Current role of surgery in small cell lung carcinoma

Small cell lung carcinoma represents 15–20% of lung cancer. Is is characterized by rapid growth and early disseminated disease with poor outcome. For many years surgery was considered a contraindication in Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC) since radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy were found to be more efficient in the management of these patients. Never the less some surgeons continue to be in favor of surgery as part of a combined modality treatment in patients with SCLC. The revaluation of the role of surgery in this group of patients is based on clinical data indicating a much better prognosis in selected patients with limited disease (T1-2, N0, M0), the high rate of local recurrence after chemoradiotherapy with surgery considered eventually more efficient in the local control of the disease and the fact that surgery is the most accurate tool to access the response to chemotherapy, identify carcinoids misdiagnosed as SCLC and treat the Non Small Cell Lung Cancer component of mixed tumors. Performing surgery for local disease SCLC requires a complete preoperative assessment to exclude the presence of nodal involvement. In stage I surgery must always be followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, while in stage II and III surgery must be planned only in the context of clinical trials and after a pathologic response to induction chemoradiotherapy has been confirmed. Prophylactic cranial irradiation should be used to reduce the incidence of brain metastasi

ZD6474 – clinical experience to date

ZD6474 selectively targets two key pathways in tumour growth by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-dependent tumour angiogenesis and epidermal growth factor (EGF)-dependent tumour cell proliferation and survival. Phase I clinical evaluation has shown ZD6474 to be generally well tolerated, with a pharmacokinetic profile appropriate for once-daily oral dosing. Phase II evaluation of ZD6474 at doses of 100−300 mg is ongoing in a range of patient types in single and combination regimens. These include three randomised studies of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. In one of these trials, the efficacy of ZD6474 monotherapy is being compared with that of the EGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib (Iressa™) in previously treated patients. In the other two trials, the efficacy of ZD6474 in combination with certain standard chemotherapy regimens is being compared with that of standard chemotherapy alone: one with carboplatin and paclitaxel in previously untreated patients, and the second with docetaxel in patients who progressed after platinum-containing therapy. The advent of novel molecular-targeted agents such as ZD6474 has necessitated a re-evaluation of conventional cancer study design in order to optimise appraisal of this new generation of anticancer agents. The specific considerations of the ZD6474 clinical programme are discussed

A phase I and pharmacological study of the matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor BB-3644 in patients with solid tumours.

BB-3644 is an oral, broad-spectrum matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor (MMPI) structurally related to marimastat and BB-94. It is also >10-fold more active than marimastat in inhibiting the processing of cell-bound TNF-alpha. Preclinical studies suggested a favourable toxicity profile when compared to marimastat, and therefore it was selected for clinical evaluation. Patients with advanced solid tumours against which established treatments had failed, or for which no satisfactory treatment exists and of good performance status, were eligible. Treatment consisted of twice daily (bd) oral BB-3644 for 84 days. The initial dose was 5 mg bd, and subsequent cohorts were treated with 10, 20 and 30 mg bd. In all, 22 patients were enrolled. The dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was musculoskeletal pain. For 28 days of treatment with BB-3644, 20 mg bd was the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), as at 30 mg bd, six of nine patients developed significant musculoskeletal toxicity by day 28. Following chronic oral dosing (>28 days) with BB-3644, three of five patients treated at 10 mg bd developed musculoskeletal DLT by day 84, defining the MTD as 5 mg bd. As dose-limiting musculoskeletal toxicity was encountered at doses of BB-3644 unlikely to provide an advantage over currently available MMPIs, further evaluation is not recommended

Phase II study of continuous daily sunitinib dosing in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Background:Sunitinib malate (SUTENT) has promising single-agent activity given on Schedule 4/2 (4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off treatment) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods:We examined the activity of sunitinib on a continuous daily dosing (CDD) schedule in an open-label, multicentre phase II study in patients with previously treated, advanced NSCLC. Patients ⩾18 years with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC after failure with platinum-based chemotherapy, received sunitinib 37.5 mg per day. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), 1-year survival rate, and safety.Results:Of 47 patients receiving sunitinib, one patient achieved a confirmed partial response (ORR 2.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1, 11.3)) and 11 (23.4%) had stable disease (SD) ⩾8 weeks. Five patients had SD>6 months. Median PFS was 11.9 weeks (95% CI 8.6, 14.1) and median OS was 37.1 weeks (95% CI 31.1, 69.7). The 1-year survival probability was 38.4% (95% CI 24.2, 52.5). Treatment was generally well tolerated.Conclusions:The safety profile and time-to-event analyses, albeit relatively low response rate of 2%, suggest single-agent sunitinib on a CDD schedule may be a potential therapeutic agent for patients with advanced, refractory NSCLC

Prolonged response to first-line erlotinib for advanced lung adenocarcinoma

A 58-year-old, non-smoking female of Philippine origin presented with painful thoracic and neck nodal relapse of lung adenocarcinoma almost 5 years after left pneumonectomy for stage II non-small-cell lung cancer. She refused conventional chemotherapy or radiation because of toxicity concerns, but agreed to oral erlotinib 150 mg/day. Within weeks, her pain was well controlled, with softening of palpable neck nodes. Repeat scans after 7 months on erlotinib showed partial response of thoracic disease and nodal metastases. This response was maintained for 11 months on erlotinib, with symptomatic progression at the original sites of relapse by 15 months. Erlotinib was well tolerated, with grade 2–3 rash, and grade 1 dry cough and diarrhoea being the only significant toxicities. Importantly, the patient was able to maintain daily activities throughout erlotinib therapy

Major differences in organization and availability of health care and medicines for HIV/TB coinfected patients across Europe

Objectives The aim of the study was to investigate the organization and delivery of HIV and tuberculosis (TB) health care and to analyse potential differences between treatment centres in Eastern (EE) and Western Europe (WE). Methods Thirty-eight European HIV and TB treatment centres participating in the TB:HIV study within EuroCoord completed a survey on health care management for coinfected patients in 2013 (EE: 17 respondents; WE:21; 76% of all TB:HIV centres). Descriptive statistics were obtained for regional comparisons. The reported data on health care strategies were compared with actual clinical practice at patient level via data derived from the TB:HIV study. Results Respondent centres in EE comprised: Belarus (n = 3), Estonia (1), Georgia (1), Latvia (1), Lithuania (1), Poland (4), Romania (1), the Russian Federation (4) and Ukraine (1); those in WE comprised: Belgium (1), Denmark (1), France (1), Italy (7), Spain (2), Switzerland (1) and UK (8). Compared with WE, treatment of HIV and TB in EE are less often located at the same site (47% in EE versus 100% in WE; P < 0.001) and less often provided by the same doctors (41% versus 90%, respectively; P = 0.002), whereas regular screening of HIV-infected patients for TB (80% versus 40%, respectively; P = 0.037) and directly observed treatment (88% versus 20%, respectively; P < 0.001) were more common in EE. The reported availability of rifabutin and second- and third-line anti-TB drugs was lower, and opioid substitution therapy (OST) was available at fewer centres in EE compared with WE (53% versus 100%, respectively; P < 0.001). Conclusions Major differences exist between EE and WE in relation to the organization and delivery of health care for HIV/TB-coinfected patients and the availability of anti-TB drugs and OST. Significant discrepancies between reported and actual clinical practices were found in EE

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in the second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in Spain: results for the non-squamous histology population

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness evaluation of pemetrexed compared to docetaxel in the treatment of advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for patients with predominantly non-squamous histology in the Spanish healthcare setting.MethodsA Markov model was designed consisting of stable, responsive, progressive disease and death states. Patients could also experience adverse events as long as they received chemotherapy. Clinical inputs were based on an analysis of a phase III clinical trial that identified a statistically significant improvement in overall survival for non-squamous patients treated with pemetrexed compared with docetaxel. Costs were collected from the Spanish healthcare perspective.ResultsOutcomes of the model included total costs, total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total life years gained (LYG) and total progression-free survival (PFS). Mean survival was 1.03 years for the pemetrexed arm and 0.89 years in the docetaxel arm; QALYs were 0.52 compared to 0.42. Per-patient lifetime costs were € 34677 and € 32343, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were € 23967 per QALY gained and € 17225 per LYG.ConclusionsPemetrexed as a second-line treatment option for patients with a predominantly non-squamous histology in NSCLC is a cost-effective alternative to docetaxel according to the € 30000/QALY threshold commonly accepted in Spain