Abstract
Introduction
We evaluated treatment patterns of elderly patients with stage IIIA(N2) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Methods
The use of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation for patients with stage IIIA(T1-T3N2M0) NSCLC in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database from 2004–2007 was analyzed. Treatment variability was assessed using a multivariable logistic regression model that included treatment, patient, tumor, and census track variables. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier approach and Cox proportional hazard models.
Results
The most common treatments for 2958 patients with stage IIIA(N2) NSCLC were radiation with chemotherapy (n=1065,36%), no treatment (n=534,18%), and radiation alone (n=383,13%). Surgery was used for 709 (24%) patients: 235 (8%) surgery alone; 40 (1%) surgery with radiation, 222 surgery with chemotherapy (8%), and 212 (7%) surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Younger age (p<0.0001), lower T-status (p<0.0001), female gender (p=0.04), and living in a census track with a higher median income (p=0.03) predicted surgery use. Older age (p<0.0001) was the only factor that predicted that patients did not get any therapy. The 3-year OS was 21.8±1.5% for all patients, 42.1±3.8% for patients that had surgery, and 15.4±1.5% for patients that didn’t have surgery. Increasing age, higher T-stage and Charlson Comorbidity index, and not having surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy were all risk factors for worse survival (all p-values<0.001).
Conclusions
Treatment of elderly patients with stage IIIA(N2) NSCLC is highly variable and varies not only with specific patient and tumor characteristics but also with regional income level.
Keywords: non-small cell, stage IIIA, surgery, elderly
Introduction
Stage IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) encompasses a heterogeneous group of patients, including T4N0, T3-4N1, and T1-3N2 [1]. Patients in the subset due to N2 lymph node metastases represent approximately 10% of all patients diagnosed with NSCLC [2]. Multimodality therapy with some combination of surgical resection, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy is the preferred approach for patients with stage IIIA (N2) NSCLC, but the optimal management strategy has not been definitively established by randomized controlled data [3–7]. In particular, the benefit of surgery when radiation and chemotherapy have been used is unclear [8–10]. Induction chemotherapy and radiation therapy followed by surgical resection for patients with stage IIIA disease is feasible but may only provide survival benefit to selected patients [11].
Treatment guidelines reflect the lack of available definitive evidence for this stage of NSCLC. Guidelines such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recognize the need for local therapy in addition to systemic therapy but do not explicitly specify the role of surgery versus radiation therapy [12]. NCCN treatment recommendations for patients pathologically confirmed to have N2 lymph node involvement but not distant metastatic disease include both definitive concurrent chemoradiation and induction chemotherapy followed by surgery if repeat staging does not demonstrate disease progression. The NCCN also recommends consideration of radiation therapy either before or after surgery as well as additional chemotherapy after surgery. Considering the lack of clear data and guidelines that allow several options for treatment, the combination and timing of treatment modalities may have significant variability in clinical practice. Treatment may also vary according to specific patient characteristics, considering that disparities in overall lung cancer treatment and prognosis are known to exist for race, socioeconomic status, educational status, and geographical location [13–26]. This study was designed to examine patterns of care for elderly patients with stage IIIA (N2) NSCLC in a national database and test the hypothesis that non-clinical characteristics play an important role in whether surgery is used for patients. We focused on examining characteristics and outcomes associated with surgery to attempt to understand how patients are selected for surgery in this setting, as randomized trials have failed to definitively show a survival advantage to performing surgical resection in patients that are treated with chemotherapy and radiation [10–11].
Materials and Methods
This study was performed with approval by the Duke University Institutional Review Board. A retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with NSCLC was conducted using the Survival, Epidemiology, and End Results(SEER)–Medicare database, which brings together Medicare administrative claims data with detailed clinical tumor registrydata in a representative sample covering approximately 14% of the United States population across a wide geographic variation [27]. The SEER-Medicare database was initially queried to identify patients with lung cancer from the years 2004–2007. The analysis was limited to the years 2004–2007 to allow appropriate identification of the patients of interest (T1-3N2M0), because earlier data in the database provided overall stage but did not provide detailed T, N, and M status to allow identification of patients who were stage IIIA due to N2 lymph node status. In SEER, the reported stage is the pathologic stage for patients who did not receive any pre-resection treatment. The reported stage is the clinical stage for patients who do not undergo resection or who receive any neo-adjuvant treatment before resection.
From the entire lung cancer cohort, patients who were age 65 or older and definitively identified as having a NSCLC histologic type were selected. Patients younger than 65 years were excluded because thesepatients in the Medicare data consist of individuals who aredisabled or have end-stage renal disease. Only patients who had both continuous Part A and Part B Medicare coverage with no health maintenance organization enrollment at all between one year prior to and six months after diagnosis, or until the month of death for patients who died within six months of diagnosis, were included in the analysis, to minimize the chance that our analysis could fail to capture treatment due to non-Medicare coverage. This requirement that patients had continuous Medicare coverage for one year prior to diagnosis effectively meant that only patients age 66 years or older at the time of diagnosis were included in the analysis. In addition, we excluded patients who did not have a lung cancer diagnosis code in their Medicare claims within two months prior to and three months after the date of their lung cancer diagnosis in SEER, due to concerns that treatment information derived from the Medicare records was potentially inaccurate due to the discrepancy between the lung cancer identified in SEER but seemingly not confirmed in Medicare. For each patient, the Charlson comorbidity index was measured at the date of diagnosis using Medicare records during a year prior to the date of diagnosis according to specifications previously described [28–29]. Patients were identified as having received surgery, radiation, and/or chemotherapy if there was at least one indicator of treatment within six months of diagnosis in the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR), Outpatient Claims, Durable Medical Equipment (DME) and Carrier Claims Medicare files using Health Care Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes, International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis and procedure codes, Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, Revenue Center Codes (RCC), and Diagnostic-related group (DRG) codes as previously described (Appendix Tables 1–3) [30–33]. The date of onset of chemotherapy was identified using methods originally developed for date of disease onset [34].
Appendix Table 1.
Criterion indicating chemotherapy administration based on Medicare claims.
| Code Type | Value |
|---|---|
| HCPCS | C9017, C9127, C9205, C9213, C9214, C9215, C9257, C9414, C9415, C9418, C9420, C9421, C9425, C9427, C9431, C9432, C9440, G0355-G0362 J0182, J8510, J8520, J8521, J8530, J8560, J8565, J8610, J8999, J9000, J9001, J9010, J9035, J9045, J9055, J9060, J9062, J9070, J9080, J9090 to J9097, J9170, J9171, J9180 to J9182, J9190, J9201, J9205, J9206, J9208, J9230, J9250, J9260, J9263, J9264, J9265, J9280, J9290, J9291, J9305, J9350, J9360, J9370, J9375, J9380, J9390, J9999 Q0083, Q0084, Q0085, Q0125, Q0127, Q0128, Q0129, Q2024, S0116, S0178, S0182, S1016, S9329, S9330, S9331 |
| ICD-9 Diagnosis Code | V58.1, V66.2, V67.2 |
| ICD-9 Procedure Code | 99.25 |
| RCC | 0331, 0332, 0335 |
| CPT | 964xx, 965xx |
ICD-9 = International Classification of Disease 9th Revision, HCPCS = Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System, RCC = Revenue Center Code, CPT = Current Procedural Terminology
Appendix Table 3.
Criterion indicating radiation administration based on Medicare claims.
| Code Type | Value |
|---|---|
| HCPCS | G0256, G0261, C1716 TO C1720, C1790 TO C1806, C2616, G0126, G0173, G0174, G0242, G0243, G0251, G0338 TO G0340, 0073T, 0182T, 0082T, 0083T |
| ICD-9 Diagnosis Code | V58.0, V66.1, V67.1 |
| ICD-9 Procedure Code | 92.20, 92.21 TO 92.29, 92.30 TO 92.33, 92.39 |
| RCC | 0280, 0289, 0330, 0333 |
| CPT | 31643, 77260 TO 77999 |
ICD-9 = International Classification of Disease 9th Revision, HCPCS = Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System, RCC = Revenue Center Code, CPT = Current Procedural Terminology
Method of mediastinal staging was assessed as follows. We used the inpatient, outpatient, and physician Medicare claims to search for CPT or HCPCS codes for Computed Tomography (CT) scan, Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scan, mediastinoscopy, mediastinotomy, endobronchial ultrasound, endoscopic ultrasound, or video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery biopsies (Appendix Table 4). Patients were considered to have invasive mediastinal staging if they had mediastinoscopy, mediastinotomy, endobronchial ultrasound, endoscopic ultrasound, or a video-assisted thoracoscopic biopsy. We searched for mediastinal staging procedures performed 3 months before diagnosis through the initiation of treatment or for 3 months after diagnosis in the case of patients who were not treated with any cancer-specific therapy.
Appendix Table 4.
Criterion used to determine staging modality use based on medicare claims, either performed within 3 months prior to date of diagnosis when treatment was used or within 3 months after date of diagnosis in cases where no treatment was used.
| Staging Modality | Medicare Variable |
|---|---|
| Chest Computed Tomography | ICD-9 procedure code: 87.41 HCPCS/CPT: 71250, 71260, 71270, 71275 |
| Positron Emission Tomography | HCPCS/CPT: G0125, G0126, G0210, G0211, G0212, G0234, 78810, 78811, 78812, 78813, 78815, 78816 |
| Mediastinoscopy/ Mediasinotomy | ICD-9 procedure code: 34.22, 34.29 HCPCS/CPT: 39400, 39000, 39010 |
| Endoscopic Ultrasound | HCPCS/CPT: 43231, 43232, 43242, 43259, 76975 |
| Endobronchial Ultrasound | HCPCS/CPT: 31620 |
| Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Mediastinal Biopsy | ICD-9 procedure code: 34.26 HCPCS/CPT: 32605, 32606 |
ICD-9 = International Classification of Disease 9th Revision, HCPCS = Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System, CPT = Current Procedural Terminology
Both univariate and multivariable adjusted logistic regression analyses were performed relating surgery use to the following patient characteristics: age, T stage, gender, race (black versus others), comorbidities, and the following information from the patient’s census tract based on the 2000 census bureau survey: median income, percentage of blacks, percentage of persons 25 years old or older with at least four years college education, and percentage of residents living below the poverty level. Similar logistic regression analysis relating the use of any therapy with the same variables was also performed. Survival analyses were performed both with the Kaplan Meier method comparing survival curves with the log-rank test and with a multivariate adjusted Cox proportional hazard model that included age, T-stage, the Charlson co-morbidity index, and treatment with surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation. A similar survival analysis was repeated on a subset of patients that included only those patients who received some local therapy in the form of either surgery and/or radiation.
Unpaired Student’s t tests were used to compare continuous data, and χ2 for categoric variables. A two-tailed p value of lessthan 0.05 was considered significant. Data are presented as counts (percentages), means (standard deviations), odds ratios (OR), or hazard ratios (HR) [95% confidence intervals (CI)] where appropriate. The SAS 9.2 statistical package (SAS Institute,Cary, North Carolina) was used for statisticalanalyses.
Results
Initially, 136,699 individuals with lung cancer from 2004–2007 were identified in the database, of whom 82,062 were 65 or older with non-small cell histology. Of 6350 patients 65 or older and stage IIIA(N2) NSCLC, 2958 patients who met all inclusion criteria were identified. The details of treatment are listed in table 1. Treatment was quite variable, and there was not a single dominant treatment regimen. The most common treatments were radiation with chemotherapy (n=1065,36%), no treatment (n=534,18%), and radiation alone (n=383,13%). Overall, treatment included surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy in 212 (7%) patients, two of these modalities in some combination in 1327(45%), and only one of these modalities in 885 (30%).
Table 1.
Treatments utilized for 2958 patients with stage IIIA (N2) in the SEER-Medicare database from 2004–2007.
| Treatment | n |
|---|---|
| Trimodal Therapy | |
| Surgery, Radiation, and Chemotherapy | 212 (7%) |
| Radiation before surgery | 68 (2%) |
| Chemotherapy before surgery | 64 (2%) |
| Chemotherapy after surgery | 4 (0.1%) |
| Radiation after surgery | 144 (5%) |
| Chemotherapy before surgery | 11 (0.4%) |
| Chemotherapy after surgery | 133 (5%) |
| Bimodal Therapy | |
| Radiation and Chemotherapy | 1065 (36%) |
| Surgery and Radiation | 40 (1%) |
| Radiation before surgery | 4 (0.1%) |
| Radiation after surgery | 36 (1%) |
| Surgery and Chemotherapy | 222 (8%) |
| Chemotherapy before surgery | 47 (2%) |
| Chemotherapy after surgery | 175 (6%) |
| Unimodal Therapy | |
| Radiation Alone | 383 (13%) |
| Surgery Alone | 235 (8%) |
| Chemotherapy Alone | 267 (9%) |
| No Therapy | 534 (18%) |
Most patients received some form of local therapy with either surgery and/or radiation, although 801 patients (27%) had neither local treatment, with 267 patients (9%) being treated with chemotherapy alone. Chemotherapy was the mostly commonly used modality (n=1766, 60%). Radiation was used in the majority of patients (n=1700, 57%). In the patients that received radiation, no other therapy was used in 23% (n=383), while 63% (n=1065) had radiation with only chemotherapy and 2% (n=40) had radiation with only surgery, but only 12% (n=212) had all three treatment modalities.
Only a minority of patients had surgery (n=709, 24%). Of the 709 patients for whom surgery was used, 235 patients (33%) had surgery alone, 40 (6%) had surgery with radiation only, 222 (31%) had surgery with chemotherapy only, and 212 patients (30%) had all three treatments. Of the 252 patients (8%) who received both surgery and radiation, 72 patients (28%) received pre-operative radiation, and 180 patients (72%) had post-operative radiation. Of the 434 patients who received both surgery and chemotherapy, most (n=322, 74%) were given chemotherapy after surgery. The extent of surgery is listed in table 2, along with the timing of other therapies for each specific surgical approach. Most patients who had surgery had a lobar resection (n=563, 79%), while a minority had either a sublobar resection (n=50, 7%) or a pneumonectomy (n=63, 9%).
Table 2.
Extent of surgery, along with timing related to other therapy, for 709 patients with stage IIIA (N2) in the SEER-Medicare database who had surgery.
| Lobar Resection (n=563) | Sublobar Resection (n=50) | Pneumonectomy (n=63) | Local Treatment (n=32) | Unknown Extent of Surgery (n=1) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surgery Alone | 178 (32%) | 23 (46%) | 24 (38%) | 10 (31%) | 0 |
| Surgery, Chemotherapy, and Radiation | 167 (30%) | 15 (30%) | 19 (31%) | 11 (34%) | 0 |
| Radiation pre-surgery | 55 (10%) | 2 (4%) | 8 (13%) | 3 (9%) | 0 |
| Chemotherapy pre-surgery | 54 (10%) | 2 (4%) | 7 (11%) | 1 (3%) | 0 |
| Chemotherapy post-surgery | 1 (0.2%) | 0 | 1 (2%) | 2 (6%) | 0 |
| Radiation post-surgery | 112 (20%) | 13 (26%) | 11 (18%) | 8 (25%) | 0 |
| Chemotherapy pre-surgery | 9 (2%) | 1 (2%) | 1 (2%) | 0 | 0 |
| Chemotherapy post-surgery | 103 (18%) | 12 (24%) | 10 (16%) | 8 (25%) | 0 |
| Surgery and Chemotherapy | 191 34%) | 7 (14%) | 17 (27%) | 7 (22%) | 0 |
| Chemotherapy pre-surgery | 39 (7%) | 1 (2%) | 6 (10%) | 1 (3%) | 0 |
| Chemotherapy post-surgery | 152 (27%) | 6 (12%) | 11 (17%) | 6 (19%) | 0 |
| Surgery and Radiation | 27 (5%) | 5 (10%) | 3 (5%) | 4 (12%) | 1 (100%) |
| Radiation pre-surgery | 4 (1%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Radiation post-surgery | 23 (4%) | 5 (10%) | 3 (5%) | 4 (12%) | 1 (100%) |
The uses of PET scans and invasive staging modalities are summarized in Table 3. Overall, a PET scan was used for staging in 1615 patients (55%). Invasive mediastinal staging was done in 506 patients (17%). Patients who had surgery were more likely to have had invasive mediastinal staging compared to patients who did not have surgery. Compared to patients who received any therapy, patients who did not receive any therapy were less likely to have been staged with either a PET scan or with invasive mediastinal staging.
Table 3.
Staging Modalities utilized for 2958 patients with stage IIIA (N2) in the SEER-Medicare database from 2004–2007.
| Variable | All patients (n=2958) | Surgery (n=709) | No Surgery (n=2249) | p-value | Any Therapy (n=2424) | No Therapy (n=534) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PET scan | 1615 (55%) | 403 (57%) | 1212 (54%) | 0.7 | 1456 (60%) | 159 (30%) | <0.0001 |
| Invasive Staging | 506 (17%) | 201 (28%) | 305 (14%) | <0.0001 | 468 (19%) | 38 (7%) | <0.0001 |
The characteristics of the patients who had and who did not have surgery are listed in table 4. The factors that predicted the use of surgery in multivariate adjusted analysis were younger age (p<0.0001), lower T stage (p<0.0001), female gender (p=0.04), and living in a census track with a higher median income (p=0.03) (Table 5). The characteristics of the patients who had or did not have any therapy are also listed in table 4. The only factor that predicted that patients did not receive any therapy in multivariate adjusted analysis was older age (p<0.0001) (Table 5).
Table 4.
Specific characteristics of 2958 patients with stage IIIA (N2) in the SEER-Medicare database from 2004–2007, stratified by both whether surgery was used or not and by whether any therapy was used or not.
| Variable | Surgery (n=709) | No Surgery (n=2249) | p-value | Any Therapy (n=2424) | No Therapy (n=534) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Age | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | ||||
| 66–69 | 187 (26%) | 421 (19%) | 525 (22%) | 83 (16%) | ||
| 70–74 | 224 (32%) | 613 (27%) | 703 (29%) | 134 (25%) | ||
| 75–79 | 185 (26%) | 576 (26%) | 638 (26%) | 123 (23%) | ||
| 80–84 | 92 (13%) | 428 (19%) | 398 (16%) | 122 (23%) | ||
| 85+ | 21 (3%) | 211 (9%) | 160 (7%) | 72 (13%) | ||
|
| ||||||
| T stage | <0.0001 | 0.02 | ||||
| T1 | 203 (29%) | 524 (23%) | 620 (26%) | 107 (20%) | ||
| T2 | 453 (64%) | 1367 (61%) | 1476 (61%) | 344 (64%) | ||
| T3 | 53 (7%) | 358 (16%) | 328 (14%) | 83 (16%) | ||
|
| ||||||
| Chemotherapy | 0.35 | <0.0001 | ||||
| Yes | 434 (61%) | 1332 (59%) | 1766 (73%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| No | 275 (39%) | 917 (41%) | 658 (27%) | 534 (100%) | ||
|
| ||||||
| Radiation Therapy | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | ||||
| Yes | 252 (35%) | 1448 (64%) | 1700 (70%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| No | 457 (65%) | 801 (36%) | 724 (30%) | 534 (100%) | ||
|
| ||||||
| Gender | 0.02 | 0.8 | ||||
| Male | 355 (50%) | 1241 (55%) | 1305 (54%) | 291 (54%) | ||
| Female | 354 (50%) | 1008 (45%) | 1119 (46%) | 243 (46%) | ||
|
| ||||||
| Race | 0.001 | 0.5 | ||||
| Black | 37 (5%) | 205 (9%) | 202 (8%) | 40 (7%) | ||
| Not Black | 672 (95%) | 2044 (91%) | 2222 (92%) | 494 (93%) | ||
|
| ||||||
| Charlson | 0.06 | 0.4 | ||||
| Comorbidity Index | ||||||
| 0 | 199 (28%) | 562 (25%) | 632 (26%) | 129 (24%) | ||
| 1 | 176 (25%) | 485 (22%) | 553 (23%) | 108 (20%) | ||
| 2 | 125 (18%) | 436 (19%) | 457 (19%) | 104 (19%) | ||
| 3 | 80 (11%) | 309 (14%) | 309 (13%) | 80 (15%) | ||
| 4+ | 129 (18%) | 457 (20%) | 473 (20%) | 113 (21%) | ||
|
| ||||||
| Census Tract | 53501± | 47759± | <0.0001 | 49719± | 46491± | 0.003 |
| Median Income | 24954 | 21422 | 22968 | 19726 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Census Tract % of Black | 7.4±15.9 | 10.7±21.1 | <0.0001 | 9.6±19.6 | 11.2±21.8 | 0.11 |
|
| ||||||
| Census Tract % of people with 4 year college education | 28.0±18.0 | 24.4±16.4 | <0.0001 | 25.7±17.0 | 23.7±16.0 | 0.02 |
|
| ||||||
| Census Tract % of people living below the poverty line | 9.9±8.6 | 11.8±9.9 | <0.0001 | 11.1±9.5 | 12.5±10 | 0.004 |
Note: continuous data is presented as mean ± standard deviation.
Table 5.
Multivariable models of both the use of surgery and the use of no therapy for 2958 patients with stage IIIA (N2) in the SEER-Medicare database from 2004–2007.
| Outcome = surgery used | Outcome = no therapy used | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Predictor | Odds Ratio | 95% CI | P | Odds Ratio | 95% CI | P |
|
| ||||||
| Age | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | ||||
| 70–74 vs 66–69 | 0.82 | 0.65–1.04 | 1.20 | 0.88–1.62 | ||
| 75–79 vs 66–69 | 0.67 | 0.52–0.86 | 1.21 | 0.89–1.65 | ||
| 80–84 vs 66–69 | 0.45 | 0.33–0.60 | 1.93 | 1.40–2.65 | ||
| 85+ vs 66–69 | 0.24 | 0.15–0.39 | 2.67 | 1.82–3.92 | ||
|
| ||||||
| T stage | <0.0001 | 0.07 | ||||
| T2 vs T1 | 0.91 | 0.74–1.12 | 1.28 | 1.00–1.64 | ||
| T3 vs T1 | 0.42 | 0.30–0.59 | 1.42 | 1.02–1.98 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Census Tract % of people with 4 year college education | 1.00 | 1.00–1.01 | 0.45 | 1.00 | 0.99–1.01 | 0.6 |
|
| ||||||
| Census Tract % of Black | 1.00 | 0.99–1.00 | 0.27 | 1.00 | 1.00–1.01 | 0.2 |
|
| ||||||
| Charlson Comorbidity Index | 0.24 | 0.44 | ||||
| 1 vs 0 | 1.07 | 0.84–1.37 | 0.94 | 0.70–1.26 | ||
| 2 vs 0 | 0.83 | 0.63–1.09 | 1.03 | 0.76–1.39 | ||
| 3 vs 0 | 0.82 | 0.60–1.12 | 1.21 | 0.88–1.68 | ||
| 4+ vs 0 | 0.86 | 0.66–1.12 | 1.19 | 0.89–1.60 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Census Tract Median Income | 1.00 | 1.00–1.00 | 0.03 | 1.00 | 1.00–1.00 | 0.5 |
|
| ||||||
| Race (Black vs Non-black) | 0.70 | 0.45–1.10 | 0.12 | 0.68 | 0.43–1.09 | 0.11 |
|
| ||||||
| Gender (Male vs Female) | 0.83 | 0.70–0.99 | 0.04 | 1.04 | 0.86–1.27 | 0.7 |
|
| ||||||
| Census Tract % of people living below the poverty line | 1.00 | 0.98–1.01 | 0.8 | 1.01 | 0.99–1.02 | 0.32 |
The overall 3-year survival of all patients was 21.8±1.5% (Figure 1a). Patients who had surgery had an overall 3-year survival of 42.1±3.8%, while the overall 3-year survival of patients who did not have surgery was 15.4±1.5% (Figure 1b). In the multivariate adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression model, factors that predicted worse survival were not having surgery, not having radiation therapy, not getting chemotherapy, increasing age, higher T-stage, and a Charlson Comorbidity index of 2 or greater (Table 6).
Figure 1.
A. Survival curve for all patients. B. Survival curve for all patients stratified by surgery versus no surgery. C. Survival curve for all patients who received either surgery and/or radiation. D. Survival curve for all patients who received either surgery and or radiation stratified by surgery versus no surgery.
Table 6.
Multivariable model of survival for 2958 patients with stage IIIA (N2) in the SEER-Medicare database from 2004–2007.
| Predictor | Hazard Ratio | p |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Surgery (no surgery vs surgery) | 2.19 | <0.0001 |
|
| ||
| Radiation (no vs yes) | 1.17 | 0.0009 |
|
| ||
| Chemotherapy (no vs yes) | 1.45 | <0.0001 |
|
| ||
| Age | ||
| 70–74 vs 66–69 | 1.17 | 0.01 |
| 75–79 vs 66–69 | 1.30 | <0.0001 |
| 80–84 vs 66–69 | 1.39 | <0.0001 |
| 85+ vs 66–69 | 1.40 | 0.0002 |
|
| ||
| T stage | ||
| T2 vs T1 | 1.49 | <0.0001 |
| T3 vs T1 | 2.10 | <0.0001 |
|
| ||
| Charlson Comobidity Index | ||
| 1 vs 0 | 1.08 | 0.20 |
| 2 vs 0 | 1.20 | 0.005 |
| 3 vs 0 | 1.25 | 0.002 |
| 4+ vs 0 | 1.36 | <0.0001 |
When only patients who received local therapy with either surgery and/or radiation were included in the survival analysis, the overall 3-year survival was 25.6±1.9% (Figure 1c). As above, patients who had surgery with or without radiation had an overall 3-year survival of 42.1±3.8%. The overall 3-year survival of patients who only had radiation was 17.5±2.0% (Figure 1d). After multivariable adjustment, the risk factors that predicted worse survival were not having surgery, not getting chemotherapy, increasing age, higher T-stage, and Charlson Comorbidity index of 2 or greater (Table 7). In this subset of patients, a tumor T stage of T3 was the strongest predictor of worse survival (HR 1.90, p<0.0001).
Table 7.
Multivariable model of survival for 2157 patients treated with either surgery and/or radiation for stage IIIA (N2) in the SEER-Medicare database from 2004–2007.
| Predictor | Hazard Ratio | P |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Surgery (no surgery vs surgery) | 1.79 | <0.0001 |
|
| ||
| Radiation (no vs yes) | 0.85 | 0.13 |
|
| ||
| Chemotherapy (no vs yes) | 1.43 | <0.0001 |
|
| ||
| Age | ||
| 70–74 vs 66–69 | 1.15 | 0.06 |
| 75–79 vs 66–69 | 1.20 | 0.01 |
| 80–84 vs 66–69 | 1.32 | 0.001 |
| 85+ vs 66–69 | 1.26 | 0.04 |
|
| ||
| T stage | ||
| T2 vs T1 | 1.44 | <0.0001 |
| T3 vs T1 | 1.90 | <0.0001 |
|
| ||
| Charlson Comobidity Index | ||
| 1 vs 0 | 1.09 | 0.26 |
| 2 vs 0 | 1.18 | 0.03 |
| 3 vs 0 | 1.20 | 0.04 |
| 4+ vs 0 | 1.37 | <0.0001 |
Discussion
In this study, we demonstrated that the treatment of elderly patients with stage IIIA(N2) NSCLC in the SEER-Medicare database is highly variable. Radiation is used in the majority of patients (57%), and the most common treatments are radiation with chemotherapy (36%), no treatment (18%), and radiation alone (13%). Surgical resection is utilized as part of the treatment regimen in only 24% of elderly patients. The use of surgery is dependent on patient-specific factors such as age, tumor T-status, and comorbidities, but also socioeconomic factors such as the median income of the census tract where patients live.
Stage IIIA(N2) accounts for a minority but still significant number of patients with lung cancer, considering that lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States with over 222,000 new cases and over 157,000 deaths in 2010 [1,2,35,36]. The reported 5-year survival rates for stage IIIA(N2) vary from 15–42%[2, 4, 7, 9, 37]. Providing treatment that optimizes the chance for cure and minimizes morbidity is critical, and multimodality therapy with some combination of surgical resection, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, is generally considered the preferred approach [3]. Both induction and adjuvant chemotherapy improve survival compared to surgical resection for patients with clinical stage IIIA based on suspected N2 nodal involvement [4–7, 38, 39]. However, the role of adding induction radiation therapy to chemotherapy and even the role of surgery when radiation and chemotherapy have been used is unclear [8–10, 40]. Adding induction radiation therapy to induction chemotherapy has not been shown to give a survival benefit compared to induction chemotherapy alone in randomized controlled trials, phase II studies, or retrospective reviews [35, 41–45]. Induction chemotherapy and radiation therapy (45 Gy) followed by surgical resection for patients with stage IIIA disease has been demonstrated to be feasible, but did not improve survival compared to chemotherapy and radiation (61 Gy) without surgical resection in a randomized phase III study [11]. However, exploratory analysis in this randomized phase III study did suggest that surgical resection might convey some survival benefit over chemotherapy and radiation therapy alone in patients whose surgical resection consisted of lobectomy [11]. In addition, subgroup analysis of the patients that underwent surgical resection demonstrated that patients who had pathological evidence of clearance of disease from their mediastinal lymph nodes after chemotherapy and radiation therapy had improved survival over patients who had persistent nodal disease despite chemotherapy and radiation therapy.
Given the lack of clear evidence to guide treatment, and that many studies have demonstrated potential benefit for several strategies, the results of this study demonstrating variability in the treatment of stage IIIA (N2) patients in a large national cohort are not necessarily unexpected. A significant number of patients (18%) did not receive any treatment at all, with patient age apparently being the most important factor in the treatment decision making process in this setting. The use of surgery in only 24% of patients is not surprising, given the available evidence on the benefits of surgical resection. However, this study does show that certain variables are associated with the use of surgery. The most powerful predictors for the use of surgery are patient and tumor specific, such as age and T stage, and are likely at least in part predictors of patients who may not be medically or technically resectable. These findings suggest that the treatment utilized for many patients is appropriately chosen based on individual patient factors. However, non-medical patient characteristics, notably related to the income level of the census tract where patients live, were also significant predictors for the use of surgery, although the association of this factor with surgery was much weaker than that of the important identified clinical factors. Interestingly, black race was important in predicting the use of surgery in univariate analysis but not multivariate analysis when other factors were considered.
These results are consistent with other studies that have demonstrated disparities in the incidence, treatment, and survival of lung cancer. Blacks have a higher incidence of lung cancer, undergo surgery less often, and have worse survival for resectable lung cancers compared to white patients [13–19]. However, stage-specific survival does not differ between blacks and whites if treatment strategy, comorbidities, patient functional status, and other potential confounding factors are considered [46, 47]. Socioeconomic status, educational status, and geography also contribute importantly to both the incidence of and the outcomes associated with lung cancer [13, 20–26]. Blacks and patients with low socioeconomic status are most likely to present with advanced disease at the time of diagnosis of lung cancer, and are less likely to receive what would be considered the evidence-based standard therapy for all stages of lung cancer [14, 48, 49]. Therefore, the observed disparities can most likely be explained by differences in the way lung cancer patients present, are diagnosed, and ultimately treated. Considering that the results of the current study show that the treatment regimen used for stage IIIA (N2) NSCLC is dependent on the socioeconomic status of the census tract where patients live, part of the treatment variability could be due to differences in the ways patients in lower socioeconomic regions have access to, are offered, or choose therapy.
Although this study suggested a survival benefit to the use of surgery for stage IIIA (N2) NSCLC, the results can not be construed as being definitive evidence of the advantage of surgery over other treatment regimens that do not include surgery. Even when patients are limited to the subset of stage IIIA due to N2 involvement, there is still potentially significant heterogeneity in the extent of nodal involvement. Mediastinal nodal involvement can vary from microscopic disease recognized on pathologic examination after resection or unexpectedly at the time of resection, to non-bulky single station or multistation mediastinal lymph node metastases recognized and proven before any treatment, or bulky multistation N2 disease [3]. These pathologic details are not available in the SEER-Medicare database, and the improved outcomes seen with surgery could possibly be due the preferential use of surgery with more limited nodal involvement. In addition, SEER-Medicare does not contain information on other important clinical variables, including a patient’s overall functional status, pulmonary function data, and smoking status. Surgery may have been preferentially selected for patients with better functional status, better pulmonary function, and less significant current and past smoking use, which are all factors that can impact both treatment selection as well as outcomes such as survival.
This study does have other limitations, including its retrospective nature and reliance on an administrative database in which some data may be missing. The data only includes patients age 65 or older, and these results may not be generalizable to younger patients with lung cancer. Also, including a comorbidity index is helpful in limiting the impact of selection bias based on comorbid conditions, but the comorbidity index does not guarantee that the acuity and severity of comorbid conditions are well balanced between the different groups evaluated. Also, all patients in this study had insurance coverage via Medicare, and therefore the results are not necessarily generalizable to a population of patients that includes uninsured or underinsured patients. Finally, given that SEER did not record details on N status until 2004 and includes follow-up only until 2007, the overall follow-up period for the patients in the study is relatively short. However, use of the population-based SEER-Medicare database has the significant advantage of allowing evaluation of a large number of patients with an uncommon disease stage. The expense and complexity of enrolling patients and performing a study that involves both a relatively uncommon disease stage and potentially a major surgical procedure make it unlikely that a prospective study could ever accumulate anywhere near the number of patients that are available for analysis in this database.
In conclusion, stage IIIA (N2) NSCLC represents a heterogeneous group of patients for which the optimal treatment is not well established. Treatment of elderly patients with this stage of disease is highly variable in the United States and varies with age, T-stage, and socioeconomic factors of the area where patients live. Prior to initiating treatment, multi-disciplinary evaluation of all patients with this stage of lung cancer with appropriate consideration of all potential treatment options may limit variability in care such that only patient and tumor specific factors drive the choice of therapy, which may optimize outcomes while avoiding treatment related morbidity.
Appendix Table 2.
Criterion used to determine surgical procedure based on medicare claims.
| Surgical Procedure | Medicare Variable |
|---|---|
| Pneumonectomy | ICD-9 procedure code: 32.5, 32.50, 32.59 HCPCS/CPT: 31766, 32440, 32442, 32445, 32488 |
| Lobar Resection | ICD-9 procedure code: 32.4, 32.41, 32.49, 32.6 HCPCS/CPT: 32480, 32482, 32485, 32486, 32663 |
| Sublobar Resection | ICD-9 procedure code: 32.20, 32.22, 32.3, 32.30, 32.39 HCPCS/CPT: 32484, 32657, 32500 |
| Local Treatment | ICD-9 procedure code: 32.01, 32.09, 32.1, 32.2, 32.23, 32.24, 32.25, 32.26, 32.28, 32.29 |
| Unknown Extent | ICD-9 procedure code: 32.9 HCPCS/CPT: 32503, 32520, 32522, 32525 |
ICD-9 = International Classification of Disease 9th Revision, HCPCS = Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System, CPT = Current Procedural Terminology
Acknowledgments
Sources of support: This work was supported by the NIH funded Cardiothoracic Surgery Trials Network (M.F.B).
References
- 1.Goldstraw P, Crowley J, Chansky K, et al. The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: proposals for the revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the TNM Classification of malignant tumours. J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2:706–14. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31812f3c1a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Mountain CF. Revisions in the International System for Staging Lung Cancer. Chest. 1997;111:1710–7. doi: 10.1378/chest.111.6.1710. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Robinson LA, Ruckdeschel JC, Wagner H, Jr, et al. Treatment of non-small cell lung cancer-stage IIIA: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (2nd edition) Chest. 2007;132:243S–265S. doi: 10.1378/chest.07-1379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Roth JA, Atkinson EN, Fossella F, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients enrolled in a randomized trial comparing perioperative chemotherapy and surgery with surgery alone in resectable stage IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 1998;21:1–6. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5002(98)00046-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Rosell R, Gómez-Codina J, Camps C, et al. Preresectional chemotherapy in stage IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer: a 7-year assessment of a randomized controlled trial. Lung Cancer. 1999;26:7–14. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5002(99)00045-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Douillard JY, Rosell R, De Lena M, et al. Adjuvant vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus observation in patients with completely resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (Adjuvant Navelbine International Trialist Association [ANITA]): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:719–27. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70804-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Arriagada R, Bergman B, Dunant A, et al. Cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:351–60. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa031644. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Johnstone DW, Byhardt RW, Ettinger D, et al. Phase III study comparing chemotherapy and radiotherapy with preoperative chemotherapy and surgical resection in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with spread to mediastinal lymph nodes (N2); final report of RTOG 89–01. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54:365–9. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(02)02943-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Taylor NA, Liao ZX, Cox JD, et al. Equivalent outcome of patients with clinical Stage IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiation compared with induction chemotherapy followed by surgical resection. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;58:204–12. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(03)01575-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.van Meerbeeck JP, Kramer GW, Van Schil PE, et al. Randomized controlled trial of resection versus radiotherapy after induction chemotherapy in stage IIIA-N2 non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:442–50. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djk093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Albain KS, Swann RS, Rusch VW, et al. Radiotherapy plus chemotherapy with or without surgical resection for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374:379–86. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60737-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ettinger DS, Akerly W, Bepler G, et al. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Non-small cell lung cancer clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2010;8:740–801. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Racial/Ethnic disparities and geographic differences in lung cancer incidence --- 38 States and the District of Columbia, 1998–2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010;59:1434–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Gadgeel SM, Kalemkerian DP. Racial differences in lung cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2003;22:39–46. doi: 10.1023/a:1022207917249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Gadgeel SM, Severson RK, Kau Y, et al. Impact of race in lung cancer: analysis of temporal trends from a surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database. Chest. 2001;120:55–63. doi: 10.1378/chest.120.1.55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Bach PB, Cramer LD, Warren JL, et al. Racial differences in the treatment of early-stage lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1198–205. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199910143411606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.McCann J, Artinian V, Duhaime L, et al. Evaluation of the causes for racial disparity in surgical treatment of early stage lung cancer. Chest. 2005;128:3440–6. doi: 10.1378/chest.128.5.3440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Farjah F, Wood DE, Yanez ND, 3rd, et al. Racial disparities among patients with lung cancer who were recommended operative therapy. Arch Surg. 2009;144:14–8. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2008.519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Cykert S, Dilworth-Anderson P, Monroe MH, et al. Factors associated with decisions to undergo surgery among patients with newly diagnosed early-stage lung cancer. JAMA. 2010;303:2368–76. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.793. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Yin D, Morris C, Allen M, et al. Does socioeconomic disparity in cancer incidence vary across racial/ethnic groups? Cancer Causes Control. 2010;21:1721–30. doi: 10.1007/s10552-010-9601-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Clegg LX, Reichman ME, Miller BA, et al. Impact of socioeconomic status on cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis: selected findings from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results: National Longitudinal Mortality Study. Cancer Causes Control. 2009;20:417–35. doi: 10.1007/s10552-008-9256-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Chu KC, Miller BA, Springfield SA. Measures of racial/ethnic health disparities in cancer mortality rates and the influence of socioeconomic status. J Natl Med Assoc. 2007;99:1092–100. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Albano JD, Ward E, Jemal A, et al. Cancer mortality in the United States by education level and race. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1384–94. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djm127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Booth CM, Li G, Zhang-Salomons J, et al. The impact of socioeconomic status on stage of cancer at diagnosis and survival: a population-based study in Ontario, Canada. Cancer. 2010;116:4160–7. doi: 10.1002/cncr.25427. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Shopland DR, Hartman AM, Gibson JT, et al. Cigarette smoking among U.S. adults by state and region: estimates from the current population survey. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996;88:1748–58. doi: 10.1093/jnci/88.23.1748. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Jemal A, Thun MJ, Ries LA, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2005, featuring trends in lung cancer, tobacco use, and tobacco control. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1672–94. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djn389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, et al. Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population. Med Care. 2002;40:IV-3–18. doi: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000020942.47004.03. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A New Method of Classifying Prognostic Co-Morbidity in Longitudinal-Studies - Development and Validation. Journal of Chronic Diseases. 1987;40:373–383. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Quan HD, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Medical Care. 2005;43:1130–1139. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000182534.19832.83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Farjah F, Wood DE, Yanez D, 3rd, et al. Temporal trends in the management of potentially resectable lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85:1850–5. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.12.081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Farjah F, Flum DR, Ramsey SD, et al. Multi-modality mediastinal staging for lung cancer among medicare beneficiaries. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4:355–63. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e318197f4d9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Lund JL, Stürmer T, Harlan LC, et al. Identifying Specific Chemotherapeutic Agents in Medicare Data: A Validation Study. Med Care. 2011 Nov 10; doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31823ab60f. [Epub ahead of print] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Lamont EB, Herndon JE, 2nd, Weeks JC, et al. Criterion validity of Medicare chemotherapy claims in Cancer and Leukemia Group B breast and lung cancer trial participants. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1080–3. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dji189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Akushevich I, Kravchenko J, Ukraintseva S, et al. Age patterns of incidence of geriatric disease in the U.S. elderly population: Medicare-based analysis. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60:323–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03786.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Girard N, Mornex F, Douillard JY, et al. Is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy a feasible strategy for stage IIIA-N2 non-small cell lung cancer? Mature results of the randomized IFCT-0101 phase II trial. Lung Cancer. 2010;69:86–93. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2009.10.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.American Cancer Society. Facts & Figures 2010. American Cancer Society; 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 37.Garrido P, González-Larriba JL, Insa A, et al. Long-term survival associated with complete resection after induction chemotherapy in stage IIIA (N2) and IIIB (T4N0-1) non small-cell lung cancer patients: the Spanish Lung Cancer Group Trial 9901. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:4736–42. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.0014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Song WA, Zhou NK, Wang W, et al. Survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: an updated meta-analysis of 13 randomized control trials. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5:510–6. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181cd3345. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Farray D, Mirkovic N, Albain KS. Multimodality therapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3257–69. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Atkins BZ, D’Amico TA. Controversial issues regarding the use of induction chemotherapy for lung cancer. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;17:191–4. doi: 10.1053/j.semtcvs.2005.06.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Thomas M, Rübe C, Hoffknecht P, et al. Effect of preoperative chemoradiation in addition to preoperative chemotherapy: a randomised trial in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:636–48. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70156-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Higgins K, Chino JP, Marks LB, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy for stage III (N2) non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;75:1462–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.01.069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Pezzetta E, Stupp R, Zouhair A, et al. Comparison of neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy versus radiochemotherapy followed by resection for stage III (N2) NSCLC. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005;27:1092–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2005.02.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Li J, Dai CH, Shi SB, et al. Prognostic factors and long term results of neo adjuvant therapy followed by surgery in stage IIIA N2 non-small cell lung cancer patients. Ann Thorac Med. 2009;4:201–7. doi: 10.4103/1817-1737.56010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Shah AA, Berry MF, Tzao C, et al. Induction Chemoradiation Is Not Superior to Induction Chemotherapy Alone in Stage IIIA Lung Cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93:1807–12. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.03.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Hardy D, Xia R, Liu CC, et al. Racial disparities and survival for nonsmall-cell lung cancer in a large cohort of black and white elderly patients. Cancer. 2009;115:4807–18. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Yang R, Cheung MC, Byrne MM, et al. Do racial or socioeconomic disparities exist in lung cancer treatment? Cancer. 2010;116:2437–47. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24986. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Schwartz KL, Crossley-May H, Vigneau FD, et al. Race, socioeconomic status and stage at diagnosis for five common malignancies. Cancer Causes Control. 2003;14:761–6. doi: 10.1023/a:1026321923883. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Hardy D, Liu CC, Xia R, et al. Racial disparities and treatment trends in a large cohort of elderly black and white patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer. 2009;115:2199–211. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]