Comparative Effectiveness of 5 Treatment Strategies for Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the Elderly

Purpose: The incidence of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) among older adults is expected to increase because of demographic trends and computed tomography-based screening; yet, optimal treatment in the elderly remains controversial. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare cohort spanning 2001-2007, we compared survival outcomes associated with 5 strategies used in contemporary practice: lobectomy, sub-lobar resection, conventional radiation therapy, stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR), and observation. Methods and Materials: Treatment strategy and covariates were determined in 10,923 patients aged >= 66 years with stage IA-IB NSCLC. Cox regression, adjusted for patient and tumor factors, compared overall and disease-specific survival for the 5 strategies. In a second exploratory analysis, propensity-score matching was used for comparison of SABR with other options. Results: The median age was 75 years, and 29% had moderate to severe comorbidities. Treatment distribution was lobectomy (59%), sublobar resection (11.7%), conventional radiation (14.8%), observation (12.6%), and SABR (1.1%). In Cox regression analysis with a median follow-up time of 3.2 years, SABR was associated with the lowest risk of death within 6 months of diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.63; referent is lobectomy). After 6 months, lobectomy was associated with the best overall and disease-specific survival. In the propensity-score matched analysis, survival after SABR was similar to that after lobectomy (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.45-1.12; referent is SABR). Conventional radiation and observation were associated with poor outcomes in all analyses. Conclusions: In this population-based experience, lobectomy was associated with the best long-term outcomes in fit elderly patients with early-stage NSCLC. Exploratory analysis of SABR early adopters suggests efficacy comparable with that of surgery in select populations. Evaluation of these therapies in randomized trials is urgently needed. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc.