Chest
Volume 103, Issue 4, April 1993, Pages 1010-1016
Journal home page for Chest

Clinical Investigations
The Restaging of Responding Patients With Limited Small Cell Lung Cancer: Is It Really Useful?

https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.103.4.1010Get rights and content

A retrospective review of data on patients entered on two limited small cell lung cancer studies of the National Cancer Institute of Canada (BR.3 and BR.6) was undertaken to determine the value of restaging and rebronchoscopy in responding patients. An economic evaluation was also done. Repeat scans (brain, liver) and bronchoscopy were carried out in 190 patients and 5 (2.6 percent) were positive, despite other evidence suggesting response. One hundred thirty-nine of 324 patients who achieved complete response on the two trials underwent rebronchoscopy. Among these, 122 (87.7 percent) were negative and eight (5.8 percent) were inconclusive. Nine (6.5 percent) were positive despite other evidence suggesting the patient had achieved a complete response. A small group of nine patients with positive rebronchoscopy survived for a shorter time than the group with negative or inconclusive rebronchoscopies. The survival difference was only statistically significant when analyzed using the log rank test, but it was not significant when analyzed by the Wilcoxon test. The economic analysis showed that it costs $11,333 per patient reclassified when scans were redone in these patients. The cost could even have been higher had we used present-day scanning techniques (computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging), although they might be slightly more sensitive. The cost of rebronchoscopy per patient reclassified was $14,960. Therefore, we recommend that restaging (scans or rebronchoscopy) not be done in responding patients with limited small cell lung cancer, thus potentially saving health care dollars as well as reducing patient inconvenience with no detrimental effect on survival.

Section snippets

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients eligible for this retrospective review included all patients entered on BR.3 and BR.6. Schemata for these two trials are shown in Figure 1. The results of BR.3 and a preliminary description of BR.6 have been published.3, 4 BR.3 enrolled patients from December 1981 to October 1984 and BR.6 enrolled patients from February 1985 to December 1988.

We examined two approaches to restaging: (1) repeat scans in patients who had responded to therapy (including those with stable disease, and (2)

RESULTS

Repeated Scans in Patients Who Responded to Therapy on BR.3

Of the 298 eligible patients entered into this study, 254 met protocol response requirements (complete response, partial response, or stable disease) for repeated scanning. Of these, 64 did not have scans carried out for a variety of reasons, leaving 190 patients for the analysis. A total of five patients (2.6 percent) had scans that were positive despite other evidence suggesting response. This included one patient with a complete

DISCUSSION

An evaluation of patients on two consecutive limited SCLC studies carried out by the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group clearly suggests that there is little clinical benefit associated with the performance of repeated scans in patients who are responding by other criteria. The frequency of “mixed responses” in patients who showed progression on scans while showing response in chest radiographs occurred less than 3 percent of the time in the BR.3 study. The fact that this

ACKNOWLEDGMENT:

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance provided by Anne Burrows Faulkner in the careful preparation of this manuscript.

REFERENCES (9)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Manuscript received January 27; revision accepted July 1.

View full text