Abstract
Objectives Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) is a well-established treatment for medically inoperable peripheral stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Previous non-randomised evidence supports SABR as an alternative to surgery, but high quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence is lacking. The SABRTooth study aimed to establish whether a UK phase III RCT was feasible.
Design and Methods SABRTooth was a UK multi-centre, randomised controlled feasibility study targeting patients with peripheral stage I NSCLC considered to be at higher-risk of surgical complications. Fifty-four patients were planned to be randomised 1:1 to SABR or surgery. The primary outcome was monthly average recruitment rates.
Results Between July 2015 and January 2017, 318 patients were considered for the study and 205(64.5%) were deemed ineligible. Of 106 assessed as eligible (33.3%), 24 patients (22.6%) were randomised to SABR (n=14) or surgery (n=10). A key theme for non-participation was treatment preference with 43 (41%) preferring non-surgical treatment and 19(18%) preferring surgery. The average monthly recruitment rate was 1.7 patients against a target of 3. Fifteen patients underwent their allocated treatment, 12 SABR, 3 surgery.
Conclusions We conclude that a phase III RCT randomising higher-risk patients between SABR and surgery is not feasible in the National Health Service (NHS). Patients have pre-existing treatment preferences, which was a barrier to recruitment. A significant proportion of patients randomised to the surgical group declined and chose SABR. SABR remains an alternative to surgery and novel study approaches are needed to define which patients benefit from a non-surgical approach.
Footnotes
This manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the European Respiratory Journal. It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJ online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Franks has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. McParland has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Webster has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Baldwin has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Sebag-Montefiore has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Evison has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Booton has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Faivre-Finn has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Naidu has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Ferguson has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Peedell has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Callister has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Kennedy has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Hewison has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Bestall has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Gregory has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Hall has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Collinson has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Olivier has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Naylor has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Bell has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Allen has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Sloss has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Snee has nothing to disclose.
This is a PDF-only article. Please click on the PDF link above to read it.
- Received January 20, 2020.
- Accepted May 28, 2020.
- Copyright ©ERS 2020