Simple Aspiration versus Drainage for Complete Pneumothorax: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

Rationale: Management of first episodes of primary spontaneous pneumothorax remains the subject of debate. Objectives: To determine whether first-line simple aspiration is noninferior to first-line chest tube drainage for lung expansion in patients with complete primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Methods: We conducted a prospective, open-label, randomized noninferiority trial. Adults aged 18-50 years with complete primary spontaneous pneumothorax (total separation of the lung from the chest wall), recruited at 31 French hospitals from 2009 to 2015, received simple aspiration (n = 200) or chest tube drainage (n = 202) as first-line treatment. The primary outcome was pulmonary expansion 24 hours after the procedure. Secondary outcomes were tolerance of treatment, occurrence of adverse events, and recurrence of pneumothorax within 1 year. Substantial discordance in the numerical inputs used for trial planning and the actual trial rates of the primary outcome resulted in a reevaluation of the trial analysis plan. Measurement and Main Results: Treatment failure occurred in 29% in the aspiration group and 18% in the chest tube drainage group (difference in failure rate, 0.113; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.026-0.200). The aspiration group experienced less pain overall (mean difference, -1.4; 95% CI, -1.89, -0.91), less pain limiting breathing (frequency difference, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.27, -0.09), and less kinking of the device (frequency difference, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.09, -0.01). Recurrence of pneumothorax was 20% in this group versus 27% in the drainage group (frequency difference, -0.07; 95% CI, -0.16, +0.02). Conclusions: First-line management of complete primary spontaneous pneumothorax with simple aspiration had a higher failure rate than chest tube drainage but was better tolerated with fewer adverse events. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01008228).

Clinical outcomes of non-small-cell lung cancer patients with BRAF mutations: results from the French Cooperative Thoracic Intergroup biomarkers France study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and BRAF V600 mutations may benefit from targeted therapies. Chemotherapy outcomes are little known in this population. METHODS: The French Cooperative Thoracic Intergroup (IFCT) Biomarkers France study was a national prospective cohort study aiming to describe the molecular characteristics and clinical outcome of all consecutive NSCLC patients (N = 17,664) screened for molecular alterations. We used this data set to set up a case-control analysis. Cases had stage IV BRAF-mutated (BRAF-MT) NSCLC, whereas controls had NSCLC that was wild-type for EGFR, KRAS, HER2, BRAF, PIK3CA and ALK. Each case was matched for sex, age at diagnosis and smoking status to two controls randomly selected. RESULTS: Overall, 83 cases with BRAF mutant disease (66.3% V600E) were matched to 166 controls. Five cases received tyrosine kinase inhibition in the first-line and 16 in the second-line. All others were treated with standard chemotherapy. There was no significant difference in first-line and second-line progression-free survival (PFS) between the groups, as well as in the disease control rate, BRAF mutation was not found to be prognostic of overall survival. We found no significant difference in outcome between the treatment types used in first-line or second-line in patients with BRAF-MT disease compared with controls nor between BRAF V600E or non-V600E compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: BRAF mutation is not a strong prognostic factor in NSCLC. Although taxan-based therapy shows poorest PFS in first-line, no chemotherapy regimen was associated with prognosis.