15 research outputs found

    Protocol for PIT: a phase III trial of prophylactic irradiation of tracts in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma following invasive chest wall intervention.

    Get PDF
    INTRODUCTION: Histological diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma requires an invasive procedure such as CT-guided needle biopsy, thoracoscopy, video-assisted thorascopic surgery (VATs) or thoracotomy. These invasive procedures encourage tumour cell seeding at the intervention site and patients can develop tumour nodules within the chest wall. In an effort to prevent nodules developing, it has been widespread practice across Europe to irradiate intervention sites postprocedure--a practice known as prophylactic irradiation of tracts (PIT). To date there has not been a suitably powered randomised trial to determine whether PIT is effective at reducing the risk of chest wall nodule development. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this multicentre phase III randomised controlled superiority trial, 374 patients who can receive radiotherapy within 42 days of a chest wall intervention will be randomised to receive PIT or no PIT. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1 basis. Radiotherapy in the PIT arm will be 21 Gy in three fractions. Subsequent chemotherapy is given at the clinicians' discretion. A reduction in the incidence of chest wall nodules from 15% to 5% in favour of radiotherapy 6 months after randomisation would be clinically significant. All patients will be followed up for up to 2 years with monthly telephone contact and at least four outpatient visits in the first year. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: PIT was approved by NRES Committee North West-Greater Manchester West (REC reference 12/NW/0249) and recruitment is currently on-going, the last patient is expected to be randomised by the end of 2015. The analysis of the primary end point, incidence of chest wall nodules 6 months after randomisation, is expected to be published in 2016 in a peer reviewed journal and results will also be presented at scientific meetings and summary results published online. A follow-up analysis is expected to be published in 2018. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN04240319; NCT01604005; Pre-results

    How should performance in EBUS mediastinal staging in lung cancer be measured?

    Get PDF
    There has been a paradigm shift in mediastinal staging algorithms in non-small cell lung cancer over the last decade in the United Kingdom (UK). This has seen endoscopic nodal staging (predominantly endobronchial ultrasound, EBUS) almost replace surgical staging (predominantly mediastinoscopy) as the pathological staging procedure of first choic

    Sequential screening for lung cancer in a high-risk group: randomised controlled trial

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Low-dose CT (LDCT) screening detects early stage lung cancer and reduces mortality. We proposed a sequential approach targeted to a high-risk group as a potentially efficient screening strategy. METHODS: LungSEARCH was a national multicentre randomised trial. Current/former smokers with mild/moderate COPD were allocated (1:1) to have 5 years surveillance or not. Screened participants provided annual sputum samples for cytology and cytometry, and if abnormal were offered annual LDCT and autofluorescence bronchoscopy (AFB). Those with normal sputum provided annual samples. Primary endpoint was the percentage of lung cancers diagnosed at stage I/II (non-small cell) or limited disease (small cell). RESULTS: 1568 individuals were randomised 2007-2011, from 10 UK centres. 85.2% of those screened provided an adequate baseline sputum sample. There were 42 lung cancers among 785 screened and 36 among 783 controls. 54.8% (23/42) screened versus 45.2% (14/31) controls with known staging were diagnosed with early stage disease (one-sided p=0.24). Relative risk 1.21 (95%CI 0.75-1.95) or 0.82 (95%CI 0.52-1.31) for early stage or advanced cancers respectively. Overall sensitivity for sputum (in those randomised to surveillance) was low (40.5%) and cumulative false-positive rate (FPR) 32.8%. 55% of cancers had normal sputum results throughout. Among sputum-positive individuals who had AFB, sensitivity was 45.5% and cumulative FPR 39.5%; the corresponding measures for those who had LDCT were 100% and 16.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Our sequential strategy, using sputum cytology/cytometry to select high-risk individuals for AFB and LDCT, did not lead to a clear stage shift, and did not improve the efficiency of lung cancer screening
    corecore