Oncology Fellows' Career Plans, Expectations, and Well-Being: Do Fellows Know What They Are Getting Into?

To evaluate the career plans, professional expectations, and well-being of oncology fellows compared with actual experiences of practicing oncologists

ESMO/ASCO recommendations for a Global Curriculum (GC) in medical oncology-edition 2016

Non peer reviewe

Phase II study of gemcitabine and vindesine in patients with previously untreated non-resectable non-small-cell lung cancer

Because both vindesine and gemcitabine are active drugs in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with different modes of action and only partly overlapping toxicity, a phase II study was performed. Gemcitabine 1000 mg m−2 was given on days 1, 8 and 15 every 4 weeks, while vindesine 3 mg m−2 was administered weekly for 7 weeks, then every 2 weeks. A total of 42 patients with nonresectable NSCLC were included. The median age of patients was 56 years; 57% were men, 52% had adenocarcinoma, 31% squamous cell carcinoma and 17% had large-cell carcinoma. The performance status ranged from 0 to 2 with 83% in performance status 1. The majority (55%) had stage IV disease, while 40% had stage III B and 5% stage III A disease. WHO grade 3–4 leucopenia occurred in five patients (12%) and 9% had grade 4 neutropenia. Thrombocytopenia grade 3–4 was observed in six patients (15%). There were no septic death or bleeding episodes. One patient had a transient WHO grade 4 increase in bilirubin, and four patients had a decrease in glomerular filtration rate below the normal limit; one of these patients developed a non-reversible renal insufficiency. Ten patients (24%) complained of dyspnoea of uncertain mechanism, possibly involving bronchoconstriction. There were one complete and seven partial responses among 40 assessable patients (20%, 95% confidence limits 9–36%). Median response duration was 31 weeks (range 11–83 weeks) and median survival time 31 weeks (range 2–171 weeks). The current combination of gemcitabine and vindesine does not appear to be promising for further examination because of the toxicity and somewhat disappointing activity. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaig

Systemic Treatments for Mesothelioma: Standard and Novel

Systemic therapy is the only treatment option for the majority of mesothelioma patients, for whom age, co-morbid medical illnesses, non-epithelial histology, and locally advanced disease often preclude surgery. For many years, chemotherapy had a minimal impact on the natural history of this cancer, engendering considerable nihilism. Countless drugs were evaluated, most of which achieved response rates below 20% and median survival of <1 year. Several factors have hampered the evaluation of systemic regimens in patients with mesothelioma. The disease is uncommon, affecting only about 2500 Americans annually. Thus, most clinical trials are small, and randomized studies are challenging to accrue. There is significant heterogeneity within the patient populations of these small trials, for several reasons. Since all of the staging systems for mesothelioma are surgically based, it is almost impossible to accurately determine the stage of a patient who has not been resected. Patients with very early stage disease may be lumped together with far more advanced patients in the same study. The disease itself is heterogenous, with many different prognostic factors, most notably three pathologic subtypes—epithelial, sarcomatoid, and biphasic—that have different natural histories, and varying responses to treatment. Finally, response assessment is problematic, since pleural-based lesions are difficult to measure accurately and reproducibly. Assessment criteria often vary between trials, making some cross-trial comparisons difficult to interpret. Despite these limitations, in recent years, there has been a surge of optimism regarding systemic treatment of this disease. Several cytotoxic agents have been shown to generate reproducible responses, improve quality of life, or prolong survival in mesothelioma. Drugs with single-agent activity include pemetrexed, raltitrexed, vinorelbine, and vinflunine. The addition of pemetrexed or raltitrexed to cisplatin prolongs survival. The addition of cisplatin to pemetrexed, raltitrexed, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or vinorelbine improves response rate. The combination of pemetrexed plus cisplatin is considered the benchmark front-line regimen for this disease, based on a phase III trial in 456 patients that yielded a response rate of 41% and a median survival of 12.1 months. Vitamin supplementation with folic acid is essential to decrease toxicity, though recent data suggests that there may be an optimum dose of folic acid that should be administered; higher doses may diminish the effectiveness of pemetrexed. There are also several unresolved questions about the duration and timing of treatment with pemetrexed that are the subject of planned clinical trials. It is essential to recognize that the improvements observed with the pemetrexed/cisplatin combination, though real, are still modest. Other active drugs or drug combinations may be more appropriate for specific individuals, and further research is still needed to improve upon these results. Since the majority of mesotheliomas in the United States occur in the elderly, non-cisplatin-containing pemetrexed combinations may be more appropriate for some patients. Now that effective agents have been developed for initial treatment, several classical cytotoxic drugs and many novel agents are being evaluated in the second-line setting. These include drugs targeted against the epidermal growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor, vascular endothelial growth factor, src kinase, histone deacetylase, the proteasome, and mesothelin. Given the progress made in recent years, there is reason to believe that more effective treatments will continue to be developed

ESMO / ASCO Recommendations for a Global Curriculum in Medical Oncology Edition 2016

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) are publishing a new edition of the ESMO/ASCO Global Curriculum (GC) thanks to contribution of 64 ESMO-appointed and 32 ASCO-appointed authors. First published in 2004 and updated in 2010, the GC edition 2016 answers to the need for updated recommendations for the training of physicians in medical oncology by defining the standard to be fulfilled to qualify as medical oncologists. At times of internationalisation of healthcare and increased mobility of patients and physicians, the GC aims to provide state-of-the-art cancer care to all patients wherever they live. Recent progress in the field of cancer research has indeed resulted in diagnostic and therapeutic innovations such as targeted therapies as a standard therapeutic approach or personalised cancer medicine apart from the revival of immunotherapy, requiring specialised training for medical oncology trainees. Thus, several new chapters on technical contents such as molecular pathology, translational research or molecular imaging and on conceptual attitudes towards human principles like genetic counselling or survivorship have been integrated in the GC. The GC edition 2016 consists of 12 sections with 17 subsections, 44 chapters and 35 subchapters, respectively. Besides renewal in its contents, the GC underwent a principal formal change taking into consideration modern didactic principles. It is presented in a template-based format that subcategorises the detailed outcome requirements into learning objectives, awareness, knowledge and skills. Consecutive steps will be those of harmonising and implementing teaching and assessment strategies

Ice targets

This report presents a description of ice targets that were constructed for research work at the High Resolution Spectrometer (HRS) and at the Energetic Pion Channel and Spectrometer (EPICS). Reasons for using these ice targets and the instructions for their construction are given. Results of research using ice targets will be published at a later date

Effectiveness and safety of post-induction phase bevacizumab treatment for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: results from the ARIES observational cohort study

Data from randomized, controlled trials suggest that post-induction phase (IP) treatment with bevacizumab may benefit patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Real-world clinical practice, however, can involve variable use and patterns of treatment in broader patient populations. To assess the effect of bevacizumab on post-IP overall survival (OS) following IP chemotherapy + bevacizumab, analyses were conducted in patients enrolled in the Avastin(®) Registry--Investigation of Effectiveness and Safety (ARIES) observational cohort study (OCS) who received post-IP bevacizumab. ARIES was a large, prospective OCS of patients who received chemotherapy in combination with bevacizumab for the first-line treatment of NSCLC. This unplanned, post hoc analysis included patients who received chemotherapy and bevacizumab and who did not have progressive disease through the completion of IP treatment. A dichotomous analysis compared outcomes in patients who did and did not receive bevacizumab before a landmark date of day 30 post IP. A cumulative exposure analysis used a time-dependent Cox regression model to assess the effect of cumulative post-IP bevacizumab exposure on post-IP OS. In the dichotomous analysis, the duration of post-IP OS was significantly longer in patients who received post-IP bevacizumab; median post-IP OS was 15.6 vs. 11.3 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80; 95 % confidence interval 0.71-0.91; P < 0.001). The cumulative exposure analysis observed that each additional cycle of cumulative bevacizumab exposure decreased the HR for post-IP OS by 2.7 %, on average. In conclusion, post-IP bevacizumab exposure was associated with improved post-IP OS in patients with advanced NSCLC who were enrolled in the ARIES OCS