RESUMEN
Aim: To investigate changes in treatment patterns in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK (EU5) between 2018 and 2021. Methods: Cross-sectional data from an oncology database were analyzed retrospectively. Results: Of 5832 eligible patients, 88.4% had stage IV disease at diagnosis. Among patients receiving first-line treatment, 91.8% (1079 /1176) received the platinum-etoposide (PE) combination in 2018 which decreased to 42.3% (509/1203) by 2021. Usage of the PE-atezolizumab combination increased from 0 to 41.2% during the same timeframe. Topotecan monotherapy remained the most widely used second-line treatment regardless of patients' platinum sensitivity. Conclusion: The first-line standard of care for ES-SCLC has evolved in EU5 with the PE-atezolizumab/durvalumab combination gradually superseding PE usage.
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is fast-growing type of lung cancer. New treatments for SCLC using medicines that stimulate the immune system to kill cancer cells (called immunotherapies) have recently been approved for use in Europe. The purpose of the study was to describe the type of treatments that patients received in five European countries before and after the introduction of these new treatments to determine how quickly these new treatments were adopted in a real-world setting. This study found that most patients treated between 2018 and 2020 still received a platinum-based chemotherapy as their first anticancer therapy, but immunotherapies were used more often in later years and became the most common first treatment in 2021 for patients who had never been treated for their cancer. Topotecan, a type of chemotherapy, was the most used treatment for patients whose cancer came back after treatment. There is still a clear unmet need for new, safe and effective therapies for the treatment of patients with SCLC whose cancer comes back again after treatment.
RESUMEN
There is consistent evidence of increased respiratory symptoms in occupational cleaners; however, uncertainty remains on type of respiratory health effects, underlying causal agents, mechanisms and respiratory phenotypes. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and if possible, a meta-analysis of the available literature to characterise and quantify the cleaning-related respiratory health effects. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and included studies that evaluated the association of any respiratory health outcome with exposure to cleaning occupation or products in occupational cleaners. A modified GRADE was used to appraise the quality of included studies. We retrieved 1124 articles, and after applying our inclusion criteria, 39 were selected for the systematic review. We performed a meta-analysis of the 21 studies evaluating asthma which showed a 50% increased pooled relative risk in cleaners (meta-relative risk (RR)=1.50; 95% CI 1.44 to 1.56). Population-based cross-sectional studies showed more stable associations with asthma risk. No evidence of atopic asthma as dominant phenotype emerged. Also, we estimated a 43% increased risk (meta-RR=1.43; 95% CI 1.31 to 1.56) of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Evidence for associations with bronchial-hyper-responsiveness, lung function decline, rhinitis, upper and lower respiratory tract symptoms was weaker. In our systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that working as a cleaner is associated with an increased risk of reversible and even irreversible obstructive airway diseases. All studies lacked quantitative exposure assessment to cleaning products; this would help elucidate underlying causal agents and mechanisms. Exposure control and respiratory surveillance among cleaners is warranted to prevent the associated respiratory health burden. Trial registration number: CRD4201705915.