Palliative endobronchial brachytherapy for non-small cell lung cancer

Background Non‐small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) constitutes about 80% of all lung cancer cases. Although surgery is the only curative treatment of NSCLC, fewer than 20% of tumors can be radically resected. Radiotherapy is one of the main treatment modalities in lung cancer, contributing to both its cure and palliation. Endobronchial brachytherapy (EBB) has been used as one approach to improve local control either alone or in combination with other treatments. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of palliative EBB in increasing survival and to control thoracic symptoms in patients with advanced NSCLC compared with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) or other alternative endoluminal treatments. Search methods The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and other databases were searched, as were reference lists and handsearching of selected journals and conference proceedings. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different regimens of palliative EBB with EBRT or other endobronchial interventions in patients with advanced NSCLC. Data collection and analysis Thirteen RCTs were included. There were important differences in the doses of radiotherapy investigated, patient characteristics and the outcomes measured. Because of this heterogeneity no meta‐analysis was attempted. Main results We found trials comparing EBB to EBRT alone, EBB plus EBRT to EBRT alone, EBB plus chemotherapy to EBB alone, EBB to Nd‐YAG laser and comparisons between diverse fractionation schedules of high dose rate EBB. From the heterogeneous information obtained from several small RCTs, we concluded that EBRT alone is more effective for palliation of NSCLC symptoms than EBB alone. Our findings did not provide conclusive evidence to recommend EBB plus EBRT to relieve symptoms compared to EBRT alone. Overall, for the primary endpoint of survival there was no evidence of benefit for EBB compared to EBRT and Nd‐YAG laser or for the combination of EBB with chemotherapy. Additionally, findings from one trial suggested that twice 7.4 Gy was superior to the four times per week 3.8 Gy schedule for mean time of local control and fatal haemoptysis. No significant differences were found for fatal haemoptysis as an adverse event of EBB. Authors' conclusions The evidence did not provide conclusive results that EBB plus EBRT improved symptom relief over EBRT alone. We were not able to provide conclusive evidence to recommend EBB with EBRT, chemotherapy or Nd‐YAG laser. For patients previously treated by EBRT who are symptomatic from recurrent endobronchial central obstruction, EBB may be considered in selected cases.