Surgery vs SABR for Early-Stage Lung Cancer Survival Outcomes

Surgery vs SABR for Early-Stage Lung Cancer Survival Outcomes

by

Surgery remains the most effective treatment for improving survival rates in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared to stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), according to a new study. While SABR serves as a viable curative-intent alternative for those unable to undergo surgery, surgical resection continues to show superior outcomes in cancer-specific mortality and recurrence rates.

For years, the medical community has sought more definitive evidence to compare the efficacy of surgical removal against the precision of SABR, a form of high-dose radiation. Because traditional randomized controlled trials have struggled to recruit sufficient numbers of eligible patients, researchers had to turn to a sophisticated "emulated target trial" design to bridge the gap.

This approach, as reported by CancerNetwork, utilized real-world data from England’s National Cancer Registry, linking it with hospital and radiotherapy records. By applying the principles of a randomized trial to this vast dataset, investigators were able to conduct what they described as a world-first comparison of these two specific treatment modalities.

Does the survival advantage of surgery change for older patients?

One of the most significant nuances in the study concerns how age impacts these treatment outcomes. For patients aged 80 and older, the data suggests that the choice between surgery and SABR may be less about survival differences and more about individual fitness and preference. The researchers found no evidence of a clinically meaningful difference in 3-year all-cause mortality between the two interventions in this older demographic.

This suggests that for selected older populations, SABR can function as a legitimate alternative with curative intent. This aligns with existing clinical recommendations, where SABR is already utilized for patients who are not medically fit for surgery or who simply choose not to undergo an invasive procedure.

How do the mortality and recurrence numbers compare?

While the differences in the oldest age groups were negligible, the broader analysis revealed a clear distinction in cancer-specific outcomes. The data showed a divergence in how the two treatments handled the cancer itself over a three-year period. When looking at the estimated 3-year lung cancer–specific mortality, the numbers were as follows:

Treatment Modality 3-Year Lung Cancer–Specific Mortality Estimate
Surgery 14.5%
SABR 20.6%

Beyond mortality, the study also noted higher estimates of cancer recurrence following SABR than following surgery. However, it is critical to note that these specific differences were not found to be statistically significant in the analysis.

Why should surgery remain the primary choice for most patients?

Despite the utility of radiation in specific cases, the researchers concluded that surgery should remain the first-line treatment for those who are medically eligible. The biological and mechanical advantages of removing the tumor entirely appear to offer a more robust defense against recurrence and death.

“For most patients with early-stage NSCLC who are eligible for surgery, our results provide reassurance that it remains the treatment most likely to improve survival rates,” said Richard Grieve, PhD, a professor of health economics at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and a co-author of the study.

A Phase II study of I-SABR in early or recurrent NSCLC

The study’s implications extend to how healthcare systems manage large-scale diagnostic shifts. In England, researchers estimate that roughly 2,000 people diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer annually are eligible for either SABR or surgery. Currently, about 1 in 5 of those patients receive SABR, a proportion that has been steadily increasing in recent years. The new data helps clarify the boundaries of where SABR provides the best balance of care and outcome, supporting current guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

The research was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre in Manchester, highlighting the institutional effort to refine precision oncology through real-world evidence.

Worth a look

Read next