Assessment of Breathlessness in Lung Cancer: Psychometric Properties of the Dyspnea-12 Questionnaire.

CONTEXT: The Dyspnea-12 (D-12) Questionnaire is a well-validated instrument in respiratory illnesses for breathlessness assessment, but its psychometric properties have not been tested in lung cancer. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the psychometric properties of the D-12 in lung cancer patients. METHODS: Baseline data from a lung cancer feasibility trial were adopted for this analysis. D-12 and a series of patient-reported tools, including five Numeric Rating Scales (NRS), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS), were used for the psychometric assessment. Spearman's correlation coefficients (rs) were used to estimate the convergent validity of the D-12 with the NRS, HADS, and LCSS. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to examine construct validity. Reliability was tested by Cronbach's alpha and item-to-total correlations. D-12 score difference between patients with or without anxiety, depression, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was explored to identify its discriminate performance. RESULTS: One hundred and one lung cancer patients were included. There were significantly positive correlations between the D-12 and the HADS, LCSS, and NRS measuring breathlessness severity and its associated affective distress. Factor analysis clearly identified two components (physical and emotional) of the D-12. Cronbach's alpha for D-12 total, physical, and emotional subscales was 0.95, 0.92, and 0.94, respectively. Patients with anxiety or depression demonstrated significantly higher D-12 scores than those without it, and patients with COPD reported significantly more severe breathlessness than those without COPD. CONCLUSION: The D-12 is a valid and reliable self-reported questionnaire for use in breathlessness assessment in lung cancer patients

Management of the respiratory distress symptom cluster in lung cancer: a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Breathlessness, cough and fatigue are distressing symptoms for patients with lung cancer. There is evidence that these three symptoms form a discreet symptom cluster. This study aimed to feasibly test a new non-pharmacological intervention for the management of the Respiratory Distress Symptom Cluster (breathlessness-cough-fatigue) in lung cancer. METHOD: This was a multi-centre, randomised controlled non-blinded parallel group feasibility trial. Eligible patients (patients with primary lung cancer and 'bothered' by at least two of the three cluster symptoms) received usual care plus a multicomponent intervention delivered over two intervention training sessions and a follow-up telephone call or usual care only. Follow-up was for 12 weeks, and end-points included six numerical rating scales for breathlessness severity, Dyspnoea-12, Manchester Cough in Lung Cancer scale, FACIT-Fatigue scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, Lung Cancer Symptom Scale and the EQ-5D-3L, collected at baseline, week 4 and week 12. RESULTS: One hundred seven patients were randomised over 8 months; however, six were removed from further analysis due to protocol violations (intervention group n = 50 and control group n = 51). Of the ineligible patients (n = 608), 29 % reported either not experiencing two or more symptoms or not being 'bothered' by at least two symptoms. There was 29 % drop-out by week 4, and by week 12, a further two patients in the control group were lost to follow-up. A sample size calculation indicated that 122 patients per arm would be needed to detect a clinically important difference in the main outcome for breathlessness, cough and fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: The study has provided evidence of the feasibility and acceptability of a new intervention in the lung cancer population and warrants a fully powered trial before we reach any conclusions. The follow-on trial will test the hypothesis that the intervention improves symptom cluster of breathlessness, cough and fatigue better than usual care alone. Full economic evaluation will be conducted in the main trial

Investigation of myositis and scleroderma specific autoantibodies in patients with lung cancer

Figure S1. Radio-immunoprecipitation of NSCLC samples and positive controls. A Autoradiograph of a 10% SDS-PAGE, loaded with immunoprecipitates using either serum containing known autoantibodies (Lane 1: Healthy Control/Normal Serum (NS), Lane 2: anti-Jo-1 and anti-U1RNP/Sm, Lane 3: anti-PMScl, anti-Ro60 and anti-La, Lane 4: anti-Mitrochondrial autoantibodies (AMAs), Lane 5; anti-Ku and anti-Mi-2), or NSCLC samples screened as part of this study (lanes 6–14). The sample loaded into lane 11 (NSCLC269, marker with *) contains anti-EJ autoantibodies. B Autoradiograph of a 10% SDS-PAGE, loaded with immunoprecipitates using serum known to contain anti-EJ autoantibodies (lanes 1–4) or NSCLC269 identified as containing anti-EJ. (PPTX 309 kb

ESMO Management and treatment adapted recommendations in the COVID-19 era : Lung cancer

The COVID-19 pandemic, characterised by a fast and global spread during the first months of 2020, has prompted the development of a structured set of recommendations for cancer care management, to maintain the highest possible standards. Within this framework, it is crucial to ensure no disruption to essential oncological services and guarantee the optimal care.This is a structured proposal for the management of lung cancer, comprising three levels of priorities, namely: tier 1 (high priority), tier 2 (medium priority) and tier 3 (low priority)-defined according to the criteria of the Cancer Care Ontario, Huntsman Cancer Institute and Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale.The manuscript emphasises the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on lung cancer care and reconsiders all steps from diagnosis, staging and treatment.These recommendations should, therefore, serve as guidance for prioritising the different aspects of cancer care to mitigate the possible negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of our patients.As the situation is rapidly evolving, practical actions are required to guarantee the best patients' treatment while protecting and respecting their rights, safety and well-being. In this environment, cancer practitioners have great responsibilities: provide timely, appropriate, compassionate and justified cancer care, while protecting themselves and their patients from being infected with COVID-19. In case of shortages, resources must be distributed fairly. Consequently, the following recommendations can be applied with significant nuances, depending on the time and location for their use, considering variable constraints imposed to the health systems. An exceptional flexibility is required from cancer caregivers

Clinical expert guidelines for the management of cough in lung cancer: report of a UK task group on cough

Background Cough is a common and distressing symptom in lung cancer patients. The clinical management of cough in lung cancer patients is suboptimal with limited high quality research evidence available. The aim of the present paper is to present a clinical guideline developed in the UK through scrutiny of the literature and expert opinion, in order to aid decision making in clinicians and highlight good practice. Methods Two systematic reviews, one focusing on the management of cough in respiratory illness and one Cochrane review specifically on cancer, were conducted. Also, data from reviews, phase II trials and case studies were synthesized. A panel of experts in the field was also convened in an expert consensus meeting to make sense of the data and make clinical propositions. Results A pyramid of cough management was developed, starting with the treatment of reversible causes of cough/specific pathology. Initial cough management should focus on peripherally acting and intermittent treatment; more resistant symptoms require the addition of (or replacement by) centrally acting and continuous treatment. The pyramid for the symptomatic management starts from the simpler and most practical regimens (demulcents, simple linctus) to weak opioids to morphine and methadone before considering less well-researched and experimental approaches. Conclusion The clinical guidelines presented aim to provide a sensible clinical approach to the management of cough in lung cancer. High quality research in this field is urgently required to provide more evidence-based recommendations

Identification and functional analysis of SKA2 interaction with the glucocorticoid receptor

Glucocorticoid (GC) receptors (GRs) have profound anti-survival effects on human small cell lung cancer (SCLC). To explore the basis of these effects, protein partners for GRs were sought using a yeast two-hybrid screen. We discovered a novel gene, FAM33A, subsequently identified as a SKA1 partner and involved in mitosis, and so renamed Ska2. We produced an anti-peptide antibody that specifically recognized full-length human SKA2 to measure expression in human cell lines and tissues. There was a wide variation in expression across multiple cell lines, but none was detected in the liver cell line HepG2. A xenograft model of human SCLC had intense staining and archival tissue revealed SKA2 in several human lung and breast tumours. SKA2 was found in the cytoplasm, where it co-localized with GR, but nuclear expression of SKA2 was seen in breast tumours. SKA2 overexpression increased GC transactivation in HepG2 cells while SKA2 knockdown in A549 human lung epithelial cells decreased transactivation and prevented dexamethasone inhibition of proliferation. GC treatment decreased SKA2 protein levels in A549 cells, as did Staurosporine, phorbol ester and trichostatin A; all agents that inhibit cell proliferation. Overexpression of SKA2 potentiated the proliferative response to IGF-I exposure, and knockdown with shRNA caused cells to arrest in mitosis. SKA2 has recently been identified in HeLa S3 cells as part of a complex, which is critical for spindle checkpoint silencing and exit from mitosis. Our new data show involvement in cell proliferation and GC signalling, with implications for understanding how GCs impact on cell fate

Final Efficacy and Safety Results of Pemetrexed Continuation Maintenance Therapy in the Elderly from the PARAMOUNT Phase III Study

Introduction:The PARAMOUNT Phase III trial showed that maintenance pemetrexed after pemetrexed plus cisplatin induction was well tolerated and effective for patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer. Approximately 17% of patients receiving maintenance therapy in this study were 70 years of age or older. Here we report efficacy and safety results from the PARAMOUNT study for elderly (≥70 years) and non-elderly (<70 years) patients.Methods:Final efficacy and safety data from the PARAMOUNT study were analyzed post hoc using subgroup analyses for elderly and non-elderly patients.Results:The median age was 73 years in the elderly subgroup (n = 92) and 60 years in the non-elderly subgroup (n = 447). Subgroups had similar baseline characteristics, except for a higher percentage of males and patients with a performance status of one in the elderly subgroup. For elderly patients, the median PFS was 6.4 months for pemetrexed and 3.0 months for placebo; the median OS was 13.7 months for pemetrexed and 12.1 months for placebo. For non-elderly patients, the median PFS was 4.0 months for pemetrexed and 2.8 months for placebo; the median OS was 13.9 months for pemetrexed and 10.8 months for placebo. Elderly patients experienced similar levels of low-grade toxicities, but had a higher percentage of grade 3/4 anemia and neutropenia than non-elderly patients, although importantly, this did not translate into increased febrile neutropenia.Conclusions:Continuation maintenance pemetrexed had comparable survival and toxicity profiles in the elderly and non-elderly subgroups. However, grade 3/4 anemia and neutropenia were numerically higher for elderly patients

Reliability and prognostic value of radiomic features are highly dependent on choice of feature extraction platform

From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2020-02-26, rev-recd 2020-03-28, accepted 2020-05-14, registration 2020-05-14, pub-electronic 2020-06-01, online 2020-06-01, pub-print 2020-11Publication status: PublishedFunder: Cancer Research UK; Grant(s): C147/A18083, C147/A25254, C19221/A22746Funder: Manchester Biomedical Research Centre; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100014653Abstract: Objective: To investigate the effects of Image Biomarker Standardisation Initiative (IBSI) compliance, harmonisation of calculation settings and platform version on the statistical reliability of radiomic features and their corresponding ability to predict clinical outcome. Methods: The statistical reliability of radiomic features was assessed retrospectively in three clinical datasets (patient numbers: 108 head and neck cancer, 37 small-cell lung cancer, 47 non-small-cell lung cancer). Features were calculated using four platforms (PyRadiomics, LIFEx, CERR and IBEX). PyRadiomics, LIFEx and CERR are IBSI-compliant, whereas IBEX is not. The effects of IBSI compliance, user-defined calculation settings and platform version were assessed by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients and confidence intervals. The influence of platform choice on the relationship between radiomic biomarkers and survival was evaluated using univariable cox regression in the largest dataset. Results: The reliability of radiomic features calculated by the different software platforms was only excellent (ICC > 0.9) for 4/17 radiomic features when comparing all four platforms. Reliability improved to ICC > 0.9 for 15/17 radiomic features when analysis was restricted to the three IBSI-compliant platforms. Failure to harmonise calculation settings resulted in poor reliability, even across the IBSI-compliant platforms. Software platform version also had a marked effect on feature reliability in CERR and LIFEx. Features identified as having significant relationship to survival varied between platforms, as did the direction of hazard ratios. Conclusion: IBSI compliance, user-defined calculation settings and choice of platform version all influence the statistical reliability and corresponding performance of prognostic models in radiomics. Key Points: • Reliability of radiomic features varies between feature calculation platforms and with choice of software version. • Image Biomarker Standardisation Initiative (IBSI) compliance improves reliability of radiomic features across platforms, but only when calculation settings are harmonised. • IBSI compliance, user-defined calculation settings and choice of platform version collectively affect the prognostic value of features

Concurrent once-daily versus twice-daily chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (CONVERT): an open-label, phase 3, randomised, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, but the optimal radiotherapy schedule and dose remains controversial. The aim of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: The CONVERT trial was an open-label, phase 3, randomised superiority trial. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had cytologically or histologically confirmed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and adequate pulmonary function. Patients were recruited from 73 centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 45 Gy radiotherapy in 30 twice-daily fractions of 1·5 Gy over 19 days, or 66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions of 2 Gy over 45 days, starting on day 22 after commencing cisplatin-etoposide chemotherapy (given as four to six cycles every 3 weeks in both groups). The allocation method used was minimisation with a random element, stratified by institution, planned number of chemotherapy cycles, and performance status. Treatment group assignments were not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by modified intention-to-treat. A 12% higher overall survival at 2 years in the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group was considered to be clinically significant to show superiority of the once-daily regimen. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00433563) and is currently in follow-up. FINDINGS: Between April 7, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013, 547 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients). Four patients (one in the twice-daily group and three in the once-daily group) did not return their case report forms and were lost to follow-up; these patients were not included in our analyses. At a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35-58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24-34) in the twice-daily group versus 25 months (21-31) in the once-daily group (hazard ratio for death in the once daily group 1·18 [95% CI 0·95-1·45]; p=0·14). 2-year overall survival was 56% (95% CI 50-62) in the twice-daily group and 51% (45-57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5·3% [95% CI -3·2% to 13·7%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event in patients evaluated for chemotherapy toxicity was neutropenia (197 [74%] of 266 patients in the twice-daily group vs 170 [65%] of 263 in the once-daily group). Most toxicities were similar between the groups, except there was significantly more grade 4 neutropenia with twice-daily radiotherapy (129 [49%] vs 101 [38%]; p=0·05). In patients assessed for radiotherapy toxicity, was no difference in grade 3-4 oesophagitis between the groups (47 [19%] of 254 patients in the twice-daily group vs 47 [19%] of 246 in the once-daily group; p=0·85) and grade 3-4 radiation pneumonitis (4 [3%] of 254 vs 4 [2%] of 246; p=0·70). 11 patients died from treatment-related causes (three in the twice-daily group and eight in the once-daily group). INTERPRETATION: Survival outcomes did not differ between twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, and toxicity was similar and lower than expected with both regimens. Since the trial was designed to show superiority of once-daily radiotherapy and was not powered to show equivalence, the implication is that twice-daily radiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in this setting. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK (Clinical Trials Awards and Advisory Committee), French Ministry of Health, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Cancer Research Fund, Lung Cancer, and Radiation Oncology Groups)