Would extirpative pelvic surgery improve survival in gynecological metastases of lung cancer? Case report and review of the literature.

Lung cancer is the 3rd most common cancer in the UK and the numbers of new cases increase every year. In contrast to gastrointestinal tumours and breast cancer, lung cancer, metastases to the female genital tract are incredibly rare with only five cases reported with uterine metastases on review of the published English literature. We report an interesting case of successful ongoing management of metastatic lung cancer to the pelvis along with an extensive literature review. A 47-year-old lady with recurrent respiratory tract symptoms and chest pain was diagnosed with advanced stage non-small-cell lung cancer (Stage T4N2M1A). Five years following diagnosis and several cycles of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, aged 52, she complained of post-menopausal bleeding and pelvic discomfort. An endometrial biopsy confirmed a malignancy morphologically and immunohistochemically similar to her lung adenocarcinoma, in keeping with metastatic disease. She underwent robotic surgery to excise the pelvic organs and successfully gain local disease control. The patient remains clinically stable 3 years following hysterectomy. Although metastases of lung cancer to uterus are very rare, any patient with abnormal uterine bleeding with known cancer should be investigated thoroughly to rule out metastatic disease. Combined multimodal treatment as in this case may increase overall survival.

Long-Term Results from the IDEAL-CRT Phase 1/2 Trial of Isotoxically Dose-Escalated Radiation Therapy and Concurrent Chemotherapy for Stage II/III Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The IDEAL-CRT phase 1/2 multicenter trial of isotoxically dose-escalated concurrent chemoradiation for stage II/III non-small cell lung cancer investigated two 30-fraction schedules of 5 and 6 weeks' duration. We report toxicity, tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) for both schedules, with long-term follow-up for the 6-week schedule. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients received isotoxically individualized tumor radiation doses of 63 to 71 Gy in 5 weeks or 63 to 73 Gy in 6 weeks, delivered concurrently with 2 cycles of cisplatin and vinorelbine. Eligibility criteria were the same for both schedules. RESULTS: One-hundred twenty patients (6% stage IIB, 68% IIIA, 26% IIIB, 1% IV) were recruited from 9 UK centers, 118 starting treatment. Median prescribed doses were 64.5 and 67.6 Gy for the 36 and 82 patients treated using the 5- and 6-week schedules. Grade ≥3 pneumonitis and early esophagitis rates were 3.4% and 5.9% overall and similar for each schedule individually. Late grade 2 esophageal toxicity occurred in 11.1% and 17.1% of 5- and 6-week patients. Grade ≥4 adverse events occurred in 17 (20.7%) 6-week patients but no 5-week patients. Four adverse events were grade 5, with 2 considered radiation therapy related. After median follow-up of 51.8 and 26.4 months for the 6- and 5-week schedules, median OS was 41.2 and 22.1 months, respectively, and median PFS was 21.1 and 8.0 months. In exploratory analyses, OS was significantly associated with schedule (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.98; P = .04) and fractional clinical/internal target volume receiving ≥95% of the prescribed dose (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; P = .05). PFS was also significantly associated with schedule (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.86; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Toxicity in IDEAL-CRT was acceptable. Survival was promising for 6-week patients and significantly longer than for 5-week patients. Survival might be further lengthened by following the 6-week schedule with an immune agent, motivating further study of such combined optimized treatments.

IDEAL-CRT: A Phase 1/2 Trial of Isotoxic Dose-Escalated Radiation Therapy and Concurrent Chemotherapy in Patients With Stage II/III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report toxicity and early survival data for IDEAL-CRT, a trial of dose-escalated concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for non-small cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received tumor doses of 63 to 73 Gy in 30 once-daily fractions over 6 weeks with 2 concurrent cycles of cisplatin and vinorelbine. They were assigned to 1 of 2 groups according to esophageal dose. In group 1, tumor doses were determined by an experimental constraint on maximum esophageal dose, which was escalated following a 6 + 6 design from 65 Gy through 68 Gy to 71 Gy, allowing an esophageal maximum tolerated dose to be determined from early and late toxicities. Tumor doses for group 2 patients were determined by other tissue constraints, often lung. Overall survival, progression-free survival, tumor response, and toxicity were evaluated for both groups combined. RESULTS: Eight centers recruited 84 patients: 13, 12, and 10, respectively, in the 65-Gy, 68-Gy, and 71-Gy cohorts of group 1; and 49 in group 2. The mean prescribed tumor dose was 67.7 Gy. Five grade 3 esophagitis and 3 grade 3 pneumonitis events were observed across both groups. After 1 fatal esophageal perforation in the 71-Gy cohort, 68 Gy was declared the esophageal maximum tolerated dose. With a median follow-up of 35 months, median overall survival was 36.9 months, and overall survival and progression-free survival were 87.8% and 72.0%, respectively, at 1 year and 68.0% and 48.5% at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: IDEAL-CRT achieved significant treatment intensification with acceptable toxicity and promising survival. The isotoxic design allowed the esophageal maximum tolerated dose to be identified from relatively few patients.

The acceptability of e-technology to monitor and assess patient symptoms following palliative radiotherapy for lung cancer.

E-technology is increasingly used in oncology to obtain self-reported symptom assessment information from patients, although its potential to provide a clinical monitoring tool in palliative care is relatively unexplored in the UK. This study aimed to evaluate the support provided to lung cancer patients post palliative radiotherapy using a computerized assessment tool and to determine the clinical acceptability of the tool in a palliative care setting. However, of the 17 clinicians identified as managing patients who met the initial eligibility criteria for the study, only one clinician gave approval for their patient to be contacted regarding participation, therefore the benefits of this novel technology could not be assessed. Thirteen key clinicians from the centres involved in the study were subsequently interviewed. They acknowledged potential benefits of incorporating computerized patient assessment from both a patient and practice perspective, but emphasized the importance of clinical intuition over standardized assessment. Although clinicians were positive about palliative care patients participating in research, they felt that this population of patients were normally too old, with too rapidly deteriorating a condition to participate in a study using e-technology. In order to encourage acceptance of e-technology within palliative care, emphasis is needed on actively promoting the contribution of technologies with the potential to improve patient outcomes and the patient experience.