So did the recent update of the NSCLC-meta-analysis Collaborative Group (HR 0.89. 95% CI 0.82-0.97, p = 0.006 HR 0.86. 95% CI 0.81-0.92, p < .0001, absolute OS benefit: 4% at 5 years for the overall population)[23]. In a larger setting, community based surveys or multinstitutional database analyses show an increasing employment of ACT (with a consequent survival improvement) [24–29]. These data, interpreted with the caution

requested by their retrospective and not randomized fashion, suggest that the benefit may also be extended into the context of patients treated in routine clinical practice. With the aim to better interpret the quantitative and qualitative differences among randomized click here clinical trials results, IALT, JBR-10 and ANITA were analyzed with a bayesian approach, weighting the results on the basis of continuously updated outcome hypotheses [30]. Nevertheless, the 13% relative death risk reduction corresponding to an absolute 4-5% survival benefit did not increase overtime when considering the former NSCLC Collaborative Group meta-analysis publication [6] and its recent update [23]. These small benefit strongly call for an optimization of the therapeutic index of adjuvant treatment. The stage IB dilemma: Does (just) the size matters?

The management of stage IB (according to the 6th TNM edition) is still controversial. To date, evidence show that benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy for stage IB, if any, is small: 43 IB patients should be treated for one to benefit (number needed to treat, NNT), nearly 3 times the 15 NNT for stage II-IIA 5-FU [2]. In addition, available results come from selleckchem a trial with limited sample size (CALGB 9633) and from subgroup analysis of other randomized trials (with few enrolled stage IB patients), both underpowered to detect the small differences expected in OS. In this regard, both the CALBG 9633, specifically designed for stage IB

disease, and subgroup analyses of the IALT, JBR-10 and ANITA [7, 8, 11] trials failed to demonstrate any survival benefit [13]. A possible Selleckchem 3-deazaneplanocin A beneficial effect was seen for tumors larger than 4 cm (in comparison with smaller tumors) in CALBG 9633 (HR 0.69; p = .043 vs HR = 1.12; p = .32) [13] and JBR-10 (HR 0.66 vs 1.73) [8]. Since both these analyses were post-hoc, results are not conclusive, given also that the benefit lowers overtime [31]. Similarly, in LACE meta-analysis stage IB only trended toward an OS benefit. The HR was 0.93 (95% CI 0.78-1.10), against 0.83 and 1.14 for stage II-III and IA, respectively [18]. The subgroup analysis from the NSCLC CG meta-analysis update according to stage [23] and limited to platinum-based regimens, showed an identical 5 years OS improvement of 5% for stage IB (from 55 to 60%), stage II (from 40 to 45%) and stage III (from 30 to 35%), with a non significant test for trend (p = 0.13) [23].