Bevacizumab in Combination With Oxaliplatin-Based Chemotherapy As First-Line Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Phase III Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab when added to first-line oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (either capecitabine plus oxaliplatin [XELOX] or fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin [FOLFOX-4]) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with MCRC were randomly assigned, in a 2 × 2 factorial design, to XELOX versus FOLFOX-4, and then to bevacizumab versus placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 1,401 patients were randomly assigned in this 2 × 2 analysis. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months in the bevacizumab group and 8.0 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 97.5% CI, 0.72 to 0.95; P = .0023). Median overall survival was 21.3 months in the bevacizumab group and 19.9 months in the placebo group (HR, 0.89; 97.5% CI, 0.76 to 1.03; P = .077). Response rates were similar in both arms. Analysis of treatment withdrawals showed that, despite protocol allowance of treatment continuation until disease progression, only 29% and 47% of bevacizumab and placebo recipients, respectively, were treated until progression. The toxicity profile of bevacizumab was consistent with that documented in previous trials. CONCLUSION: The addition of bevacizumab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy significantly improved PFS in this first-line trial in patients with MCRC. Overall survival differences did not reach statistical significance, and response rate was not improved by the addition of bevacizumab. Treatment continuation until disease progression may be necessary in order to optimize the contribution of bevacizumab to therapy.

Vemurafenib in Multiple Nonmelanoma Cancers with BRAF V600 Mutations.

BACKGROUND: BRAF V600 mutations occur in various nonmelanoma cancers. We undertook a histology-independent phase 2 "basket" study of vemurafenib in BRAF V600 mutation-positive nonmelanoma cancers. METHODS: We enrolled patients in six prespecified cancer cohorts; patients with all other tumor types were enrolled in a seventh cohort. A total of 122 patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive cancer were treated, including 27 patients with colorectal cancer who received vemurafenib and cetuximab. The primary end point was the response rate; secondary end points included progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS: In the cohort with non-small-cell lung cancer, the response rate was 42% (95% confidence interval [CI], 20 to 67) and median progression-free survival was 7.3 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 10.8). In the cohort with Erdheim-Chester disease or Langerhans'-cell histiocytosis, the response rate was 43% (95% CI, 18 to 71); the median treatment duration was 5.9 months (range, 0.6 to 18.6), and no patients had disease progression during therapy. There were anecdotal responses among patients with pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, anaplastic thyroid cancer, cholangiocarcinoma, salivary-duct cancer, ovarian cancer, and clear-cell sarcoma and among patients with colorectal cancer who received vemurafenib and cetuximab. Safety was similar to that in prior studies of vemurafenib for melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: BRAF V600 appears to be a targetable oncogene in some, but not all, nonmelanoma cancers. Preliminary vemurafenib activity was observed in non-small-cell lung cancer and in Erdheim-Chester disease and Langerhans'-cell histiocytosis. The histologic context is an important determinant of response in BRAF V600-mutated cancers. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01524978.).

Initial report of KSCC0803: feasibility study of capecitabine as adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer in Japanese patients.

BACKGROUND: A prospective feasibility study was planned to clarify the proportion of compliance and adverse events in the administration of capecitabine as adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer in Japanese patients. METHODS: We aimed initially to register 92 cases of R0 stage III colon cancer. Capecitabine (2,500 mg/m(2)/day) was given orally on days 1-14 every 3 weeks for 8 cycles. The proportion of treatments completed as planned was selected as the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Ninety-seven cases were registered and treated between September 2008 and August 2009. The proportion of treatments completed in the full analysis set was 64/97 [66.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 55.7-75.3%] and in the per protocol set was 64/91 (70.3%; 95% CI, 59.8-79.5%). Adverse events which led to treatment discontinuation included hand-foot syndrome (HFS) (7), haematotoxicity (5) and increased hepatic damage (4). The proportions of patients with major grade 3/4 adverse events were HFS 22.7%, neutropenia 7.2%, diarrhoea 2.1%, and increased bilirubin 0.0%. CONCLUSIONS: This collaborative multi-facility study, the first of its kind in Japan, presented results of a safety confirmation experiment on capecitabine as adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer. The results suggest that capecitabine may be administered safely to Japanese patients.

Adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin for gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy (CLASSIC): a phase 3 open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: D2 gastrectomy is recommended in US and European guidelines, and is preferred in east Asia, for patients with resectable gastric cancer. Adjuvant chemotherapy improves patient outcomes after surgery, but the benefits after a D2 resection have not been extensively investigated in large-scale trials. We investigated the effect on disease-free survival of adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin after D2 gastrectomy compared with D2 gastrectomy only in patients with stage II-IIIB gastric cancer. METHODS: The capecitabine and oxaliplatin adjuvant study in stomach cancer (CLASSIC) study was an open-label, parallel-group, phase 3, randomised controlled trial undertaken in 37 centres in South Korea, China, and Taiwan. Patients with stage II-IIIB gastric cancer who had had curative D2 gastrectomy were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant chemotherapy of eight 3-week cycles of oral capecitabine (1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 to 14 of each cycle) plus intravenous oxaliplatin (130 mg/m(2) on day 1 of each cycle) for 6 months or surgery only. Block randomisation was done by a central interactive computerised system, stratified by country and disease stage. Patients, and investigators giving interventions, assessing outcomes, and analysing data were not masked. The primary endpoint was 3 year disease-free survival, analysed by intention to treat. This study reports a prespecified interim efficacy analysis, after which the trial was stopped after a recommendation by the data monitoring committee. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00411229). FINDINGS: 1035 patients were randomised (520 to receive chemotherapy and surgery, 515 surgery only). Median follow-up was 34·2 months (25·4-41·7) in the chemotherapy and surgery group and 34·3 months (25·6-41·9) in the surgery only group. 3 year disease-free survival was 74% (95% CI 69-79) in the chemotherapy and surgery group and 59% (53-64) in the surgery only group (hazard ratio 0·56, 95% CI 0·44-0·72; p<0·0001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 279 of 496 patients (56%) in the chemotherapy and surgery group and in 30 of 478 patients (6%) in the surgery only group. The most common adverse events in the intervention group were nausea (n=326), neutropenia (n=300), and decreased appetite (n=294). INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin treatment after curative D2 gastrectomy should be considered as a treatment option for patients with operable gastric cancer. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Sanofi-Aventis.

Venous thromboembolic events with chemotherapy plus bevacizumab: a pooled analysis of patients in randomized phase II and III studies.

PURPOSE: Thromboembolism is a major source of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. The contribution of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy to these events remains controversial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data were available for 6,055 patients in 10 randomized studies. Unadjusted and exposure-adjusted incidence of venous thromboembolisms (VTEs) was estimated for the overall population and by tumor type. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors for development of VTE. The safety of anticoagulant therapy in patients undergoing bevacizumab treatment was also examined. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant increases in the unadjusted or exposure-adjusted incidences of all-grade VTEs for bevacizumab versus controls in the overall population or by tumor type. The unadjusted incidence in the overall population was 10.9% with bevacizumab versus 9.8% with controls (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.35; P = .13); the rate per 100 patient-years was 18.5 for bevacizumab and 20.3 for controls (rate ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.06; P =.23). Incidences of grade 3 to 5 events were similar in both groups. Several risk factors for VTEs were identified, including tumor type, older age, poorer performance status, VTE history, and baseline oral anticoagulant use. No interactions between bevacizumab treatment and these factors were observed. For patients who had a VTE and received full-dose anticoagulation therapy, the risk of severe bleeding was low (< 1%) and unaffected by bevacizumab treatment. CONCLUSION: The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy did not statistically significantly increase the risk of VTEs versus chemotherapy alone. The risk for VTEs is driven predominantly by tumor and host factors.

Disease course patterns after discontinuation of bevacizumab: pooled analysis of randomized phase III trials.

PURPOSE: Preclinical studies have suggested accelerated tumor growth, local invasion, and distant metastasis after withdrawal of treatment with some antiangiogenic agents. To investigate whether discontinuation of bevacizumab treatment is associated with accelerated disease progression or increased mortality, we retrospectively analyzed five randomized, placebo-controlled phase III studies in 4,205 patients with breast, colorectal, renal, and pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Time from treatment discontinuation to progressive disease or death was analyzed in patients discontinuing bevacizumab/placebo as a result of adverse events (AEs). Mortality rates were assessed at 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, and 210 days after the last bevacizumab/placebo dose in the following two groups: patients discontinuing bevacizumab/placebo as a result of AEs and patients discontinuing bevacizumab/placebo for any reason. In the same groups, time from treatment discontinuation to death was analyzed. Data on disease progression pattern were available and analyzed in four of the five studies. RESULTS: In the pooled analysis, median time from discontinuation as a result of AEs to progression/death was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 3.8 months) for placebo and 4.0 months (95% CI, 3.4 to 4.6 months) for bevacizumab (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.10). Mortality rates from 30 days to 210 days after treatment discontinuation and time from discontinuation to death were similar in bevacizumab- and placebo-treated patients. In addition, similar patterns of disease progression were seen in bevacizumab- and placebo-treated patients. CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis of five placebo-controlled clinical trials does not support a decreased time to disease progression, increased mortality, or altered disease progression pattern after cessation of bevacizumab therapy.

Multicentre phase II trial of paclitaxel and carboplatin with concurrent radiotherapy in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

AIM: To evaluate weekly induction chemotherapy followed by weekly concomitant chemoradiotherapy in a multicentre phase II study of patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; stage wet IIIB excluded). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients received three weekly cycles of paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC2 followed by six weekly cycles of paclitaxel 60 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC2 in combination with thoracic radiotherapy (2 Gy per fraction and day to a total dose of 60 Gy). RESULTS: Sixty-four patients (40 males and 24 females) with a median age of 63 years (range, 43-79 years) entered the study. T and N stage were distributed as follows: T1 2 patients (3.2%), T2 10 patients (15.6%), T3 15 patients (23.4%), T4 37 patients (57.8%); N0 10 patients (15.6%), N1 1 patient (1.6%), N2 26 patients (40.6%), N3 26 patients (40.6%), and N missing 1 patient (1.6%). Seven patients (10.9%) suffered from grade 3/4 oesophagitis. Grade 1/2 oesophagitis occurred in 36 patients (56.3%) and pneumonitis grade 1/2 occurred in 10 patients (15.6%). Sixty-three patients were evaluated on an intent-to-treat basis. The overall response rate was 74.6%. The median time to progression was 247 days and median overall survival was 461 days. According to subgroup analyses, no statistically significant differences were noted according to gender, age (<65 vs. > or =65 years), performance status, histology, or study centre. CONCLUSION: Induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy with weekly cycles of paclitaxel and carboplatin is feasible and generates moderate toxicity. Efficacy is comparable to other recently published regimens. However, prognosis remains, in general, poor for this group of patients and further work to develop better therapy is required.

Potential regional differences for the tolerability profiles of fluoropyrimidines.

PURPOSE: We conducted a retrospective analysis of safety data from randomized, single-agent fluoropyrimidine clinical trials (bolus fluorouracil/leucovorin [FU/LV] and capecitabine) to test the hypothesis that there are regional differences in fluoropyrimidine tolerability. METHODS: Treatment-related safety data from three phase III clinical studies were analyzed by multivariate analysis: two comparing capecitabine with bolus FU/LV in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) and one comparing capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) with bolus FU/LV as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. The United States (US) was compared with non-US countries (all three studies) and with the rest of the world and East Asia (adjuvant study). RESULTS: In the MCRC studies (n = 1,189), more grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs; relative risk [RR], 1.77), dose reductions (RR, 1.72), and discontinuations (RR, 1.83) were reported in US versus non-US patients. Likewise, in the adjuvant colon cancer study (n = 1,864), more grade 3/4 AEs (RR, 1.47) and discontinuations (RR, 2.09) were reported in US versus non-US patients. After further dividing non-US patients into those in East Asia and the rest of the world, differential RRs for related grade 3/4 AEs, grade 4 AEs, and serious AEs were again observed, with East Asian patients having the lowest and US patients the highest RR. CONCLUSION: Regional differences exist in the tolerability profiles of fluoropyrimidines. More treatment-related toxicity was reported in the US compared with the rest of the world for bolus FU/LV and capecitabine in first-line MCRC and adjuvant colon cancer. In the adjuvant setting, a range of fluoropyrimidine tolerability was observed, with East Asian patients having the lowest, and US patients the highest, RR.

Randomized phase III study of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) is noninferior to fluorouracil. folinic acid, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The initial design of this trial was a randomized, two-arm, noninferiority, phase III comparison of XELOX versus FOLFOX-4. After patient accrual had begun, the trial design was amended in 2003 after bevacizumab phase III data became available. The resulting 2 x 2 factorial design randomly assigned patients to XELOX versus FOLFOX-4, and then to also receive either bevacizumab or placebo. We report here the results of the analysis of the XELOX versus FOLFOX-4 arms. The analysis of bevacizumab versus placebo with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is reported separately. The prespecified primary end point for the noninferiority analysis was progression-free survival. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population comprised 634 patients from the original two-arm portion of the study, plus an additional 1,400 patients after the start of the amended 2 x 2 design, for a total of 2,034 patients. The median PFS was 8.0 months in the pooled XELOX-containing arms versus 8.5 months in the FOLFOX-4-containing arms (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 97.5% CI, 0.93 to 1.16). The median overall survival was 19.8 months with XELOX versus 19.6 months with FOLFOX-4 (HR, 0.99; 97.5% CI, 0.88 to 1.12). FOLFOX-4 was associated with more grade 3/4 neutropenia/granulocytopenia and febrile neutropenia than XELOX, and XELOX with more grade 3 diarrhea and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome than FOLFOX-4. CONCLUSION: XELOX is noninferior to FOLFOX-4 as a first-line treatment for MCRC, and may be considered as a routine treatment option for appropriate patients.

Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab when added to first-line oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (either capecitabine plus oxaliplatin [XELOX] or fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin [FOLFOX-4]) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with MCRC were randomly assigned, in a 2 x 2 factorial design, to XELOX versus FOLFOX-4, and then to bevacizumab versus placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 1,401 patients were randomly assigned in this 2 x 2 analysis. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months in the bevacizumab group and 8.0 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 97.5% CI, 0.72 to 0.95; P = .0023). Median overall survival was 21.3 months in the bevacizumab group and 19.9 months in the placebo group (HR, 0.89; 97.5% CI, 0.76 to 1.03; P = .077). Response rates were similar in both arms. Analysis of treatment withdrawals showed that, despite protocol allowance of treatment continuation until disease progression, only 29% and 47% of bevacizumab and placebo recipients, respectively, were treated until progression. The toxicity profile of bevacizumab was consistent with that documented in previous trials. CONCLUSION: The addition of bevacizumab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy significantly improved PFS in this first-line trial in patients with MCRC. Overall survival differences did not reach statistical significance, and response rate was not improved by the addition of bevacizumab. Treatment continuation until disease progression may be necessary in order to optimize the contribution of bevacizumab to therapy.

Phase III trial of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer: a planned safety analysis in 1,864 patients.

PURPOSE: To report the results of a planned safety analysis from a phase III trial comparing capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) with bolus fluorouracil/leucovorin (FU/LV) as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage III colon carcinoma were randomly assigned to receive either XELOX (intravenous oxaliplatin plus oral capecitabine; 3-week cycle for eight cycles) or standard intravenous bolus FU/LV administered as the Mayo Clinic (Mayo; Rochester, MN) or Roswell Park (RP; Buffalo, NY) regimen for a similar length of time. A total of 1,886 patients were randomly assigned. RESULTS: The safety population comprised 1,864 patients, of whom 938 received XELOX and 926 received FU/LV. Most treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred at similar rates in both treatment arms. However, patients receiving XELOX experienced less all-grade diarrhea, alopecia, and more neurosensory toxicity, vomiting, and hand-foot syndrome than those patients receiving FU/LV. Compared with Mayo, XELOX showed fewer grade 3/4 hematologic AE and more grade 3/4 gastrointestinal AE. Compared with RP, XELOX showed less grade 3/4 gastrointestinal AE and more grade 3/4 hematologic AE. As expected grade 3/4 neurosensory toxicity and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome were higher with XELOX. Treatment-related mortality within 28 days from the last study dose was 0.6% in the XELOX group and 0.6% in the FU/LV group. CONCLUSION: XELOX has a manageable tolerability profile in the adjuvant setting. Efficacy data will be available within the next 24 months.

Role of gross tumor volume on outcome and of dose parameters on toxicity of patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the prognostic role of gross tumor volume (GTV) on survival of locally advanced NSCLC patients, regardless of TNM stage, and to analyze whether GTV and other radiotherapy (RT) parameters were important for the development of lung toxicity. Thirty-two patients with locally advanced NSCLC (stage IIIA bulky/IIIB) treated with chemoradiotherapy were retrospectively analyzed. Patients received induction chemotherapy followed by combination treatment (27 patients) or induction chemotherapy followed by RT alone (5 patients). Thoracic RT consisted in 60 Gy, with standard fractionation and was the same for all 32 patients. Dose volume histograms were collected from the 3D treatment plans and GTV, planning target volume, mean lung dose, volume of lung receiving more than 20 Gy or more than 30 Gy were analyzed. Survival was significantly longer in patients with a GTV < 100 cm(3) compared with patients having GTV > 100 cm(3) (p = 0.03). In a multivariate analysis only N-status and GTV were predictors of survival with a risk ratio of 0.51 and 0.62, respectively. Ten patients (31%) developed radiation pneumonitis grade 2 or higher. None of the RT parameters examined correlated significantly with the development of lung toxicity. In locally advanced NSCLC, GTV and N-status play a prognostic role even in patients at the same clinical stage and receiving a combination of chemo- and radiotherapy. This could imply a reassessment of the current staging system in patients with non-resectable NSCLC to better identify those patients who would benefit more from the combined treatment, despite its higher toxicity.

A systematic overview of radiation therapy effects in non-small cell lung cancer.

A systematic review of radiation therapy trials in several tumour types was performed by The Swedish Council of Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). The procedures for evaluation of the scientific literature are described separately (Acta Oncol 2003; 42: 357-365). This synthesis of the literature on radiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is based on data from 4 meta-analyses and 31 randomized trials. Moreover, data from 12 prospective studies, 12 retrospective studies and 6 other articles were used. In total, 65 scientific articles are included, involving 18 310 patients. The results were compared with those of a similar overview from 1996 including 28 172 patients. The conclusions reached can be summarized as follows: Extensive clinical experience indicates that radiotherapy for medically inoperable patients or patients refusing surgery with NSCLC stage I/II prolongs survival, 15 -20% of these patients reaching long-term (5-year) survival. However, no randomized trials have addressed this issue. There is strong evidence that postoperative radiotherapy in radically resected stage I/II NSCLC does not prolong survival compared with observation alone. There is some evidence that continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (CHART) is associated with increased survival compared to conventional radiotherapy in locally advanced NSCLC and also in medically unfit patients with stage I/II NSCLC. However, the benefit is limited to squamous cell histology. There is strong evidence that combined modality treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy and radiotherapy, either neoadjuvant or concomitant, is superior to radiotherapy alone in terms of survival in locally advanced unresectable NSCLC and should be the standard of care in patients with good performance status. There is some evidence that concomitant chemo-radiotherapy is associated with increased survival compared with sequential chemo-radiotherapy, albeit at the price of increased toxicity Comment: Combined chemo-radiotherapy of primary non-resectable stage III NSCLC followed by surgery in responders lacks evidence from prospective randomized trials and cannot be recommended for routine use. There is strong evidence that radiotherapy can palliate symptoms associated with the intrathoracic tumour burden. There is some evidence that two large fractions may be as effective as conventional schedules consisting of 10-13 smaller fractions in terms of palliation of symptoms. There is some evidence that endobronchial brachytherapy for palliation of symptoms associated with endobronchial tumours is not superior to external beam radiotherapy.

The role of radiotherapy in treatment of stage I non-small cell lung cancer.

Most information on results with radiotherapy (RT) for stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is based on retrospective studies on RT-treated inoperable NSCLC cases. Thus, the role of RT for stage I NSCLC, as a curative modality, has not yet been established. A literature search for studies on stage I non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) treated by RT alone resulted in 18 papers published between 1988 and 2000. The majority of stage I patients received RT treatment because they were medically inoperable. The main contraindications for surgery were grave impairment of pulmonary function and serious cardiovascular disease. Local recurrence was the most common reason for treatment failure (median value 40%) but varied highly between the studies, ranging from 6.4 to 70%. In contrast with local recurrence, regional failure was not a major problem (0-3.2%). Generally, smaller tumour size, low T-stage and increased dose had a favourable impact on local control and increased local control was followed by increased survival. No serious treatment complications were recorded in the majority of these studies. Overall treatment results were, however, disappointing. The median survival in these studies ranged from 18 to 33 months. The 3- and 5-year overall survival was 34+/-9 and 21+/-8% (mean value+/-1 S.E.), respectively. The cause-specific survival at 3 and 5 years was 39+/-10 and 25+/-9% (mean value+/-1 S.E.), respectively. Dose escalation, in a setting with conformal RT using involved field or stereotactic RT, should be the focus of developmental therapeutic strategies with inoperable stage I NSCLC to improve local control and survival.