Narrative review of the staging classification controversy in stage N3 small cell lung cancer: from the perspective of overlapping Veterans Administration Lung Study Group and International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer definitions.

Background and Objective: Traditionally, two primary systems have been employed for staging small cell lung cancer (SCLC): the Veterans Administration Lung Study Group (VALG) system and the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) system. The term "limited disease" is defined differently: VALG characterizes it as disease encompassed within a single tolerable radiation field, while IASLC defines it as the lack of distant metastases (M0). Patients with N3 disease frequently satisfy VALG extensive-stage (ES) criteria while meeting IASLC limited-stage (LS) criteria, resulting in a notable staging discrepancy. Therefore, this review aims to clarify the clinical challenges posed by this staging overlap and provide insights for standardizing staging terminology and optimizing therapeutic decision-making in N3 SCLC. Methods: A narrative review utilizing a systematized search strategy was conducted. While strict adherence to PRISMA guidelines was not pursued because the extensive heterogeneity of the literature precluded a formal meta-analysis, rigorous search criteria were applied to minimize selection bias. Databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched for literature from January 2000 to March 2026. Studies examining stage N3 SCLC, spatial metastatic burden, and definitional inconsistencies between the VALG and IASLC staging systems were analyzed to assess their effects on treatment dosimetry, systemic therapy, and survival outcomes. Key Content and Findings: The staging overlap in N3 SCLC leads to heterogeneous clinical management depending on its spatial metastatic burden, and this highly variable cohort can be stratified into distinct prognostic subgroups based on the anatomical distribution (single-region vs. multi-region) of the involved lymph nodes. Conclusions: These findings should guide clinical trial design and terminology. Clinical decision-making must transcend historical paradigms and technical constraints. Future strategies must incorporate spatial evaluations of metastatic burden alongside innovative multimodal tools, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and multi-omics, to facilitate tailored therapy for SCLC.