Navigating diagnostic and treatment decisions in non-small cell lung cancer: expert commentary on the multidisciplinary team approach

Non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately one in five cancer‐related deaths, and management requires increasingly complex decision making by health care professionals. Many centers have therefore adopted a multidisciplinary approach to patient care, using the expertise of various specialists to provide the best evidence‐based, personalized treatment. However, increasingly complex disease staging, as well as expanded biomarker testing and multimodality management algorithms with novel therapeutics, have driven the need for multifaceted, collaborative decision making to optimally guide the overall treatment process. To keep up with the rapidly evolving treatment landscape, national‐level guidelines have been introduced to standardize patient pathways and ensure prompt diagnosis and treatment. Such strategies depend on efficient and effective communication between relevant multidisciplinary team members and have both improved adherence to treatment guidelines and extended patient survival. This article highlights the value of a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and staging, treatment decision making, and adverse event management in NSCLC

Video-assisted thoracoscopic or open lobectomy in early-stage lung cancer

Background There is limited randomized evidence on the comparative outcomes of early-stage lung cancer resection by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) versus open resection. Methods We conducted a parallel-group multicenter randomized trial that recruited participants with known or suspected early-stage lung cancer and randomly assigned them to open or VATS resection of their lesions. The primary outcome was physical function at 5 weeks as a measure of recovery using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core health-related quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better function; the clinical minimally important difference for improvement is 5 points). We followed the patients for an additional 47 weeks for other outcomes. Results A total of 503 participants were randomly assigned (247 to VATS and 256 to open lobectomy). At 5 weeks, median physical function was 73 in the VATS group and 67 in the open surgery group, with a mean difference of 4.65 points (95% confidence interval, 1.69 to 7.61). Of the participants allocated to VATS, 30.7% had serious adverse events after discharge compared with 37.8% of those allocated to open surgery (risk ratio, 0.81 [95% confidence interval, 0.66 to 1.00]). At 52 weeks, there were no differences in cancer progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.74 [0.43 to 1.27]) or overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.67 [0.32 to 1.40]). Comclusions VATS lobectomy for lung cancer is associated with a better recovery of physical function in the 5 weeks after random assignment compared with open surgery. Long-term oncologic outcomes will require continued follow-up to assess. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme [reference number 13/04/03]; ISRCTN number, ISRCTN13472721.

National survey of enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery practice in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

BACKGROUND Evidence that Enhanced Recovery After Thoracic Surgery (ERAS) improves clinical outcomes is growing. Following the recent publications of the international ERAS guidelines in Thoracic surgery, the aim of this audit was to capture variation and perceived difficulties to ERAS implementation, thus helping its development at a national level. METHODS We designed an anonymous online survey and distributed it via email to all 36 centres that perform lung lobectomy surgery in the UK and Ireland. It included 38 closed, open and multiple-choice questions on the core elements of ERAS and took an average of 10 min to complete. RESULTS Eighty-two healthcare professionals from 34 out of 36 centres completed the survey; majority were completed by consultant thoracic surgeons (57%). Smoking cessation support varied and only 37% of individuals implemented the recommended period for fluid fasting; 59% screen patients for malnutrition and 60% do not give preoperative carbohydrate loading. The compliance with nerve sparing techniques when a thoracotomy is performed was poor (22%). 66% of respondents apply suction on intercostal drains and although 91% refer all lobectomies for physiotherapeutic assessment, the physiotherapy adjuncts varied across centres. Perceived barriers to implementation were staffing levels, lack of teamwork/consistency, limited resources over weekend and the reduced access to smoking cessation services. CONCLUSION Centres across the UK are working to develop the ERAS pathway. This survey aids this process by providing insight into "real life" ERAS, increasing exposure of staff to the ESTS- ERAS recommendations and identifying barriers to implementation

Incorporation of anti-angiogenesis therapy in the management of advanced ovarian carcinoma—Mechanistics, review of phase III randomized clinical trials, and regulatory implications

Despite survival gains achieved nearly two decades ago with combination platinum- and taxane-based intravenous chemotherapy, overall survival curves have remained relatively unchanged during the 21st century using newer cytotoxic agents. Although combined intravenous-intraperitoneal (IV-IP) chemotherapy is promising, tolerability remains a significant issue. An emphasis has been placed on exploring dose dense schedules and targeted agents. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) has emerged as an important therapeutic target in several solid tumors including ovarian carcinoma. The monoclonal antibody, bevacizumab, binds VEGF, thus preventing activation of the VEGF receptor (VEGFR) leading to inhibition of tumor angiogenesis. To date eight phase 3 randomized controlled trials incorporating anti-angiogenesis therapy in the treatment of newly diagnosed and recurrent ovarian carcinoma have met their primary endpoints. Four of these trials included bevacizumab and were reported from 2010 to 2012. During 2013, the other four studies were reported, each studying one of the following novel anti-angiogenesis agents: pazopanib, cediranib, trebananib, and nintedanib. Importantly, none of these drugs have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) for the treatment of ovarian cancer. The purpose of this review will be to highlight both VEGF-dependent and non-VEGF dependent angiogenic pathways in ovarian cancer and discuss the phase 3 experiences and regulatory implications of targeting the tumor microenviroment with anti-angiogenesis therapy