, of which four guidelines were eligible: the Cancer Care Ontario's (CCO's) Lung Cancer Disease Site Group (DSG) (CCO's DSG) (Canada, 2018)16, the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) (Spain, 2020)17, the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) (America, 2020)18, and the American Radium Society (ARS) Thoracic Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) Committee (ARS AUC) (America, 2020)19,20. Additionally, seven guidelines were identified through searching of the societies: NCCN (2021)21, ESMO (2021)22, NICE (2019)23, FMS (2019)24, 25, 26, the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) (2020)27, the Chinese Society for Radiation Oncology (CSTRO) (2020)28, and the Chinese Medical Association (CMA) (2019)29 (Fig. 1, Table 1).
Fig. 1.
PRISMA flow diagram.
Table 1.
Summary of Guidelines.
Guideline (version), online year | Country | Methods | Quality assessment | Strength of evidence | Strength of recommendation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
North America | |||||
CCO (2018), 20181 | Canada | Practice Guidelines Development Cycle, includes systematic review | Cochrane Risk of Bias tool | High, Moderate, Low, EC | NI |
ASTRO (2020), 20202 | America | Systematic review | Consensus-building methodology and system; Consensus is evaluated using a modified Delphi approach | High, Moderate, Low, EO | Strong, Conditional |
ARS (2020), 20203,4 | America | Systematic review | Assessed according to the ARS criteria; Quality descends from category 1 to category 4; A well established methodology (modified Delphi) | S-strong; M-moderate; L-limited; EC-expert consensus; EO-expert opinion | ↑ Strong recommendation; - Not strong, not weak; ↓ Weak recommendation |
NCCN (2.2021), 20215 | America | Review, real-time updates | Panel meeting discussion | See SOR | Category 1, 2A, 2B, and 3* |
Europe | |||||
ESMO (2021), 20216 | Europe | Review, the ESMO standard operating procedures for clinical practice guidelines development | Adapted from the Infectious Diseases Society of America-United States Public Health Service Grading System | Level of evidence descends from I to V | The grade of recommendations changes from strongly recommended (A) to never recommended (E) |
NICE (2019), 20197 | England | The NICE guidelines developing manual, includes systematic review | Based on AGREE Enterprise's Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument | Each study: high, moderate, low, very low& | Wording: offer, advise, ask about, must; consider; do not offer, must not |
FMS (2019), 20198-10 | The Netherlands | Systematic review | Evidence based, according to the AGREE criteria for guidelines | Quality descends in the order: A1, A2, B, C, D (EO) | The recommendation strength descends in the order: Level 1, 2, 3, 4 (EO) |
SEOM (2019), 202011 | Spain | Review | The Infectious Diseases Society of America Grading System | I–III indicate the descending quality of evidence | A–E signify the strength of the recommendation changing from for to against use |
China | |||||
CSCO (2020), 202012 | China | Based on evidence, accessibility, and EO | Guideline Committee | Quality descends in the order: 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3 | I, II, III, not recommend/against |
CSTRO (2020), 202013 | China | Based on evidence and EO | NI | NI | NI |
CMA (2019), 201914 | China | International guidelines and the actual situation in China | Guideline Committee | NI | Category 1, 2A, 2B, and 3 |
All of the recommendations are category 2A unless otherwise noted.
The NICE committee assesses the quality for each study, instead of making a whole assess for all the referred studies.
Abbreviations: EC, expert consensus; EO, expert opinion; NI, no information; SOR, strength of recommendation (grade of recommendation);
Abbreviations for guidelines:
CCO, the Cancer Care Ontario's (CCO's) Lung Cancer Disease Site Group (DSG);
ASTRO, the American Society for Radiation Oncology;
ARS, the American Radium Society (ARS) Thoracic Appropriate Use Criteria Committee (AUC);
NCCN, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network;
ESMO, the European Society for Medical Oncology;
NICE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence;
FMS, Federatie Medisch Specialisten;
SEOM, the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology;
CSCO, the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology;
CSTRO, the Chinese Society for Radiation Oncology;
CMA, the Chinese Medical Association.
3.2. Developing methods of guidelines
All guidelines are evidence based, of which three are based on non-systematic literature reviews (SEOM17, NCCN21, ESMO22), five are based on systematic reviews (CCO16, ARS19,20, ASTRO18, FMS24, 25, 26, NICE23), and three have no related information (CSCO27, CSTRO28, CMA29). Nine guidelines assessed the strength of evidence (SOE)16, 17, 18, 19, 20,22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,30 and specified the strength of recommendation (SOR)17, 18, 19, 20,22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,30, but both the assessment methods as well as the reported forms are different. Eight committees assessed the overall SOR of all related evidences17, 18, 19, 20,22,24, 25, 26, 27, 28,30, while the NICE committee assessed the SOR for each study23. SOE and SOR classification are different for the guidelines as presented in Table 1. The quality assessments are also different. Two committees used the Infectious Diseases Society of America grading system or the adapted version (SEOM17, ESMO22), two used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument (NICE23, FMS24, 25, 26), two used the modified Delphi (ASTRO18, ARS19,20), CCO used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool16, three depended on the committee discussion (NCCN21, CSCO27, CMA29), and CSTRO did not specify related information28 (Table 1).
3.3. Recommendations of guidelines
3.3.1. Stage I–IIA (cT1–T2, N0, M0)
For patients with resected stage I-IIA SCLC, guidelines that provide recommendations state that TRT in patients with pathological N2 can be considered (SEOM17, ASTRO18, ARS19,20, NCCN21, ESMO22, FMS24, 25, 26, CSCO27, CMA29, CCO16, NICE23) or R1-2 (SEOM17, ARS19,20, CMA29), but for pN1, the recommendations are discrepant. The SEOM17, ARS19,20, CSTRO28, and CMA29 recommend TRT, NCCN21 and CSCO27 suggest that TRT may be considered, while ASTRO does not recommend TRT18, and other guidelines have no related information. PCI is recommended in FMS24, 25, 26 and CSCO27, not recommended in SEOM17, and others state PCI can be considered (ASTRO18, ARS19,20, ESMO22, CSTRO28, CMA29, NCCN21) (Table 2).
Table 2.
Recommendations of Guidelines: Stage I–IIA (cT1–T2, N0, M0)*.
![]() |
For patients with stage I-II disease not surgically treated, chemoradiotherapy is recommended in all guidelines. Six guidelines further suggest that SBRT could be considered (SEOM17, ASTRO18, ARS19,20, CSCO27, CSTRO28, NCCN21). PCI is recommended in CSCO27, but not recommended in SEOM17. ASTRO18 and ESMO22 manage PCI the same as in resected stage I-IIA. ARS recommends PCI in patients who are at risk for being lost to follow-up19,20. CSTRO suggests that this can be decided based on each patient's specific status and willingness28. Others manage it the same as in stage IIB-IIIC (NCCN21, NICE23, FMS24, 25, 26, CMA29) (Table 2).
3.3.2. Stage IIB–IIIC (cT3–4, N0, M0; T1–4, N1–3, M0)
For patients with stage IIB-IIIC disease, all guidelines prefer concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). Most guidelines advise to start radiotherapy (45 Gy twice-daily [BID] or 60-70 Gy once-daily [QD] [SEOM17, ASTRO18, ARS19,20, NCCN21, NICE23, CSCO27, CSTRO28, CMA29, CCO16]) preferably at the first or second cycle of chemotherapy (SEOM17, ASTRO18, ARS19,20, NCCN21, NICE23, ESMO22, CSCO27, CSTRO28, CMA29). The CCO16 advises to start radiotherapy as early as possible, and the FMS24, 25, 26 advises to start within 30 days from the start of chemotherapy. The ESMO22 and the FMS24, 25, 26 specifically advise 45 Gy BID.
As for the radiotherapy volume, the SEOM advises that the primary tumor before-chemotherapy should be included. Six guidelines recommend that the primary tumor post-chemotherapy (ASTRO18, NCCN21, ESMO22, FMS24, 25, 26, CSCO27, CSTRO28) and the involved nodal regions before chemotherapy (SEOM17, ASTRO18, NCCN21, ESMO22, CSCO27, CSTRO28) should be included. Four guidelines advise omission of elective nodal irradiation (ENI) (ASTRO18, ARS19,20, ESMO22, FMS24, 25, 26). Others have no related information.
All applicable guidelines recommend PCI (25 Gy) in patients who have achieved response to initial therapy. PCI should be started 3-4 weeks after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) (n=3, CSCO27, CSTRO28, CMA29), within 60 days after completing of chemotherapy (n=1, FMS24, 25, 26), after initial therapy (n=2, SEOM17, NCCN21), or no time period is specified (ASTRO18, ARS19,20, NICE23, ESMO22). The recommendation to hippocampal-avoidance PCI (HA-PCI) is controversial (can be considered: NCCN21, CSCO27, CSTRO28; to be defined: ASTRO18; consider in clinical trial: ARS19,20; no benefit: ESMO22) (Table 3).
Table 3.
Recommendations of Guidelines: Stage IIB–IIIC (cT3–4, N0, M0; T1–4, N1–3, M0)*.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
3.3.3. Stage IV (extensive disease)
For stage IV patients, five guidelines recommend ICI (atezolizumab or durvalumab) and chemotherapy, followed by maintenance ICI as first-line treatment in patients with good performance status (PS) (SEOM17, NCCN21, ESMO22, CSCO27, CSTRO28), while others have no related information. Consolidative TRT is advised in all guidelines for patients who responded to chemotherapy but have residual thoracic disease. TRT dose recommendations are summarized in Table 4. The recommendations about TRT in patients treated with chemo-ICI and afterwards maintenance ICI are not clear (Table 4)30.
Table 4.
Recommendations of Guidelines: Stage IV (extensive disease)*.
![]() |
![]() |
Six guidelines recommend PCI in patients with good response and good PS (SEOM17, ESMO22, CSCO27, CMA29, NICE23, ARS19,20). The NCCN recommends that PCI may be considered21. The ASTRO suggests shared decision making for either PCI or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance18. The ARS notes as well that if cranial MRI surveillance is available, PCI can be withheld19,20. The FMS28 and the CSTRO28 also recommend PCI if MRI surveillance is not convenient. Two guidelines recommend MRI surveillance regardless of PCI status (SEOM17, NCCN21). All applicable guidelines advise whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) in patients with brain metastases (BM) (Table 4).
4. Discussion
Guidelines are very important to help clinicians treat patients properly. However, multiple guidelines exist and updates are regularly needed, which is burdensome for guideline committees. We compared the radiotherapy recommendations in 11 current SCLC guidelines from different countries and continents and found that most of the recommendations are similar, with some differences in controversial fields.
One possible reason for the existing differences is that methods of development (e.g. systematic vs. non-systematic literature review) for the guidelines differ, which might influence the recommendations. A systematic review of the literature ensures that studies are identified according to pre-specified criteria and that no studies are missed, but is also more time consuming. Additionally, committees use different methods to evaluate the SOE and specify the SOR, which might also influence the recommendations given. Furthermore, it can be confusing to readers. For example, the SEOM17 and ESMO22 classify the SOE into “I, II, III (IV, V)”, while the FMS24, 25, 26 and CSCO27 use “1, 2, 3 (4) / I, II, III (not recommend/ against)” to describe the SOR. A more uniform way to report SOE and SOR is needed to avoid misunderstanding. The recommendation differences in controversial fields are discussed below.
4.1. SBRT in early stage SCLC
SBRT is considered for patients with very early stage SCLC in six guidelines, but the SOE is not very high. As it is the standard of care for inoperable early stage NSCLC23,29, SBRT has often been extrapolated to early stage SCLC. Verma et al. reviewed 74 inoperable stage I (T1-2N0) patients with SBRT and found that SBRT together with chemotherapy (92% sequentially) resulted in appropriate outcome5, adding that chemotherapy would improve overall survival (OS) (median OS, 31.4 vs. 14.3 months, P = 0.02)6. Li et al. conducted a phase II study to investigate the role of SBRT in 29 patients with limited stage-SCLC (LS-SCLC) and found that SBRT (40-45 Gy in 10 fractions) concurrent with chemotherapy was safe and effective4. A randomized phase II trial (NCT02738723) is ongoing, comparing SBRT and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in LS-SCLC31, which will hopefully provide more information. As SBRT can shorten the radiation courses, which could mitigate the risk of infecting SARS-CoV-232,33, we presume it would be suitable to try SBRT in selected early stage patients, especially in the current time when COVID-19 is prevalent.
4.2. TRT in resected stage I-IIA SCLC patients with pN1
The use of TRT in resected stage I-IIA SCLC patients with pN1 is controversial among guidelines, although the recommendations are sometimes based on the same study or even on retrospective studies (which are often not considered in clinical guidelines). SEOM17 and NCCN30 recommend TRT without providing the background literature. ARS gives a suggestion based on expert consensus19. CSTRO28 advises TRT because a small retrospective study including a limited number of patients with N1 disease (pN1: n=20; cN1: n=10) showed that post-operative radiotherapy (PORT) prolonged OS in that subgroup34. CMA29 gives a recommendation based on two studies (one based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] database, in which 241 patients underwent PORT35, and the other based on the National Cancer Database [NCDB], in which 448 patients underwent PORT36). However, both studies showed that PORT was not significantly associated with survival in patients with pN1. CSCO27 recommends this treatment because the NCDB study showed that the 5-year OS was numerically higher in the PORT group (33.3% vs. 27.7%, P = 0.22)36. However, the ASTRO18 committee does not recommend radiotherapy based on the same study36, as they claim that the benefit-to-harm ratio is likely even less advantageous for N0-1 disease than N2 disease.
4.3. TRT dose and timing
Most guidelines advise to start TRT at the first or second cycle of chemotherapy37, 38, 39, 40. Either 45 Gy BID or 60-70 Gy QD is advised based on the CONVERT trial results (although the trial did not prove that 60-70 Gy QD was as effective as 45 Gy BID, in several guidelines except ESMO and FMS, the CONVERT results were interpreted as so that 60-70 Gy was also an option)41. CCO16 advises starting TRT as early as possible based on committee consensus, while FMS24, 25, 26 advises to start TRT within 30 days from the start of chemotherapy, because a meta-analysis showed that shorter SER (< 30 days) improved the 5-year OS by more than 20%.
(RR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.49, 0.80; P = 0.0003)42, which was confirmed in an individual patient data meta-analysis43.
4.4. TRT target volume
Most guidelines with information on this topic recommend that the primary tumor post-chemotherapy and the involved nodal regions before chemotherapy should be included, while ENI should be omitted. The SEOM17 guideline emphasizes that the primary tumor before-chemotherapy should also be included. They cite the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 39808 trial44. However, residual primary tumor post-chemotherapy was included in this study and the reasons for the SEOM recommendation remain unclear.
4.5. PCI in resected stage I-IIA
FMS24, 25, 26 gives a recommendation based on two studies (one retrospective study, n=9545, and one non-randomized study, in which 36/104 patients received PCI46) showing that combination of surgery, chemotherapy, TRT, and PCI could achieve promising results in stages I and II45,46, but the SOE and SOR are not high ([3, C]). CSCO27 makes a recommendation [II, category 1] based on the meta-analysis of Auperin et al47. This study showed that PCI decreased BM and improved OS in patients with complete remission. However, the PCI benefit in the subgroup of resected stage I-IIA was not clear. CSCO27 also noted that PCI benefit might be lower in patients with stage I because the BM incidence is relatively low (<10%)48. SEOM17 does not recommend PCI because a meta-analysis showed that the BM incidence in patients with p-stage I was low (5-year BM incidence: 12%)49. ASTRO18 does not recommend PCI in stage I because of the risk-benefit ratio consideration: Several studies have shown that the BM incidence is low and the OS benefit remains unestablished in this subgroup49, 50, 51, while on the other hand, PCI might have negative effect on neurocognitive function52 and quality of life53. ARS recommends PCI in patients who are at risk for being lost to follow-up [-, L]19,20, but states that the advice is controversial because the evidence is very limited54,55. In this field, the controversy between guidelines results from the lack of high quality evidence.
4.6. PCI in stage I-IIA without surgery
This remains controversial as there is a lack of high-level evidence. CSCO27, SEOM17, ASTRO18, and ESMO22 manage it the same as resected stage I-IIA. ARS recommends PCI in patients who are at risk for being lost to follow-up based on experts opinion ([-, EO])19,20. CSTRO28 suggests that this can be decided based on each patient's specific status and willingness. Others manage it the same as stage IIB-IIIC (NCCN21, NICE23, FMS24, 25, 26, CMA29). The reasons are similar for controversial recommendations of HA-PCI. To date, the Dutch NCT01780675 trial 56 and the Spanish PREMER trial57 have drawn conflicting conclusions. Other ongoing trials have been discussed extensively in another review58. More data are needed to define this issue.
4.7. Timing of PCI
This remains not very clear. The FMS24, 25, 26 recommends PCI within 60 days after completion of chemotherapy based on two publications47,59. In the randomized clinical trial, the interval between end of chemotherapy and start of PCI was 46 days (0-318) in standard dose group vs. 42 days (3-271) in higher dose group59. The meta-analysis showed a trend (P = 0.001) that earlier administration of PCI after induction therapy (<4, 4-6, >6 months) could decrease BM risk without an effect on OS47, but it didn't establish the precise optimal timing of PCI. The Chinese societies recommend starting PCI 3-4 weeks after CRT27, 28, 29, but the evidence is unclear. SEOM17 and NCCN21 recommend applying PCI after initial therapy, but without a reference as well. Other guidelines do not specify the PCI timing, and timing remains a grey area.
4.8. PCI in ES-SCLC
Both PCI and cranial MRI surveillance are recommended in extensive stage-SCLC (ES-SCLC). The SEOM17 and NCCN21 recommend MRI surveillance regardless of PCI status. The different recommendations are mainly based on two randomized phase III trials7,8, which have demonstrated contradictory OS results in patients with ES-SCLC. The EORTC trial showed that PCI reduced symptomatic BM incidence (HR, 0.27; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.44; P < 0.001; 1 year BM: 14.6% in the PCI group vs. 40.4% in the control group) and improved OS (1 year OS: 27.1% in the PCI group vs. 13.3% in the control group, P = 0.003)7. In contrast, the Japanese trial showed no OS improvement (HR, 0.27; 95% CI: 0.96, 1.68; P = 0.094 ) despite a reduction in BM incidence (1 year BM: 32.9% in the PCI group vs. 59.2% in the control group, P < 0.0001) 8. Major differences in trial design (primary endpoint, MRI screening and follow-up) are probably the explanation for the differences in the outcomes. The NICE committee specified that the Japanese trial was not applicable for the UK because the UK has much less MRI scanners per million population than Japan (6 versus 52). Therefore, such a frequent MRI follow-up was impractical in the UK60, as in many other countries worldwide. However, the EORTC trial was much more applicable for the UK since most of the study centers were in Europe and approximately half were in the UK60. Hence, in addition to the clinical benefits, committees also take cost-effectiveness and value-based measures into consideration. The accessibilities to facilities are different across nations or areas. This is another cause of the recommendation differences.
4.9. TRT and PCI with ICI
The rapid development of ICI has brought the treatment of ES-SCLC to a new era. Based on the IMpower 133 trial12, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved atezolizumab in combination with etoposide and carboplatin for the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC on March 18, 2019, followed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) on September 6, 2019. Based on the CASPIAN trial13, the FDA approved durvalumab in combination with etoposide and either cisplatin or carboplatin for the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC on March 27, 2020, followed by EMA on July 23, 2020. Therefore, guidelines recommend both atezolizumab and durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment in ES-SCLC17,22,30 except for the CSCO guideline, which recommends atezolizumab as level I SOR and durvalumab as level III of SOR since the Chinese National Medical Products Administration (NMPI) approved atezolizumab in February, 2020 , but has not approved durvalumab yet27. However, the combination of TRT and PCI in this new setting remains unclear because of the paucity of related data. In the IMpower 133 trial12, patients with treated asymptomatic BM were eligible. PCI was allowed after completing the induction phase, but the detailed timing was not specified. Only 10.9% (44/403, 22 in each group) patients received PCI. In the CASPIAN trial13, patients with asymptomatic or treated BM were eligible. PCI was allowed in the chemotherapy group but not in the two durvalumab arms. TRT was not allowed in both trials. Yet, the ASTRO committee recommends that TRT could be applied within 6-8 weeks after completing chemotherapy combined with ICI based on expert opinion18. The NCCN21 advises that TRT could be considered after chemo-ICI, before or during maintenance ICI30. The ARS committee also suggests that TRT could be appropriate, but denotes that the optimal sequencing is lacking20. Hopefully, the ongoing NRG LU005 trial (atezolizumab in LS-SCLC) and NRG LU007 trial (atezolizumab in ES-SCLC)61,62 will offer more experience in this issue.
In summary, despite the face that the developing methods can be different, most guidelines make similar radiotherapy recommendations, though the SOE and SOR can be slightly different. Some controversial areas exist, as discussed before. The differences seem to be due to a paucity of high quality evidence, evidence selection, certain evidence interpretation, cost-effective considerations, accessibility to facilities or drugs, etc.
The similarities between guidelines reflect the fact that much of the work by different organizations or societies is repeated and overlaps, which might be unnecessary. On the other hand, each guideline gives no information on certain aspects. For example, the ASTRO18 and ESMO22 guidelines do not cover WBRT for BM. That is, no single guideline is perfect and can guide clinicians throughout all different clinical problems/presentations. Therefore, we appeal for a better international collaboration to allow colleagues worldwide to collaborate more efficiently and avoid duplicating unnecessary work. Experts from all over the world could work together for one “global” guideline based on the current evidence and each society can adapt a specific version based on their own social development, and economic and facility status, with consideration of the potential impact of the guideline on the legal consequences in medical controversies. Endorsement63 or joint guidelines64 among multiple societies are good examples. This can save considerable energy and resources so that more efforts could be focused on making new progress, such as further investigating the controversial or unknown areas. Clinicians would also be able to stay abreast of guidelines and updates more efficiently.
5. Conclusion
The major radiotherapy principles are consistent across guidelines. This reveals that experts worldwide might be duplicating unnecessary work. We suggest better international collaboration to save energy and resources. More efforts should be devoted to solving the controversial or unknown problems.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by China Scholarship Council (CSC 201909370087). We sincerely thank Prof. Nan Bi from Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China and Prof. Xudong Hu from Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University (Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences), Jinan, China for their responses to inquiries about the guidelines. We sincerely thank Prof. Gabriel Campbell from the Language Center, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands for writing skill consultation.
Author contributions
F.K., H.Z., D.R., and L.H. conceived this study. H.Z. and L.H. searched guidelines. H.Z. extracted the data, compared the guidelines, and analyzed the results. D.R. and L.H. supervised the whole process. H.Z., L.H. and D.R. draft the manuscript, F.K., X.H., D.Z., U.R. and L.Y. revised it.
Footnotes
This abstract was presented as poster in 2021 WCLC. Given her role as Guest Editor, Feng-Ming Spring Kong had no involvement in the peer-review of this article and has no access to information regarding its peer-review. Full responsibility for the editorial process for this article was delegated to Mei Wang.
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.jncc.2022.02.003.
Appendix. Supplementary materials
References
- 1.Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. National Cancer Institute; Bethesda, MD: 2020. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2017.https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2017/ based on November 2019 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2020. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, et al. Cancer Statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(1):7–33. doi: 10.3322/caac.21654. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts & Figures 2021 . American Cancer Society; Atlanta: 2021. https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts-figures/cancer-facts-figures-2021.html , 2021. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Li C, Xiong Y, Zhou Z, et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy extends survival of patients with limited stage small cell lung cancer: a single-center prospective phase II study. Med Oncol. 2014;31(12):369. doi: 10.1007/s12032-014-0369-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Verma V, Simone CB, 2nd, Allen PK, et al. Multi-Institutional Experience of Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy for Stage I Small Cell Lung Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;97(2):362–371. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.10.041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Verma V, Simone CB, 2nd, Allen PK, et al. Outcomes of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for T1-T2N0 Small Cell Carcinoma According to Addition of Chemotherapy and Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation: A Multicenter Analysis. Clin Lung Cancer. 2017;18(6):675–681.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2017.03.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Slotman B, Faivre-Finn C, Kramer G, et al. Prophylactic cranial irradiation in extensive small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(7):664–672. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa071780. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Takahashi T, Yamanaka T, Seto T, et al. Prophylactic cranial irradiation versus observation in patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(5):663–671. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30230-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Slotman BJ, Faivre-Finn C, van Tinteren H, et al. Which patients with ES-SCLC are most likely to benefit from more aggressive radiotherapy: A secondary analysis of the Phase III CREST trial. Lung Cancer. 2017;108:150–153. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2017.03.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Slotman BJ, van Tinteren H, Praag JO, et al. Use of thoracic radiotherapy for extensive stage small-cell lung cancer: a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9962):36–42. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(14)61085-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Goldman JW, Dvorkin M, Chen Y, et al. Durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide alone in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): updated results from a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(1):51–65. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(20)30539-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Horn L, Mansfield AS, Szczęsna A, et al. First-Line Atezolizumab plus Chemotherapy in Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(23):2220–2229. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1809064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Paz-Ares L, Dvorkin M, Chen Y, et al. Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10212):1929–1939. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(19)32222-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Liu SV, Reck M, Mansfield AS, et al. Updated Overall Survival and PD-L1 Subgroup Analysis of Patients With Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Atezolizumab, Carboplatin, and Etoposide (IMpower133) J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(6):619–630. doi: 10.1200/jco.20.01055. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7) doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Sun A, Durocher-Allen LD, Ellis PM, et al. Guideline for the Initial Management of Small Cell Lung Cancer (Limited and Extensive Stage) and the Role of Thoracic Radiotherapy and First-line Chemotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2018;30(10):658–666. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2018.06.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Dómine M, Moran T, Isla D, et al. SEOM clinical guidelines for the treatment of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) (2019) Clin Transl Oncol. 2020;22(2):245–255. doi: 10.1007/s12094-020-02295-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Simone CB, 2nd, Bogart JA, Cabrera AR, et al. Radiation Therapy for Small Cell Lung Cancer: An ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2020;10(3):158–173. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2020.02.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Chun SG, Simone CB, 2nd, Amini A, et al. American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria: Radiation Therapy for Limited-Stage SCLC 2020. J Thorac Oncol. 2021;16(1):66–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.10.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Higgins KA, Simone CB, 2nd, Amini A, et al. American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria on Radiation Therapy for Extensive-Stage SCLC. J Thorac Oncol. 2021;16(1):54–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.09.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN): NCCN Guidelines: Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 2.2021, 2021
- 22.Dingemans AC, Früh M, Ardizzoni A, et al. Small-cell lung cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up(☆) Ann Oncol. 2021;32(7):839–853. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.03.207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Clinical Guidelines, Lung cancer: diagnosis and management. London, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK) Copyright © NICE 2019., 2019
- 24.Kleincellig longcarcinoom - Eerste keuze chemoradiatieschema bij SCLC stadium I-III. https://richtlijnendatabase.nl/richtlijn/kleincellig_longcarcinoom/behandeling_limited_disease/kleincellig_longcarcinoom_-_eerste_keuze_chemoradiatieschema_bij_sclc.html, 2019
- 25.Kleincellig longcarcinoom - MRI-stadiëring en follow-up bij PCI. https://richtlijnendatabase.nl/richtlijn/kleincellig_longcarcinoom/eerstelijnsbehandeling_extensive_disea/kleincellig_longcarcinoom_-_mri-stadi_ring_en_-follow-up_bij_pci.html, 2019
- 26.Kleincellig longcarcinoom - Thoracale bestraling na chemotherapie bij SCLC. https://richtlijnendatabase.nl/richtlijn/kleincellig_longcarcinoom/eerstelijnsbehandeling_extensive_disea/kleincellig_longcarcinoom_-_thoracale_bestraling_na_chemotherapie_bij_sclc.html, 2019
- 27.Guidelines of Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) People's Medical Publishing House; Beijing: 2020. Small-Cell Lung Cancer. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Radiation Oncology Branch of Chinese Medical Association, Radiation Oncologist Branch of Chinese Medical Doctor Association Professional Committee on Radiation Oncology. Clinical Anti-Cancer Association Experts Committee on Radiation Oncology. Clinical practice guideline for radiation therapy in small cell lung cancer (2020 version) Chin J Radiat Oncol. 2020;29(8):599–607. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn113030-20200528-00285. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Chinese Medical Association guidelines for clinical diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer (2019 edition) Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2020;42(4):257–287. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112152-20200120-00049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN): NCCN Guidelines: Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 2.2021. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/sclc.pdf, 2021
- 31.Yang X: SBRT Compared With IMRT Concurrently With Chemotherapy in Treating Patients With LS-SCLC. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02738723, 2022
- 32.Zaorsky NG, Yu JB, McBride SM, et al. Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy Recommendations in Response to COVID-19. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020;5(4):659–665. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2020.03.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Ng SSW, Ning MS, Lee P, et al. Single-Fraction Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: A Paradigm During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic and Beyond? Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020;5(4):761–773. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2020.06.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Liu WS, Zhao LJ, Wang S, et al. Benefits of postoperative radiotherapy in multimodality treatment of resected small-cell lung cancer with lymph node metastasis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(9):1156–1162. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2014.02.232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Schreiber D, Rineer J, Weedon J, et al. Survival outcomes with the use of surgery in limited-stage small cell lung cancer: should its role be re-evaluated? Cancer. 2010;116(5):1350–1357. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24853. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Wong AT, Rineer J, Schwartz D, et al. Assessing the Impact of Postoperative Radiation Therapy for Completely Resected Limited-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Using the National Cancer Database. J Thorac Oncol. 2016;11(2):242–248. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2015.10.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Takada M, Fukuoka M, Kawahara M, et al. Phase III study of concurrent versus sequential thoracic radiotherapy in combination with cisplatin and etoposide for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer: results of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study 9104. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(14):3054–3060. doi: 10.1200/jco.2002.12.071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Wong AT, Rineer J, Schwartz D, et al. Effect of Thoracic Radiotherapy Timing and Fractionation on Survival in Nonmetastatic Small Cell Lung Carcinoma. Clin Lung Cancer. 2017;18(2):207–212. doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2016.07.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.De Ruysscher D, Pijls-Johannesma M, Vansteenkiste J, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, controlled trials of the timing of chest radiotherapy in patients with limited-stage, small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2006;17(4):543–552. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdj094. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Fried DB, Morris DE, Poole C, et al. Systematic review evaluating the timing of thoracic radiation therapy in combined modality therapy for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(23):4837–4845. doi: 10.1200/jco.2004.01.178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Faivre-Finn C, Snee M, Ashcroft L, et al. Concurrent once-daily versus twice-daily chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (CONVERT): an open-label, phase 3, randomised, superiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(8):1116–1125. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30318-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.De Ruysscher D, Pijls-Johannesma M, Bentzen SM, et al. Time between the first day of chemotherapy and the last day of chest radiation is the most important predictor of survival in limited-disease small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(7):1057–1063. doi: 10.1200/jco.2005.02.9793. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.De Ruysscher D, Lueza B, Le Péchoux C, et al. Impact of thoracic radiotherapy timing in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer: usefulness of the individual patient data meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(10):1818–1828. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdw263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Bogart JA, Herndon JE, 2nd, Lyss AP, et al. 70 Gy thoracic radiotherapy is feasible concurrent with chemotherapy for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer: analysis of Cancer and Leukemia Group B study 39808. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59(2):460–468. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2003.10.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Granetzny A, Boseila A, Wagner W, et al. Surgery in the tri-modality treatment of small cell lung cancer. Stage-dependent survival. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006;30(2):212–216. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2006.05.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Rea F, Callegaro D, Favaretto A, et al. Long term results of surgery and chemotherapy in small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1998;14(4):398–402. doi: 10.1016/s1010-7940(98)00203-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Aupérin A, Arriagada R, Pignon JP, et al. Prophylactic cranial irradiation for patients with small-cell lung cancer in complete remission. Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation Overview Collaborative Group. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(7):476–484. doi: 10.1056/nejm199908123410703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Gong L, Wang QI, Zhao L, et al. Factors affecting the risk of brain metastasis in small cell lung cancer with surgery: is prophylactic cranial irradiation necessary for stage I-III disease? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(1):196–200. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.03.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Yang Y, Zhang D, Zhou X, et al. Prophylactic cranial irradiation in resected small cell lung cancer: A systematic review with meta-analysis. J Cancer. 2018;9(2):433–439. doi: 10.7150/jca.21465. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Zhu H, Guo H, Shi F, et al. Prophylactic cranial irradiation improved the overall survival of patients with surgically resected small cell lung cancer, but not for stage I disease. Lung Cancer. 2014;86(3):334–338. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2014.09.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Xu J, Yang H, Fu X, et al. Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation for Patients with Surgically Resected Small Cell Lung Cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12(2):347–353. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2016.09.133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Rule WG, Foster NR, Meyers JP, et al. Prophylactic cranial irradiation in elderly patients with small cell lung cancer: findings from a North Central Cancer Treatment Group pooled analysis. J Geriatr Oncol. 2015;6(2):119–126. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2014.11.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Le Pechoux C, Laplanche A, Faivre-Finn C, et al. Clinical neurological outcome and quality of life among patients with limited small-cell cancer treated with two different doses of prophylactic cranial irradiation in the intergroup phase III trial (PCI99-01, EORTC 22003-08004, RTOG 0212 and IFCT 99-01) Ann Oncol. 2011;22(5):1154–1163. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdq576. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Früh M, De Ruysscher D, Popat S, et al. Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC): ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013;24 Suppl 6:vi99–105. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Bloom BC, Augustyn A, Sepesi B, et al. Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation Following Surgical Resection of Early-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Review of the Literature. Front Oncol. 2017;7:228. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2017.00228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Belderbos J, De Ruysscher D, De Jaeger K, et al. Phase III randomized trial of Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation with or without Hippocampus Avoidance in SCLC ( NCT01780675) J Thorac Oncol. 2021;16(5):840–849. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.12.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Rodríguez de Dios N, Couñago F, Murcia-Mejía M, et al. Randomized Phase III Trial of Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation With or Without Hippocampal Avoidance for Small-Cell Lung Cancer (PREMER): A GICOR-GOECP-SEOR Study. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(28):3118–3127. doi: 10.1200/jco.21.00639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Zeng H, Hendriks LEL, van Geffen WH, et al. Risk factors for neurocognitive decline in lung cancer patients treated with prophylactic cranial irradiation: A systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev. 2020;88 doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2020.102025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Le Péchoux C, Dunant A, Senan S, et al. Standard-dose versus higher-dose prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer in complete remission after chemotherapy and thoracic radiotherapy (PCI 99-01, EORTC 22003-08004, RTOG 0212, and IFCT 99-01): a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(5):467–474. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(09)70101-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Team NGU: Evidence reviews for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic cranial irradiation to prevent brain metastases in people with extensive SCLC: Lung cancer: diagnosis and management: Evidence review H. London, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK) Copyright © NICE 2019., 2019 [PubMed]
- 61.Chemoradiation With or Without Atezolizumab in Treating Patients With Limited Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03811002, 2021
- 62.Testing the Addition of Radiation Therapy to the Usual Immune Therapy Treatment (Atezolizumab) for Extensive Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer, The RAPTOR Trial. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04402788, 2021
- 63.Daly ME, Ismaila N, Decker RH, et al. Radiation Therapy for Small-Cell Lung Cancer: ASCO Guideline Endorsement of an ASTRO Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(8):931–939. doi: 10.1200/jco.20.03364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Cancer Care Ontario and American Society of Clinical Oncology Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Adjuvant Radiation Therapy for Stages I-IIIA Resectable Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Guideline. J Oncol Pract. 2007;3(6):332–335. doi: 10.1200/jop.0768503. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.