Epirubicin, cisplatin plus ifosfamide versus standard chemotherapeutic regimens for advanced/unresectable primary thoracic sarcomas.

PURPOSE: Thoracic sarcomas are rare malignancies, with limited data for unresectable/advanced scenarios. Our goal is to provide insights of a three-drug chemotherapy regimen improving patient survival compared to standard regimens. METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis of patients diagnosed with unresectable/advanced primary thoracic sarcoma divided between primary pulmonary sarcomas (PPS) and chest wall sarcomas (CWS) comparing chemotherapeutical regimens efficacy. Not true soft tissue sarcomas (STS) for PPS were excluded from the analysis. Univariate and multivariate analysis performed via Cox-regression model. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) analysis via Kaplan-Meier with hazard ratio (HR) obtained via Mantel-Haenszel or log rank. RESULTS: 157 total cases were included, from which 50 cases were PPS and 107 cases CWS. For PPS, 4 cases were excluded from the analysis as they were not true STS. The most common histology was undifferentiated sarcomas, 63% of cases were treated with E/C/I and 37% with another regimen. The E/C/I regimen demonstrated a benefit for both OS (p = 0.020) and PFS (p = 0.010) when compared to any other regimen as well as when compared to non-platinum regimens (p = 0.016 and p = 0.001). Regarding CWS, the most common histology was synovial and undifferentiated sarcomas, 55.1% were treated with E/C/I and 44.9% treated with another regimen. The E/C/I regimen did not demonstrate a benefit for OS or PFS compared to any other regimen, neither when compared to other non-platinum regimens. However, a benefit was observed in favor of E/C/I when compared to other platinum regimens in both OS (p = 0.049) and PFS (0.015). Both analyses for PPS and CWS demonstrated a benefit in favor of cisplatin therapies compared to carboplatin in both OS and PFS. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that platinum therapy alone does not work, and that cisplatin must be the agent of choice and it's used in combination could increase treatment response. The E/C/I regimen demonstrated a in PPS but not for CWS, this is due do their rarity of PPS and that no standard treatment is established yet. The regimen proposed here could represent a possible new standard of treatment for PPS as long as it is validated in a prospective study.

A comparative study of immunotherapy as second-line treatment and beyond in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy has demonstrated an improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as second-line treatment and subsequent lines compared with chemotherapy. MATERIALS & METHODS: This was a retrospective review among eight medical centers comprising 100 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of non-small-cell lung carcinoma, in their second-line treatment or beyond with immune checkpoints inhibitors treatment. The current study aimed to analyze effectiveness of immunotherapy in second-line treatment or further in the Mexican population, using PFS rate, OS rate and the best objective response to treatment by RECIST 1.1 as a surrogate of effectiveness. RESULTS: In total, 100 patients met the criteria for enrollment in the current study. From the total study population, 49 patients (49.0%) were male and 51 (51.0%) were female, with an average age of 60 years and stage IV as the most prevalent clinical stage at the beginning of the study. A total of 61 patients (61.0%) had partial response; 11 (11.0%) stable disease; 2 (2.0%), complete response, 4 (4.0%), progression; and 22 (22.0%) were nonevaluable. We found a median PFS of 4 months (95% CI: 3.2-4.7 months) and an OS of 9 months (95% CI: 7.2-10.7 months). CONCLUSION: The response to immunotherapy is similar, with an improvement in OS and PFS, independent of which drug is used. Patients using nivolumab had a better survival, although that was not statistically significant.

Prognostic factors for progression-free and overall survival in malignant pleural mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma is an infrequent neoplasia with a poor prognosis and the majority of patients already have advanced disease at the time of presentation. Exposure to asbestos is the most important risk factor for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a neoplasia with a long preclinical stage that can span from 15 to 40 years. METHODS: This was a descriptive, observational, retrospective study of 136 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of mesothelioma, which compared histological subtypes, immunohistochemical biomarkers, concomitant chronic degenerative diseases, tobacco use, age at the time of diagnosis, clinical stage and chemotherapy agents used or other treatments such as radiotherapy and surgery to identify all the factors that impact in the prognosis of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 136 patients were included in the study. In the total study population, 84 patients were male (61.8%) and 52 were female (38.2%). Median PFS was nine months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.4-9.5 months) and median OS was 12 months (95% CI: 11.3-12.6). The results indicated that the most determining prognostic factors for OS and PFS were cell differentiation measured by immunohistochemical biomarkers, the treatment chosen, and that RECIST was the most significant in the evaluation of patient response to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Malignant pleural mesothelioma is a cancer with a poor prognosis usually diagnosed at an advanced stage of disease. Our study revealed that the prognostic factors for OS and PS were cell differentiation, the treatment chosen and RECIST.

National Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of non-small cell lung cancer in early, locally advanced and metastatic stages. Extended version. / Guía de Práctica Clínica Nacional para el manejo del cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas en estadios tempranos, localmente avanzados y metastásicos.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer is one the leading causes of mortality worldwide. Symptomatic manifestations of the disease generally occur in the advanced-stage setting, and therefore an important number of patients have advanced or metastatic disease by the time they are diagnosed. This situation contributes to a poor prognosis in the treatment of lung cancer. Evidencebased clinical recommendations are of great value to support decision-making for daily practice, and thus improving health care quality and patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This document was an initiative of the Mexican Society of Oncology (SMEO) in collaboration with Mexican Center of Clinical Excellence (Cenetec) according to Interna- tional Standards. Such standards included those described by the IOM, NICE, SIGN and GI-N. An interdisciplinary Guideline Development Group (GDG) was put together which included medical oncologists, surgical oncologistsc, radiation therapists, and methodologists with expertise in critical appraisal, sys- tematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines development. RESULTS: 62 clinical questions were agreed among members of the GDG. With the evidence identified from systematic reviews, the GDG developed clinical recommendations using a Modified Delphi Panel technique. Patients' representatives validated them. CONCLUSIONS: These Clinical Practice Guideline aims to support the shared decision-making process for patients with different stages of non-small cell lung cancer. Our goal is to improve health-care quality on these patients.

OBJETIVO: El cáncer de pulmón es una de las principales causas de mortalidad alrededor del mundo. Su historia natural, con la manifestación de síntomas en etapas avanzadas y el retraso en su diagnóstico hacen que una gran proporción de pacientes se diagnostiquen en estadios tardíos de la enfermedad, lo que hace muy complicado el tratamiento exitoso de la misma. De esto deriva la importancia de dar origen a recomendaciones basadas en evidencia para soportar la toma de decisiones clínicas por parte de los grupos interdisicplinarios que se encargan del manejo de este padecimiento. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Este documento se desarrolló por parte de la Sociedad Mexicana de Oncología en colaboración con el Centro Nacional de Excelencia Tec- nológica de México (Cenetec) a través de la dirección de integración de Guías de Práctica Clínica en cumplimiento a estándares internacionales como los descritos por el Ins- tituto de Medicina de EUA (IOM, por sus siglas en inglés), el Instituto de Excelencia Clínica de Gran Bretaña (NICE, por sus siglas en inglés), la Red Colegiada para el Desarrollo de Guías de Escocia (SIGN, por sus siglas en inglés), la Red Internacional de Guías (G-I-N, por sus siglas en inglés); entre otros. Se integró en representación de la Sociedad Mexicana de Oncología un Grupo de Desarrollo de la Guía (GDG) de manera interdisciplinaria, considerando oncólogos médicos, cirujanos oncólogos, cirujanos de tórax, radio-oncólogos, y metodólogos con experiencia en revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura y guías de práctica clínica. RESULTADOS: Se consensuaron 62 preguntas cllínicas que abarcaron lo establecido previamente por el GDG en el documento de alcances de la Guía. Se identificó la evidencia científica que responde a cada una de estas preguntas clínicas y se evaluó críticamente la misma, antes de ser incorporada en el cuerpo de evidencia de la Guía. El GDG acordó mediante la técnica de consenso formal de expertos Panel Delphi la redacción final de las recomendaciones clínicas. C. CONCLUSIONES: Esta Guía de Práctica Clínica pretende proveer recomendaciones clínicas para el manejo de los distintos estadios de la enfermedad y que asistan en el proceso de toma de decisiones compartida. El GDG espera que esta guía contribuya a mejorar la calidad de la atención clínica en las pacientes con cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas.