Radiation Therapy in Extensive Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Lung cancer is the major cancer killer in the Western world, with the small cell lung cancer (SCLC) representing around 15-20% of all lung cancers. Extensive disease small cell lung cancer (ED SCLC) is found in approximately two-thirds of all cases, composed of both metastatic (M1) and non-metastatic (but presumably with tumor burden too large for locoregional-only approach) variant. Standard treatment options involve chemotherapy (CHT) over the past several decades. Radiation therapy (RT) had mostly been used in palliation of locoregional and/or metastatic disease. In contrast to its established role in treating metastatic disease, thoracic RT (TRT) had never been established as important part of the treatment aspects in this setting. In the past two decades, thoracic oncologists have witnessed wide introduction of modern RT and CHT aspects in ED SCLC, which led to more frequent use of RT and rise in the number of clinical studies. Since the pivotal study of Jeremic et al., who were the first to show importance of TRT in ED SCLC, a number of single-institutional studies have reconfirmed this observation, while recent prospective randomized trials (CREST and RTOG 0937) brought more substance to this issue. Similarly, the issue of prophylactic cranial irradiation was investigated in EORTC and the Japanese study, respectively, bringing somewhat conflicting results and calling for additional research in this setting. Future studies in ED SCLC could incorporate questions of RT dose and fractionation as well as the number of CHT cycles and type of combined Rt-CHT (sequential vs concurrent)

Why Are Outcomes Different for Registry Patients Enrolled Prospectively and Retrospectively? Insights from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).

Background: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≥1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0-18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection Dec-2009 and Oct-2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≤6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between Mar-2010 and Oct-2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs . 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51 to 3.67] vs . 4.05 [95% CI 3.53 to 4.63]; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical Trial Registration: - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362)

Risk profiles and one-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in India: Insights from the GARFIELD-AF Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) is an ongoing prospective noninterventional registry, which is providing important information on the baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and 1-year outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This report describes data from Indian patients recruited in this registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 52,014 patients with newly diagnosed AF were enrolled globally; of these, 1388 patients were recruited from 26 sites within India (2012-2016). In India, the mean age was 65.8 years at diagnosis of NVAF. Hypertension was the most prevalent risk factor for AF, present in 68.5% of patients from India and in 76.3% of patients globally (P < 0.001). Diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) were prevalent in 36.2% and 28.1% of patients as compared with global prevalence of 22.2% and 21.6%, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). Antiplatelet therapy was the most common antithrombotic treatment in India. With increasing stroke risk, however, patients were more likely to receive oral anticoagulant therapy [mainly vitamin K antagonist (VKA)], but average international normalized ratio (INR) was lower among Indian patients [median INR value 1.6 (interquartile range {IQR}: 1.3-2.3) versus 2.3 (IQR 1.8-2.8) (P < 0.001)]. Compared with other countries, patients from India had markedly higher rates of all-cause mortality [7.68 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval 6.32-9.35) vs 4.34 (4.16-4.53), P < 0.0001], while rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding were lower after 1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Compared to previously published registries from India, the GARFIELD-AF registry describes clinical profiles and outcomes in Indian patients with AF of a different etiology. The registry data show that compared to the rest of the world, Indian AF patients are younger in age and have more diabetes and CAD. Patients with a higher stroke risk are more likely to receive anticoagulation therapy with VKA but are underdosed compared with the global average in the GARFIELD-AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362

Surgery for Stage IIIA Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer: Lack of Predictive and Prognostic Factors Identifying Any Subgroup of Patients Benefiting From It.

Although a trimodality regimen for patients with stage IIIA/pN2 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been variably used owing to limited evidence for its benefits, it remains unknown whether any patient subgroup actually receives benefit from such an approach. To explore this question, the published data were reviewed from 1990 to 2015 to identify the possible predictors and prognosticators in this setting. Overall survival was the endpoint of our study. Of 27 identified studies, none had studied the predictors of improved outcomes with trimodality treatment. Of the potential patient- and tumor-related prognosticators, age, gender, and histologic type were the most frequently formally explored. However, none of the 3 was found to influence overall survival. The most prominent finding of the present review was the substantial lack of data supporting a trimodality treatment approach in any patient subgroup. As demonstrated in completed prospective randomized studies, the use of surgery for stage IIIA NSCLC should be limited to well-defined clinical trials

Treatment-Related Predictive and Prognostic Factors in Trimodality Approach in Stage IIIA/N2 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

While there are no established pretreatment predictive and prognostic factors in patients with stage IIIA/pN2 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) indicating a benefit to surgery as a part of trimodality approach, little is known about treatment-related predictive and prognostic factors in this setting. A literature search was conducted to identify possible treatment-related predictive and prognostic factors for patients for whom trimodality approach was reported on. Overall survival was the primary endpoint of this study. Of 30 identified studies, there were two phase II studies, 5 "prospective" studies, and 23 retrospective studies. No study was found which specifically looked at treatment-related predictive factors of improved outcomes in trimodality treatment. Of potential treatment-related prognostic factors, the least frequently analyzed factors among 30 available studies were overall pathologic stage after preoperative treatment and UICC downstaging. Evaluation of treatment response before surgery and by pathologic tumor stage after induction therapy were analyzed in slightly more than 40% of studies and found not to influence survival. More frequently studied factors-resection status, degree of tumor regression, and pathologic nodal stage after induction therapy as well as the most frequently studied factor, the treatment (in almost 75% studies)-showed no discernible impact on survival, due to conflicting results. Currently, it is impossible to identify any treatment-related predictive or prognostic factors for selecting surgery in the treatment of patients with stage IIIA/pN2 NSCLC

Combined modality therapy in Stage IIIA non-small cell lung cancer: clarity or confusion despite the highest level of evidence?

Recent years have witnessed a number of clinical trials in Stage IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) comparing (A) induction chemotherapy (CHT) with induction CHT and radiotherapy (RT), each followed by surgery; (B) either induction CHT or induction RT-CHT, each followed by surgery, with definitive RT-CHT (no surgery). Due to the heterogeneity of patient, tumor and treatment characteristics across these trials, various meta-analyses (MAs) have been performed to define the optimal treatment approach in this setting for this clinical presentation. Six such MAs exist. In spite of the differences between MAs, it appears that RT does not add extra benefit to induction CHT administered before surgery, and that a trimodality (i.e. including surgery) regimen is not superior to definitive concurrent RT-CHT. While one can consider both induction CHT followed by surgery and exclusive concurrent RT-CHT as feasible in this setting, lack of pre-treatment predictive factors identifying patients who might preferentially benefit from a surgical approach limits its use to well-planned clinical trials