Dendritic cells loaded with allogeneic tumour cell lysate plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone in patients with pleural mesothelioma as maintenance therapy after chemotherapy (DENIM): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2/3 study.

BACKGROUND: Dendritic cell immunotherapy has proven to be safe and induces an immune response in humans. We aimed to establish the efficacy of dendritic cells loaded with allogeneic tumour cell lysate (MesoPher, Amphera BV, 's-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands) as maintenance therapy in patients with pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 2/3 study, patients with histologically confirmed unresectable pleural mesothelioma, aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-1, and non-progressing disease after four to six cycles of standard chemotherapy (with pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 plus platinum [cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve of 5]) were recruited from four centres in Belgium, France, and The Netherlands. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using block randomisation (block size of 4), stratified by centre and histology (epithelioid vs other), to MesoPher treatment plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone. Patients received up to a maximum of five MesoPher infusions, with treatment administered on days 1, 15, and 29, and weeks 18 and 30. At each timepoint, participants received an injection of 25 × 106 dendritic cells (two-thirds of the dendritic cells were administered intravenously and a third were injected intradermally). Best supportive care was per local institutional standards. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in all participants randomly assigned to treatment (full analysis set) and safety assessed in all randomly assigned participants, and who underwent leukapheresis if they were in the MesoPher group. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03610360, and is closed for accrual. FINDINGS: Between June 21, 2018, and June 10, 2021, 176 patients were screened and randomly assigned to the MesoPher group (n=88) or best supportive care alone group (n=88). One participant in the MesoPher group did not undergo leukapheresis. Mean age was 68 years (SD 8), 149 (85%) of 176 were male, 27 (15%) were female, 173 (98%) were White, two were Asian (1%), and one (1%) was other race. As of data cutoff (June 24, 2023), after a median follow up of 15·1 months (IQR 9·5-22·4), median overall survival was 16·8 months (95% CI 12·4-20·3; 61 [69%] of 88 died) in the MesoPher group and 18·3 months (14·3-21·9; 59 [67%] of 88 died) in the best supportive care group (hazard ratio 1·10 [95% CI 0·77-1·57]; log-rank p=0·62). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were chest pain (three [3%] of 87 in the MesoPher group vs two [2%] of 88 in the best supportive care group), dyspnoea (none vs two [2%]), anaemia (two [2%] vs none), nausea (none vs two [2%]), and pneumonia (none vs two [2%]). No deaths due to treatment-emergent adverse events were recorded. Treatment-related adverse events consisted of infusion-related reactions (fever, chills, and fatigue), which occurred in 64 (74%) of 87 patients in the MesoPher group, and injection-site reactions (itch, erythema, and induration), which occurred in 73 (84%) patients, and all were grade 1-2 in severity. No deaths were determined to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: MesoPher did not show improvement in overall survival in patients with pleural mesothelioma. Immune checkpoint therapy is now standard of care in pleural mesothelioma. Further randomised studies are needed of combinations of MesoPher and immune checkpoint therapy, which might increase efficacy without adding major toxicities. FUNDING: Amphera BV and EU HORIZON.

A randomised phase II study of extended pleurectomy/decortication preceded or followed by chemotherapy in patients with early-stage pleural mesothelioma: EORTC 1205.

BACKGROUND: The role of surgery in pleural mesothelioma remains controversial. It may be appropriate in highly selected patients as part of a multimodality treatment including chemotherapy. Recent years have seen a shift from extrapleural pleuropneumonectomy toward extended pleurectomy/decortication. The most optimal sequence of surgery and chemotherapy remains unknown. METHODS: EORTC-1205-LCG was a multicentric, noncomparative phase 2 trial, 1:1 randomising between immediate (arm A) and deferred surgery (arm B), followed or preceded by chemotherapy. Eligible patients (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0-1) had treatment-naïve, borderline resectable T1-3 N0-1 M0 mesothelioma of any histology. Primary outcome was rate of success at 20 weeks, a composite end-point including 1) successfully completing both treatments within 20 weeks; 2) being alive with no signs of progressive disease; and 3) no residual grade 3-4 toxicity. Secondary end-points were toxicity, overall survival, progression-free survival and process indicators of surgical quality. FINDINGS: 69 patients were included in this trial. 56 (81%) patients completed three cycles of chemotherapy and 58 (84%) patients underwent surgery. Of the 64 patients in the primary analysis, 21 out of 30 patients in arm A (70.0%; 80% CI 56.8-81.0%) and 17 out of 34 patients (50.0%; 80% CI 37.8-62.2%) in arm B reached the statistical end-point for rate of success. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 10.8 (95% CI 8.5-17.2) months and 27.1 (95% CI 22.6-64.3) months in arm A, and 8.0 (95% CI 7.2-21.9) months and 33.8 (95% CI 23.8-44.6) months in arm B. Macroscopic complete resection was obtained in 82.8% of patients. 30- and 90-day mortality were both 1.7%. No new safety signals were found, but treatment-related morbidity was high. INTERPRETATION: EORTC 1205 did not succeed in selecting a preferred sequence of pre- or post-operative chemotherapy. Either procedure is feasible with a low mortality, albeit consistent morbidity. A shared informed decision between surgeon and patient remains essential.

Anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine in patients with relapsed, mesothelin-positive malignant pleural mesothelioma (ARCS-M): a randomised, open-label phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Few treatment options exist for second-line treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. We aimed to assess the antibody-drug conjugate anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic disease overexpressing mesothelin who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. METHODS: In this phase 2, randomised, open-label study, done at 76 hospitals in 14 countries, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic malignant pleural mesothelioma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. Participants were prospectively screened for mesothelin overexpression (defined as 2+ or 3+ mesothelin membrane staining intensity on at least 30% of viable tumour cells by immunohistochemistry) and were randomly assigned (2:1), using an interactive voice and web response system provided by the sponsor, to receive intravenous anetumab ravtansine (6·5 mg/kg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle) or intravenous vinorelbine (30 mg/m2 once every week) until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival according to blinded central radiology review, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, with safety assessed in all participants who received any study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02610140, and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between Dec 3, 2015, and May 31, 2017, 589 patients were enrolled and 248 mesothelin-overexpressing patients were randomly allocated to the two treatment groups (166 patients were randomly assigned to receive anetumab ravtansine and 82 patients were randomly assigned to receive vinorelbine). 105 (63%) of 166 patients treated with anetumab ravtansine (median follow-up 4·0 months [IQR 1·4-5·5]) versus 43 (52%) of 82 patients treated with vinorelbine (3·9 months [1·4-5·4]) had disease progression or died (median progression-free survival 4·3 months [95% CI 4·1-5·2] vs 4·5 months [4·1-5·8]; hazard ratio 1·22 [0·85-1·74]; log-rank p=0·86). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (one [1%] of 163 patients for anetumab ravtansine vs 28 [39%] of 72 patients for vinorelbine), pneumonia (seven [4%] vs five [7%]), neutrophil count decrease (two [1%] vs 12 [17%]), and dyspnoea (nine [6%] vs three [4%]). Serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 12 (7%) patients treated with anetumab ravtansine and 11 (15%) patients treated with vinorelbine. Ten (6%) treatment-emergent deaths occurred with anetumab ravtansine: pneumonia (three [2%]), dyspnoea (two [1%]), sepsis (two [1%]), atrial fibrillation (one [1%]), physical deterioration (one [1%]), hepatic failure (one [1%]), mesothelioma (one [1%]), and renal failure (one [1%]; one patient had 3 events). One (1%) treatment-emergent death occurred in the vinorelbine group (pneumonia). INTERPRETATION: Anetumab ravtansine showed a manageable safety profile and was not superior to vinorelbine. Further studies are needed to define active treatments in relapsed mesothelin-expressing malignant pleural mesothelioma. FUNDING: Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals.

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening.

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.

ERS/ESTS/EACTS/ESTRO guidelines for the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma.

The European Respiratory Society (ERS)/European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS)/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) task force brought together experts to update previous 2009 ERS/ESTS guidelines on management of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), a rare cancer with globally poor outcome, after a systematic review of the 2009-2018 literature. The evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The evidence syntheses were discussed and recommendations formulated by this multidisciplinary group of experts. Diagnosis: pleural biopsies remain the gold standard to confirm the diagnosis, usually obtained by thoracoscopy but occasionally via image-guided percutaneous needle biopsy in cases of pleural symphysis or poor performance status. Pathology: standard staining procedures are insufficient in ∼10% of cases, justifying the use of specific markers, including BAP-1 and CDKN2A (p16) for the separation of atypical mesothelial proliferation from MPM. Staging: in the absence of a uniform, robust and validated staging system, we advise using the most recent 2016 8th TNM (tumour, node, metastasis) classification, with an algorithm for pre-therapeutic assessment. Monitoring: patient's performance status, histological subtype and tumour volume are the main prognostic factors of clinical importance in routine MPM management. Other potential parameters should be recorded at baseline and reported in clinical trials. Treatment: (chemo)therapy has limited efficacy in MPM patients and only selected patients are candidates for radical surgery. New promising targeted therapies, immunotherapies and strategies have been reviewed. Because of limited data on the best combination treatment, we emphasise that patients who are considered candidates for a multimodal approach, including radical surgery, should be treated as part of clinical trials in MPM-dedicated centres.

Local treatment of stage IIIA-N2 nonsmall cell lung cancer: surgery and/or radiotherapy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Controversy exists regarding the optimal treatment of patients with stage IIIA-N2 nonsmall cell lung cancer because of its heterogeneity. Patients are at risk for both local and distant disease relapse after primary local treatment. However, there may be a window of opportunity for surgery, if mediastinal downstaging has been obtained after induction therapy. This manuscript reviews the outcome of patients treated by neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NA-C) followed by surgery, compared with patients treated with either definitive sequential or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT), illustrated by a single-centre retrospective case series. RECENT FINDINGS: Of 53 eligible patients, 19 received NA-C and underwent surgical resection, whilst 20 and 14 received concurrent or sequential definitive CRT, respectively. A significant difference in progression-free survival favouring NA-C followed by surgery over both CRT modalities was found. However, this translated only in an overall survival benefit in comparison with sequential definitive CRT. A trend for better outcome was observed in selected surgical patients with single-level mediastinal involvement and complete resection. SUMMARY: Our case series results are consistent with the present standard of care of CRT, which restricts surgical resection to carefully selected patients. Immunotherapy will likely change the treatment paradigm.

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening.

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.Key Points• Pulmonologists and radiologists both have key roles in the set up of multidisciplinary LCS teams with experts from many other fields.• Pulmonologists identify people eligible for LCS, reach out to family doctors, share the decision-making process and promote tobacco cessation.• Radiologists ensure appropriate image quality, minimum dose and a standardised reading/reporting algorithm, together with a clear definition of a "positive screen".• Strict algorithms define the exact management of screen-detected nodules and incidental findings.• For LCS to be (cost-)effective, it has to target a population defined by risk prediction models.

Tumour Treating Fields in combination with pemetrexed and cisplatin or carboplatin as first-line treatment for unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (STELLAR): a multicentre, single-arm phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Tumour Treating Fields (TTFields) are a regional, antimitotic treatment for solid tumours, which is based on the delivery of low-intensity alternating electric fields. The aim of the STELLAR study was to test the activity of TTFields delivered to the thorax in combination with systemic chemotherapy for the front-line treatment of patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: STELLAR was a prospective, single-arm, phase 2 trial done at 12 European academic and non-academic sites (five in Italy, three in Poland, one in France, one in Belgium, one in Spain, and one in the Netherlands) for treatment-naive patients with histologically confirmed unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma. Patients were aged at least 18 years, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and at least one measurable or evaluable lesion according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors for mesothelioma. Patients received continuous TTFields at a frequency of 150 kHz to the thorax and concomitant chemotherapy with intravenous pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 on day 1) plus intravenous platinum (either cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 or carboplatin area under the curve 5 on day 1) every 21 days for up to six cycles. Patients not progressing after completion of chemotherapy received TTFields as maintenance treatment until progression, patient or physician decision, or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary endpoint of the trial was overall survival. Survival analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, and safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least 1 day of TTFields treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02397928. FINDINGS: Between Feb 9, 2015 and March 21, 2017, 80 patients were enrolled in the study. Median follow-up was 12·5 months (IQR 7·4-16·6). Median overall survival was 18·2 months (95% CI 12·1-25·8). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were anaemia (nine [11%] patients), neutropenia (seven [9%]), and thrombocytopenia (four [5%]). Skin reaction was the only adverse event associated with TTFields and was reported as grade 1-2 in 53 (66%) patients, and as grade 3 in four (5%) patients. No treatment-related deaths were observed. INTERPRETATION: The trial showed encouraging overall survival results, with no increase in systemic toxicity. TTFields (150 kHz) delivered to the thorax concomitant with pemetrexed and platinum was an active and safe combination for front-line treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma. Further investigation in a randomised trial is warranted. FUNDING: Novocure.

Quality of care and variability in lung cancer management across Belgian hospitals: a population-based study using routinely available data.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of care for all patients diagnosed with lung cancer in Belgium based on a set of evidence-based quality indicators and to study the variability of care between hospitals. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective study based on linked data from the cancer registry, insurance claims and vital status for all patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 2010 and 2011. Evidence-based quality indicators were identified from a systematic literature search. A specific algorithm to attribute patients to a centre was developed, and funnel plots were used to assess variability of care between centres. INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The proportion of patients who received appropriate care as defined by the indicator. Secondary outcome included the variability of care between centres. RESULTS: Twenty indicators were measured for a total of 12 839 patients. Good results were achieved for 60-day post-surgical mortality (3.9%), histopathological confirmation of diagnosis (93%) and for the use of PET-CT before treatment with curative intent (94%). Areas to be improved include the reporting of staging information to the Belgian Cancer Registry (80%), the use of brain imaging for clinical stage III patients eligible for curative treatment (79%), and the time between diagnosis and start of first active treatment (median 20 days). High variability between centres was observed for several indicators. Twenty-three indicators were found relevant but could not be measured. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the feasibility to develop a multidisciplinary set of quality indicators using population-based data. The main advantage of this approach is that not additional registration is required, but the non-measurability of many relevant indicators is a hamper. It allows however to easily point to areas of large variability in care.

Concurrent once-daily versus twice-daily chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (CONVERT): an open-label, phase 3, randomised, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, but the optimal radiotherapy schedule and dose remains controversial. The aim of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: The CONVERT trial was an open-label, phase 3, randomised superiority trial. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had cytologically or histologically confirmed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and adequate pulmonary function. Patients were recruited from 73 centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 45 Gy radiotherapy in 30 twice-daily fractions of 1·5 Gy over 19 days, or 66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions of 2 Gy over 45 days, starting on day 22 after commencing cisplatin-etoposide chemotherapy (given as four to six cycles every 3 weeks in both groups). The allocation method used was minimisation with a random element, stratified by institution, planned number of chemotherapy cycles, and performance status. Treatment group assignments were not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by modified intention-to-treat. A 12% higher overall survival at 2 years in the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group was considered to be clinically significant to show superiority of the once-daily regimen. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00433563) and is currently in follow-up. FINDINGS: Between April 7, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013, 547 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients). Four patients (one in the twice-daily group and three in the once-daily group) did not return their case report forms and were lost to follow-up; these patients were not included in our analyses. At a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35-58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24-34) in the twice-daily group versus 25 months (21-31) in the once-daily group (hazard ratio for death in the once daily group 1·18 [95% CI 0·95-1·45]; p=0·14). 2-year overall survival was 56% (95% CI 50-62) in the twice-daily group and 51% (45-57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5·3% [95% CI -3·2% to 13·7%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event in patients evaluated for chemotherapy toxicity was neutropenia (197 [74%] of 266 patients in the twice-daily group vs 170 [65%] of 263 in the once-daily group). Most toxicities were similar between the groups, except there was significantly more grade 4 neutropenia with twice-daily radiotherapy (129 [49%] vs 101 [38%]; p=0·05). In patients assessed for radiotherapy toxicity, was no difference in grade 3-4 oesophagitis between the groups (47 [19%] of 254 patients in the twice-daily group vs 47 [19%] of 246 in the once-daily group; p=0·85) and grade 3-4 radiation pneumonitis (4 [3%] of 254 vs 4 [2%] of 246; p=0·70). 11 patients died from treatment-related causes (three in the twice-daily group and eight in the once-daily group). INTERPRETATION: Survival outcomes did not differ between twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, and toxicity was similar and lower than expected with both regimens. Since the trial was designed to show superiority of once-daily radiotherapy and was not powered to show equivalence, the implication is that twice-daily radiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in this setting. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK (Clinical Trials Awards and Advisory Committee), French Ministry of Health, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Cancer Research Fund, Lung Cancer, and Radiation Oncology Groups).

Exhaled breath to screen for malignant pleural mesothelioma: a validation study.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is predominantly caused by asbestos exposure and has a poor prognosis. Breath contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and can be explored as an early detection tool. Previously, we used multicapillary column/ion mobility spectrometry (MCC/IMS) to discriminate between patients with MPM and asymptomatic high-risk persons with a high rate of accuracy. Here, we aim to validate these findings in different control groups.Breath and background samples were obtained from 52 patients with MPM, 52 healthy controls without asbestos exposure (HC), 59 asymptomatic former asbestos workers (AEx), 41 patients with benign asbestos-related diseases (ARD), 70 patients with benign non-asbestos-related lung diseases (BLD) and 56 patients with lung cancer (LC).After background correction, logistic lasso regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the MPM group was discriminated from the HC, AEx, ARD, BLD and LC groups with 65%, 88%, 82%, 80% and 72% accuracy, respectively. Combining AEx and ARD patients resulted in 94% sensitivity and 96% negative predictive value (NPV). The most important VOCs selected were P1, P3, P7, P9, P21 and P26.We discriminated MPM patients from at-risk subjects with great accuracy. The high sensitivity and NPV allow breath analysis to be used as a screening tool for ruling out MPM.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma: single-institution experience of 101 patients over a 15-year period.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare but aggressive neoplasm that typically originates from the mesothelial surfaces of the pleural cavity. Exposure to asbestos is the principal etiological agent of MPM. The disease is characterized by difficult stage classification and limited consensus on therapeutic approach. We have evaluated the experience with MPM in the Antwerp University Hospital over the past 15 years. METHODS: A database was created with all patients diagnosed with or treated for a MPM between 2001 and 2015. A total of 101 patients were included on which different survival analyses were performed combined with a reproduction of demographic, clinical, histologic and therapeutic data, and these were compared to literature data. RESULTS: Vast majority of our 101 patients were male (80%) with a median age of 66 years at diagnosis with predominantly epitheloid histology (81%). Overall median survival was 18.3 months and overall 1-, 2- and 5-year survival rates were 68%, 37% and 7%, respectively. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a non-significant difference in survival between the several best (b) TNM-stages (p = .356). A significant difference in survival was observed in patients undergoing surgery versus no surgery (p = .008), between the different histological types (p < .0001) and treatment with chemotherapy alone versus chemotherapy with surgery (p < .0001). Smoking at diagnosis and epitheloid histology have been identified as significant prognostic factors in the multivariate Cox regression model (HR 3.13 and 0.53, respectively). CONCLUSION: Descriptive and survival analysis of our patient database confirmed the limitations of the current staging system and were concordant with literature regarding MPM.

Defining a standard set of patient-centred outcomes for lung cancer.

In lung cancer, outcome measurement has been mostly limited to survival. Proper assessment of the value of lung cancer treatments, and the performance of institutions delivering care, requires more comprehensive measurement of standardised outcomes.The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement convened an international, multidisciplinary working group of patient representatives, medical oncologists, surgeons, radiation oncologists, pulmonologists, palliative care specialists, registry experts and specialist nurses to review existing data and practices. Using a modified Delphi method, the group developed a consensus recommendation ("the set") on the outcomes most essential to track for patients with lung cancer, along with baseline demographic, clinical and tumour characteristics (case-mix variables) for risk adjustment.The set applies to patients diagnosed with nonsmall cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer. Our working group recommends the collection of the following outcomes: survival, complications during or within 6 months of treatment and patient-reported domains of health-related quality of life including pain, fatigue, cough and dyspnoea. Case-mix variables were defined to improve interpretation of comparisons.We defined an international consensus recommendation of the most important outcomes for lung cancer patients, along with relevant case-mix variables, and are working to support adoption and reporting of these measures globally.

Use of the lung cancer-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire EORTC QLQ-LC13 in clinical trials: A systematic review of the literature 20 years after its development.

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13) covers 13 typical symptoms of lung cancer patients and was the first module developed in conjunction with the EORTC core quality-of-life (QL) questionnaire. This review investigates how the module has been used and reported in cancer clinical trials in the 20 years since its publication. Thirty-six databases were searched with a prespecified algorithm. This search plus an additional hand search generated 770 hits, 240 of which were clinical studies. Two raters extracted data using a coding scheme. Analyses focused on the randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the 240 clinical studies that were identified using the LC13, 109 (45%) were RCTs. More than half of the RCTs were phase 3 trials (n = 58). Twenty RCTs considered QL as the primary endpoint, and 68 considered it as a secondary endpoint. QL results were addressed in the results section of the article (n = 89) or in the abstract (n = 92); and, in half of the articles, QL results were presented in the form of tables (n = 53) or figures (n = 43). Furthermore, QL results had an impact on the evaluation of the therapy that could be clearly demonstrated in the 47 RCTs that yielded QL differences between treatment and control groups. The EORTC QLQ-LC13 fulfilled its mission to be used as a standard instrument in lung cancer clinical trials. An update of the LC13 is underway to keep up with new therapeutic trends and to ensure optimized and relevant QL assessment in future trials.

Effects of Whole Body Vibration in Patients With COPD.

BACKGROUND: Whole body vibration training (WBVT) improves muscle force in healthy subjects. Resistance training (RT) is an important component of a pulmonary program. AIM: To investigate the effects of either 12 weeks WBVT or RT, both provided after 15 min of aerobic training as warming up. METHODS: COPD patients, referred for pulmonary rehabilitation, were randomized to either a WBVT or a conventional RT group. Primary outcome was the change in 6 Minute Walking Distance (6MWD) after 12 weeks. Maximum exercise capacity (Wmax), quadriceps force (QF), quality of life (QoL) and number of responders, defined as the percentage of patients reaching the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) for the aforementioned outcome measurements were the secondary outcomes. Data are expressed as medians (interquartile range). RESULTS: 62 patients with COPD were included. After WBVT, 6MWD improved by 35 (-14-76) m (p = 0.003), Wmax by 7 (2-23) Watt (p = 0.001), QoL by 13 (4-25) points (p = 0.002) and QF by 9 (-16-29) Nm (NS). In the RT-group, 6MWD, Wmax, QoL and QF increased significantly, with 60 (-13-96) m (p < 0.001), 12 (8-18) Watt (p < 0.001), 11 (3-16) points (p = 0.002) and 12 (-3-44) Nm (p = 0.009), respectively. The MCID for 6MWD (54 m) was reached by 8/26 patients in the WBVT-group and by 16/25 patients in RT-group (p = 0.05). No significant differences between groups were observed for the primary and secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: WBVT after 15 min aerobic training enhances 6MWD, Wmax and QoL in COPD patients; however only 30% of patients reached the MCID for 6MWD.

Health-related quality of life in small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review on reporting of methods and clinical issues in randomised controlled trials.

Small-cell lung cancer represents about 15% of all lung cancers; increasingly, randomised controlled trials of this disease measure the health-related quality of life of patients. In this Systematic Review we assess the adequacy of reporting of health-related quality-of-life methods in randomised controlled trials of small-cell lung cancer, and the potential effect of this reporting on clinical decision making. Although overall reporting of health-related quality of life was acceptable, improvements are needed to optimise the use of health-related quality of life in randomised controlled trials.

Multimodal management of malignant pleural mesothelioma: where are we today?

The prognosis of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma remains poor and although it is clear that multimodal therapy is necessary to improve long-term results, precise treatment schemes have not yet been unequivocally established. Single-modality therapy does not have a major impact on long-term survival and combined-modality therapies are being further evaluated. However, the relative contributions of chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery have not been clearly determined at the present time. Moreover, the extent of resection and precise surgical procedure remain a highly debated topic. To better compare and combine results from different institutions and trials, uniform definitions of surgical procedures including extrapleural pneumonectomy and different forms of pleurectomy have recently been introduced. Due to the relatively higher morbidity and mortality of extrapleural pneumonectomy, there is currently a shift towards pleurectomy/decortication when a macroscopic complete resection of all tumour can be obtained by this procedure. In most recent trials, induction chemotherapy was administered to improve surgical resection rates but pathological complete responses are infrequently observed. The role of post-operative radiotherapy has to be further elucidated. Further treatment options that are currently explored include hyperthermic intrapleural chemotherapy, immunotherapy, gene therapy and photodynamic therapy. However, no randomised comparisons are available yet.

Long-Term Outcomes After Concurrent Once- or Twice-Daily Chemoradiation in Limited-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Brief Report From the CONVERT Trial.

PURPOSE: CONVERT was a phase 3 international randomized clinical trial comparing once-daily (OD) and twice-daily (BD) radiation therapy (RT). This updated analysis describes the 6.5-year outcomes of these regimens delivered with conformal techniques. METHODS AND MATERIALS: CONVERT (NCT00433563) randomized patients 1:1 between OD RT (66 Gy/33 fractions/6.5 weeks) and BD RT (45 Gy/30 fractions/3 weeks), both delivered with concurrent cisplatin/etoposide. Three-dimensional conformal RT was mandatory, intensity-modulated RT was permitted, and elective nodal irradiation was not allowed. Prophylactic cranial irradiation was delivered at the discretion of treating clinicians. RT treatment planning was subject to central quality assurance. RESULTS: Five hundred forty-seven patients were recruited at 73 centers. The median follow-up for the surviving cohort (n = 164) was 81.2 months. The median survival for the OD and BD arms were 25.4 months (95% CI, 21.1-30.9) and 30.0 months (95% CI, 25.3-36.5; hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.92-1.38; P = .247). Performance status and tumor volume were associated with survival on multivariate analysis. No treatment-related deaths occurred subsequent to the initial analysis performed in 2017. Regarding late toxicity, 7 patients in the OD arm developed grade 3 esophagitis, 4 of which went on to develop stricture or fistulation, compared with no patients in the BD arm. Grade 3 pulmonary fibrosis occurred in 2 and 3 patients in the OD and BD arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: As the CONVERT trial did not demonstrate the superiority of OD RT and this regimen had a slightly worse toxicity profile after 80 months of follow-up, 45 Gy BD should remain the standard of care in limited stage small cell lung cancer.