A Phase III Randomized Study Comparing a Chemotherapy with Cisplatin and Etoposide to a Etoposide Regimen without Cisplatin for Patients with Extensive Small-Cell Lung Cancer

IntroductionIn a literature meta-analysis, we showed survival benefits for regimens including cisplatin [hazard ratio (HR) 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.57–0.66] and for those including etoposide (HR 0.65; 0.61–0.69). That benefit was mainly observed when etoposide alone or in combination with cisplatin was included in the chemotherapy regimens. Our objective was to determine if chemotherapy with both drugs improves survival in comparison to a non-platinum regimen with etoposide.MethodsExtensive small-cell lung cancer patients were randomized between cisplatin–etoposide (CE) and ifosfamide + etoposide + epirubicin regimen (IVE) between 2000 and 2013.Results176 and 170 eligible patients were allocated to CE and IVE (315 deaths were required before analysis), respectively. Objective response rates were not significantly different: 60% with CE and 59% with IVE. No statistically significant difference in median survival and 1-year and 2-year was observed with rates of 9.6 months, 31 and 5% for CE and 10 months, 39 and 9% for IVE, respectively. HR was 0.84 (95% CI 0.68–1.05, p = 0.16). Only two prognostic factors for survival were retained in multivariate analysis: sex with HR = 0.69 (95% CI 0.49–0.97, p = 0.03) and performance status with HR = 0.53 (95% CI 0.49–0.97, p < 0.0001). After adjustment for these prognostic factors, HR for survival was 0.83 (95% CI 0.65–1.08, p = 0.17). There was more thrombopenia in the CE regimen and more leukopenia with IVE.ConclusionCombination of CE failed to improve survival in comparison to an etoposide-containing regimen without cisplatin.Clinical Trial Registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00658580?term=ELCWP+01994&rank=1, identifier NCT00658580

The European Respiratory Society and European Society of Thoracic Surgeons clinical guidelines for evaluating fitness for radical treatment (surgery and chemoradiotherapy) in patients with lung cancer

The European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS) established a joint task force with the purpose to develop clinical evidence-based guidelines on evaluation of fitness for radical therapy in patients with lung cancer. The following topics were discussed, and are summarized in the final report along with graded recommendations: Cardiologic evaluation before lung resection; lung function tests and exercise tests (limitations of ppoFEV1; DLCO: systematic or selective?; split function studies; exercise tests: systematic; low-tech exercise tests; cardiopulmonary (high tech) exercise tests); future trends in preoperative work-up; physiotherapy/rehabilitation and smoking cessation; scoring systems; advanced care management (ICU/HDU); quality of life in patients submitted to radical treatment; combined cancer surgery and lung volume reduction surgery; compromised parenchymal sparing resections and minimally invasive techniques: the balance between oncological radicality and functional reserve; neoadjuvant chemotherapy and complications; definitive chemo and radiotherapy: functional selection criteria and definition of risk; should surgical criteria be re-calibrated for radiotherapy?; the patient at prohibitive surgical risk: alternatives to surgery; who should treat thoracic patients and where these patients should be treated

Prophylactic cranial irradiation in small cell lung cancer: a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis

PURPOSE: A systematic review of the literature was carried out to determine the role of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) . METHODS: To be eligible, full published trials needed to deal with SCLC and to have randomly assigned patients to receive PCI or not. Trials quality was assessed by two scores (Chalmers and ELCWP). RESULTS: Twelve randomised trials (1547 patients) were found to be eligible. Five evaluated the role of PCI in SCLC patients who had complete response (CR) after chemotherapy. Brain CT scan was done in the work-up in five studies and brain scintigraphy in six. Chalmers and ELCWP scores are well correlated (p < 0.001), with respective median scores of 32.6 and 38.8 %. This meta-analysis based on the available published data reveals a decrease of brain metastases incidence (hazard ratio (HR): 0.48; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.39 - 0.60) for all the studies and an improvement of survival (HR: 0.82; 95 % CI: 0.71 - 0.96) in patients in CR in favour of the PCI arm. Unfortunately, long-term neurotoxicity was not adequately described . CONCLUSIONS: PCI decreases brain metastases incidence and improves survival in CR SCLC patients but these effects were obtained in patients who had no systematic neuropsychological and brain imagery assessments. The long-term toxicity has not been prospectively evaluated. If PCI can be recommended in patients with SCLC and CR documented by a work-up including brain CT scan, data are lacking to generalise its use to any CR situations

European Lung Cancer Working Party. Clinical Practice Guidelines. Small Cell Lung Cancer: V. Extensive disease

The present guidelines on the management of extensive disease small cell lung cancer (SCLC) were formulated by the ELCWP in October 2007. They are designed to answer the following nine questions: 1) What is the definition of extensive disease? 2)What are the active drugs? 3) What is the best induction regimen? 4) Is there a role for maintenance chemotherapy? 5) Is there a role for dose-intensive chemotherapy? 6) Is there a role for the use of haemopoietic growth factors and stem cells support? 7) Is there a role for alternating or sequential chemotherapy? 8) Is there a role for biological treatments? 9) Is there a place for second-line chemotherapy

European Lung Cancer Working Party Clinical Practice Guidelines Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: II. Unresectable Non-metastatic Stages

The present guidelines on the management of unresectable non-metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were formulated by the ELCWP in October 2005. They are designed to answer the following eight questions: 1) Is chest irradiation curative for NSCLC? 2) What are the contra-indications (anatomical or functional) to chest irradiation? 3) Does the addition of chemotherapy add an advantage to radiotherapy? 4) Does the addition of radiotherapy add an advantage to chemotherapy? 5) Is irradiation as effective as surgery for marginally resectable stage III? 6) How to best combine chemotherapy with radiotherapy: sequentially, concomitantly, as consolidation, as induction, as radiosensitiser? 7) In case of too advanced locoregional disease, is there a role for consolidation (salvage) local treatment (surgery or radiotherapy) after induction chemotherapy? 8) In 2005, what are the technical characteristics of an adequate radiotherapy

European Lung Cancer Working Party Clinical Practice Guidelines. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: III. Metastatic disease

The present guidelines on the management of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NS CLC) were formulated by the ELCWP in October 2006. They are designed to answer the following twelve questions: 1) What benefits can be expected from chemotherapy and what are the treatment objectives? 2) What are the active chemotherapeutic drugs for which efficacy has been shown? 3) Which are the most effective platinum-based regimens? 4) Which is the indicated dosage of cisplatin? 5) Can carboplatin be substituted for cisplatin? 6) Which is the optimal number of cycles to be administered? 7) Can non-platinum based regimens be substituted for platinum based chemotherapy as first-line treatment? 8) Is there an indication for sequential chemotherapy? 9) What is the efficacy of salvage chemotherapy and which drugs should be used in that indication? 10) What is the place of targeted therapies? 11) What is the place of chemotherapy in the management of a patient with brain metastases? 12) Which specific drugs can be used for the patient with bone metastases

Migration von /sw vom AFS ins DCE/DFS

/sw ist eine verteilte Softwarebereitstellung mit dem Ziel, jedem Benutzer Software zentral zur Verfügung zu stellen, ohne daß er sich darum kümmern muß, woher er seine Software bekommt. Für eine Außenstehenden ergibt sich somit das Bild eines großen Softwarepools, aus dem er sich fertig installierte Software für seine Plattform herunterladen kann. Voraussetzung dafür ist, daß ein Benuzter an seiner Workstation über AFS (Andrew File System), DFS (Distributed File System) oder ftp verfügt. Zur Zeit werden vom /sw für 18 verschiedenen Unix-Plattformen 594 Programme in 1024 verschiedenen Installationen angeboten. Die meisten Architekturen vom /sw liegen im AFS, bis auf die Architekturen DEC ALPHA, IRIX 4.0 und Linux, die im NFS liegen. In Zukunft wird es für die gesamte /sw Software nur noch eine Quelle geben, das DFS. Mit der Migration von /sw aus dem AFS ins DFS entfällt dann die Trennung von /sw in einen AFS-Teil und einem NFS-Teil und damit auch der AFS/NFS-Translators, der recht unstabil läuft. Die gesamte Software von /sw wurde aus dem AFS bzw. NFS ins DFS migriert, so daß für alle vom /sw unterstützten Architekturen nur noch eine Quelle zur Verfügung steht, die Stuttgarter DCE-Zelle. Jeder AFS-Klient hat über den AFS/DFS-Translator Zugriff auf /sw und für die NFS-Klienten wird das /sw-Fi-lesystem exportiert, so daß jeder NFS-Klient die Möglichkeit hat das DFS-Filesystem /sw zu mounten. Eine Workstation kann sowohl AFS- als auch DCE/DFS-Klient sein

Achieving Thoracic Oncology data collection in Europe: a precursor study in 35 Countries

Background: A minority of European countries have participated in international comparisons with high level data on lung cancer. However, the nature and extent of data collection across the continent is simply unknown, and without accurate data collection it is not possible to compare practice and set benchmarks to which lung cancer services can aspire.Methods: Using an established network of lung cancer specialists in 37 European countries, a survey was distributed in December 2014. The results relate to current practice in each country at the time, early 2015. The results were compiled and then verified with co-authors over the following months.Results: Thirty-five completed surveys were received which describe a range of current practice for lung cancer data collection. Thirty countries have data collection at the national level, but this is not so in Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. Data collection varied from paper records with no survival analysis, to well-established electronic databases with links to census data and survival analyses.Conclusion: Using a network of committed clinicians, we have gathered validated comparative data reporting an observed difference in data collection mechanisms across Europe. We have identified the need to develop a well-designed dataset, whilst acknowledging what is feasible within each country, and aspiring to collect high quality data for clinical research