Diagnosis delay and follow-up strategies in colorectal cancer. Prognosis implications: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists with regard to the impact that the different components of diagnosis delay may have on the degree of invasion and prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer. The follow-up strategies after treatment also vary considerably. The aims of this study are: a) to determine if the symptoms-to-diagnosis interval and the treatment delay modify the survival of patients with colorectal cancer, and b) to determine if different follow-up strategies are associated with a higher survival rate. METHODS/DESIGN: Multi-centre study with prospective follow-up in five regions in Spain (Galicia, Balearic Islands, Catalonia, Aragón and Valencia) during the period 2010-2012. Incident cases are included with anatomopathological confirmation of colorectal cancer (International Classification of Diseases 9th revision codes 153-154) that formed a part of a previous study (n = 953).At the time of diagnosis, each patient was given a structured interview. Their clinical records will be reviewed during the follow-up period in order to obtain information on the explorations and tests carried out after treatment, and the progress of these patients.Symptoms-to-diagnosis interval is defined as the time calculated from the diagnosis of cancer and the first symptoms attributed to cancer. Treatment delay is defined as the time elapsed between diagnosis and treatment. In non-metastatic patients treated with curative intention, information will be obtained during the follow-up period on consultations performed in the digestive, surgery and oncology departments, as well as the endoscopies, tumour markers and imaging procedures carried out.Local recurrence, development of metastases in the follow-up, appearance of a new tumour and mortality will be included as outcome variables.Actuarial survival analysis with Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox regression and competitive risk survival analysis will be performed. DISCUSSION: This study will make it possible to verify if the different components of delay have an impact on survival rate in colon cancer and rectal cancer. In consequence, this multi-centre study will be able to detect the variability present in the follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer, and if this variability modifies the prognosis. Ideally, this study could determine which follow-up strategies are associated with a better prognosis in colorectal cancer.

Induction chemotherapy with cisplatin and gemcitabine followed by concurrent chemoradiation with twice-weekly gemcitabine in unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer: final results of a phase II study.

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCR) followed or preceded by full-dose chemotherapy seems to be a standard treatment for unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Gemcitabine is a strong radiosensitizer, and a phase I study confirmed the feasibility of CCR with low-dose gemcitabine administered twice-weekly in NSCLC patients. Consequently, we designed a prospective, multicentric, phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of this approach, following induction chemotherapy with cisplatin and gemcitabine. We included patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC, no pleural effusion, adequate pulmonary, renal, liver and hematological functions, Karnofsky index >70 and planned treated volume (PTV) <2200cm3. Treatment consisted of 3 cycles of cisplatin (100mg/m2, d1) and gemcitabine (1250mg/m2, d1 and 8) q3w, followed by CCR (gemcitabine 50mg/m2 on Mondays and Thursdays and radiotherapy 68.4Gy, 1.8Gyqd). After the inclusion of 22 patients (group A), an unacceptable toxicity was detected. Thus, cisplatin dose was reduced to 70mg/m2, and gemcitabine dose was adjusted to 35mg/m2 during CCR. Another 34 patients (33 eligible, group B) were included. Five patients in group A and 6 patients in group B discontinued the study treatment during induction. Thus, 17 and 27 patients, respectively initiated CCR. Hematological toxicity (grades III and IV) was particularly relevant in group A during this phase, with 35 and 23% of thrombopenia and neutropenia, respectively. Nonhematological grades III-IV toxicity of chemoradiation was significant and similar in groups A and B: esophagitis 35.2 and 33.3% and pneumonitis 23.5 and 25.9%, respectively. 40.9% of patients in group A vs. 57.5% in group B completed treatment. Overall response (intention-to-treat analysis) was 68.1% in group A and 63.5% in group B. Median survival was 17.7 months for the whole group with a mean follow-up of 41.2 months. 20% of patients were alive at 3 years. Long-term results of this schedule are encouraging. However, nonhematological toxicity of chemoradiation is substantial and different strategies should be tested to minimize it.

Prospective randomized phase III trial of etoposide/cisplatin versus high-dose epirubicin/cisplatin in small-cell lung cancer.

High-dose epirubicin plus cisplatin was compared with the reference regimen of etoposide/cisplatin in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Four hundred two previously untreated patients with SCLC were randomized to receive etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1-3 and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 or epirubicin 100 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 21 days for a total of 6 cycles. Patients were stratified according to treatment center and extent of disease (limited disease, n = 207; extensive disease, n = 195). Patients with limited disease were treated with thoracic radiation therapy after completion of chemotherapy, and those who exhibited a complete response were advised to receive prophylactic cranial irradiation. The primary endpoint was survival, and secondary endpoints were time to progression (TTP), response, toxicity, and costs. Patient characteristics were generally well balanced in the 2 arms, even though more patients in the epirubicin/cisplatin arm had > 5% weight loss and poor Karnofsky performance index compared with the etoposide/cisplatin arm. One hundred thirty-four patients (66.3%) in the etoposide/cisplatin arm and 126 (63.0%) in the epirubicin/cisplatin arm received all 6 planned cycles of chemotherapy. Response rate, TTP, and survival did not differ significantly between the 2 arms. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and toxic deaths occurred more frequently in the etoposide/cisplatin arm. Epirubicin/cisplatin showed a similar activity with a slightly lower toxicity profile than the reference regimen of etoposide/cisplatin. The epirubicin/cisplatin regimen may be recommended in the treatment of SCLC.