Abstract
Clinical guidelines can help reduce the use of inappropriate therapeutics due to localism and individual clinician perspectives. Nevertheless, despite the intention of clinical guidelines to achieve survival benefit or desirable outcomes, they cannot ensure a robust outcome. This retrospective study aimed to investigate whether guideline-consistency, including adjuvant treatments after surgical resection (ATSR) and guideline-matched first-line treatment for recurrence (GMT-R), according to the genomic profiles and immune status, could influence overall survival (OS). From 2006 to 2017, the clinical data of 308 patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after surgical resection were evaluated. ATSR and GMT-R were allowed in 164 (53.2%) and 129 (62.3%) patients cases after surgical pulmonary resection, among which 207 (67.2%) recurrences were identified. The 5-year OS in guideline-consistent cases was significantly better than that in guideline-inconsistent cases (p < 0.01). Subgroup analyses further showed that the 5-year OS after propensity adjustment was significantly better in guideline-consistent than in guideline-inconsistent cases (p < 0.01), but not in either ATSR or GMT-R (p = 0.24). These data suggest that the guideline-consistent alternatives, which comprise ATSR or GMT-R, can contribute to survival benefits in pathological stage III NSCLC. However, only either ATSR or GMT-R has a potential survival benefit in these patients.