First-line erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer unsuitable for chemotherapy (TOPICAL): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive only active supportive care because of poor performance status or presence of several comorbidities. We investigated whether erlotinib improves clinical outcome in these patients. METHODS: TOPICAL was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, done at 78 centres in the UK. Eligibility criteria were newly diagnosed, pathologically confirmed NSCLC; stage IIIb or IV; chemotherapy naive; no symptomatic brain metastases; deemed unsuitable for chemotherapy because of poor (≥2) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status or presence of several comorbidities, or both; and estimated life expectancy of at least 8 weeks. Patients were randomly assigned (by phone call, in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by disease stage, performance status, smoking history, and centre, block size 10) to receive oral placebo or erlotinib (150 mg per day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Investigators, clinicians, and patients were masked to assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were by intention to treat, and prespecified subgroup analyses included development of a rash due to erlotinib within 28 days of starting treatment. This study is registered, number ISRCTN 77383050. FINDINGS: Between April 14, 2005, and April 1, 2009, we randomly assigned 350 patients to receive erlotinib and 320 to receive placebo. We followed up patients until March 31, 2011. 657 patients died; median overall survival did not differ between groups (erlotinib, 3·7 months, 95% CI 3·2-4·2, vs placebo, 3·6 months, 3·2-3·9; unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·81-1·10, p=0·46). 59% (178 of 302) of patients assigned erlotinib and who were assessable at 1 month developed first-cycle rash, which was the only independent factor associated with overall survival. Patients with first-cycle rash had better overall survival (HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·63-0·92, p=0·0058), compared with placebo. Compared with placebo, overall survival seemed to be worse in the group that did not develop first-cycle rash (1·30, 1·05-1·61, p=0·017). Grade 3 or 4 diarrhoea was more common with erlotinib than placebo (8% [28 of 334] vs 1% [four of 313], p=0·0001), as was high-grade rash (23% [79 of 334] vs 2% [five of 313], p<0·0001); other adverse events were much the same between groups. INTERPRETATION: Patients with NSCLC who are deemed unsuitable for chemotherapy could be given erlotinib. Patients who develop a first-cycle rash should continue to receive erlotinib, whereas those who do not have a rash after 28 days should discontinue erlotinib, because of the possibility of decreased survival. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Roche.

Active symptom control with or without oral vinorelbine in patients with relapsed malignant pleural mesothelioma (VIM): A randomised, phase 2 trial.

Background: Currently, there is no US Food and Drug Administration approved therapy for patients with pleural mesothelioma who have relapsed following platinum-doublet based chemotherapy. Vinorelbine has demonstrated useful clinical activity in mesothelioma, however its efficacy has not been formally evaluated in a randomised setting. BRCA1 expression is required for vinorelbine induced apoptosis in preclinical models. Loss of expression may therefore correlate with vinorelbine resistance. Methods: In this randomised, phase 2 trial, patients were eligible if they met the following criteria: age ≥ 18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, histologically confirmed pleural mesothelioma, post platinum-based chemotherapy, and radiological evidence of disease progression. Consented patients were randomised 2:1 to either active symptom control with oral vinorelbine versus active symptom control (ASC) every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal at an initial dose of 60 mg/m2 increasing to 80 mg/m2 post-cycle 1. Randomisation was stratified by histological subtype, white cell count, gender, ECOG performance status and best response during first-line therapy. The study was open label. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), measured from randomisation to time of event (or censoring). Analyses were carried out according to intention-to-treat (ITT) principles. Recruitment and trial follow-up are complete. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02139904. Findings: Between June 1, 2016 and Oct 31, 2018, we performed a randomised phase 2 trial in 14 hospitals in the United Kingdom. 225 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 154 were randomly assigned to receive either ASC + vinorelbine (n = 98) or ASC (n = 56). PFS was significantly longer for ASC+vinorelbine compared with ASC alone; 4.2 months (interquartile range (IQR) 2.2-8.0) versus 2.8 months (IQR 1.4-4.1) for ASC, giving an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0·60 (80% CI upper limit 0.7, one-sided unadjusted log rank test p = 0.002); adjusted HR 0.6 (80% CI upper limit 0.7, one-sided adjusted log rank test p < 0.001). BRCA1 did not predict resistance to ASC+vinorelbine. Neutropenia was the most common grades 3, 4 adverse events in the ASC +vinorelbine arm. Interpretation: Vinorelbine plus ASC confers clinical benefit to patients with relapsed pleural mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum-based doublet chemotherapy. Funding: This study was funded by Cancer Research UK (grant CRUK A15569).

Active symptom control with or without chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MS01): a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma is almost always fatal, and few treatment options are available. Although active symptom control (ASC) has been recommended for the management of this disease, no consensus exists for the role of chemotherapy. We investigated whether the addition of chemotherapy to ASC improved survival and quality of life. METHODS: 409 patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, from 76 centres in the UK and two in Australia, were randomly assigned to ASC alone (treatment could include steroids, analgesic drugs, bronchodilators, palliative radiotherapy [n=136]); to ASC plus MVP (four cycles of mitomycin 6 mg/m2, vinblastine 6 mg/m2, and cisplatin 50 mg/m2 every 3 weeks [n=137]); or to ASC plus vinorelbine (one injection of vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 every week for 12 weeks [n=136]). Randomisation was done by minimisation, with stratification for WHO performance status, histology, and centre. Follow-up was every 3 weeks to 21 weeks after randomisation, and every 8 weeks thereafter. Because of slow accrual, the two chemotherapy groups were combined and compared with ASC alone for the primary outcome of overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN54469112. FINDINGS: At the time of analysis, 393 (96%) patients had died (ASC 132 [97%], ASC plus MVP 132 [96%], ASC plus vinorelbine 129 [95%]). Compared with ASC alone, we noted a small, non-significant survival benefit for ASC plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89 [95% CI 0.72-1.10]; p=0.29). Median survival was 7.6 months in the ASC alone group and 8.5 months in the ASC plus chemotherapy group. Exploratory analyses suggested a survival advantage for ASC plus vinorelbine compared with ASC alone (HR 0.80 [0.63-1.02]; p=0.08), with a median survival of 9.5 months. There was no evidence of a survival benefit with ASC plus MVP (HR 0.99 [0.78-1.27]; p=0.95). We observed no between-group differences in four predefined quality-of-life subscales (physical functioning, pain, dyspnoea, and global health status) at any of the assessments in the first 6 months. INTERPRETATION: The addition of chemotherapy to ASC offers no significant benefits in terms of overall survival or quality of life. However, exploratory analyses suggested that vinorelbine merits further investigation.

The efficacy and safety of weekly vinorelbine in relapsed malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rapidly progressive invariably lethal tumor. Treatment options remain limited and the outcome in relapsed disease is poor warranting new therapeutic options. Following our previous experience in the first-line setting, we conducted a phase 2 open-label non-comparative study to assess the safety and efficacy of weekly vinorelbine chemotherapy, each cycle consisting of 30 mg/m(2) for 6 weeks, in patients with previous exposure to chemotherapy. In 63 individuals with relapsed MPM who had not received previous vinorelbine, we observed an objective response rate of 16% and an overall survival of 9.6 months (95% confidence interval 7.3-11.8 months). The main grade III/IV toxicity observed was neutropenia and toxicity was similar to weekly vinorelbine when used in the first-line setting. Weekly vinorelbine appeared to have a reasonable response rate with an acceptable toxicity profile in the second-line treatment of MPM. Its use should be prospectively evaluated in a randomised trial in the first or second-line therapy of MPM.

The clinical role of VeriStrat testing in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer considered unfit for first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: We previously demonstrated that the median survival of patients with poor prognosis non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) considered unfit for first-line platinum chemotherapy was <4 months. We evaluated whether VeriStrat could be used as a prognostic or predictive biomarker in this population. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We conducted a randomised double-blind trial among patients with untreated advanced NSCLC considered unfit for platinum chemotherapy because of poor performance status (PS) or multiple comorbidities. All patients received active supportive care (ASC) and were treated with either oral erlotinib or placebo daily. Five hundred twenty-seven patients had plasma samples for VeriStrat classification: good (VeriStrat Good [VSG]) or poor (VeriStrat Poor [VSP]). Main end-point was overall survival. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent patients had VSG, and 83% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 2-3 at baseline. VeriStrat was strongly associated with survival. Among patients managed with ASC only, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 0.54 (p < 0.001) for VSG versus VSP. The association was consistent across patient factors: HR = 0.25 (p = 0.004) and HR = 0.56 (p < 0.001) for ECOG 0-1 and 2-3, respectively, HR = 0.49 (0070 < 0.001) for age≥75 years and HR = 0.59 (p = 0.007) for stage IV. Several ECOG 2-3 patients had long survival: 2-year survival was 8% for VSG patients who had ASC, compared with 0% for VSP. VeriStrat status did not predict benefit from erlotinib treatment because the HRs for erlotinib versus placebo were similar between VSG and VSP patients. CONCLUSIONS: VeriStrat was not a predictive marker for survival when considering first-line erlotinib for patients with NSCLC who had poor PS and were not recommended for platinum doublet therapies. However, VeriStrat was an independent prognostic marker of survival. It represents an objective measurement that could be considered alongside other patient factors to provide a more refined assessment of prognosis for this particular patient group. VSG patients could be selected for treatment trials because of better survival, while VSP patients can continue to be treated conservatively or offered trials of less toxic agents. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN NUMBER: ISRCTN02370070.

Phase II trial of irinotecan, cisplatin and mitomycin for relapsed small cell lung cancer.

There is no standard therapy for relapsed small cell lung cancer (rSCLC). We evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of a new triplet consisting of irinotecan (100 mg/m(2) Days 1 and 15 q28), cisplatin (40 mg/m(2) Days 1 and 15 q28) and mitomycin (6 mg/m(2) d1 q28) administered to a maximum of 6 cycles in individuals with rSCLC that had relapsed following first line treatment. Partial remissions were observed in 35% and progression in 30% of patients. Progression free survival measured 4.5 months (95% CI 0.8-8.2) and overall survival was 7.8 months (95% CI 5.3-10.3). QoL showed improvement in activity symptoms and stabilization of physical symptoms. As IPM was a well-tolerated regimen with activity in rSCLC, a phase III trial comparing this triplet with other regimens in this setting is warranted.

In vivo loss of expression of argininosuccinate synthetase in malignant pleural mesothelioma is a biomarker for susceptibility to arginine depletion.

PURPOSE: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an increasing health burden on many societies worldwide and, being generally resistant to conventional treatment, has a poor prognosis with a median survival of <1 year. Novel therapies based on the biology of this tumor seek to activate a proapoptotic cellular pathway. In this study, we investigated the expression and biological significance of argininosuccinate synthetase (AS), a rate-limiting enzyme in arginine production. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Initially, we documented down-regulation of AS mRNA in three of seven MPM cell lines and absence of AS protein in four of seven MPM cell lines. We confirmed that the 9q34 locus, the site of the AS gene, was intact using a 1-Mb comparative genomic hybridization array; however, there was aberrant promoter CpG methylation in cell lines lacking AS expression, consistent with epigenetic regulation of transcription. To investigate the use of AS negativity as a therapeutic target, arginine was removed from the culture medium of the MPM cell lines. RESULTS: In keeping with the cell line data, 63% (52 of 82) of patients had tumors displaying reduced or absent AS protein, as assessed using a tissue microarray. Cell viability declined markedly in the AS-negative cell lines 2591 and MSTO but not in the AS-positive cell line, 28. This response was apparent by day 4 and maintained by day 9 in vitro. Arginine depletion induced BAX conformation change and mitochondrial inner membrane depolarization selectively in AS-negative MPM cells. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, we have identified AS negativity as a frequent event in MPM in vivo, leading to susceptibility to cytotoxicity following restriction of arginine. A phase II clinical trial is planned to evaluate the role of arginine depletion in patients with AS-negative MPM.

Randomized Prospective Biomarker Trial of ERCC1 for Comparing Platinum and Nonplatinum Therapy in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: ERCC1 Trial (ET).

Purpose Retrospective studies indicate that expression of excision repair cross complementing group 1 (ERCC1) protein is associated with platinum resistance and survival in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We conducted the first randomized trial, to our knowledge, to evaluate ERCC1 prospectively and to assess the superiority of nonplatinum therapy over platinum doublet therapy for ERCC1-positive NSCLC as well as noninferiority for ERCC1-negative NSCLC. Patients and Methods This trial had a marker-by-treatment interaction phase III design, with ERCC1 (8F1 antibody) status as a randomization stratification factor. Chemonaïve patients with NSCLC (stage IIIB and IV) were eligible. Patients with squamous histology were randomly assigned to cisplatin and gemcitabine or paclitaxel and gemcitabine; nonsquamous patients received cisplatin and pemetrexed or paclitaxel and pemetrexed. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). We also evaluated an antibody specific for XPF (clone 3F2). The target hazard ratio (HR) for patients with ERCC1-positive NSCLC was ≤ 0.78. Results Of patients, 648 were recruited (177 squamous, 471 nonsquamous). ERCC1-positive rates were 54.5% and 76.7% in nonsquamous and squamous patients, respectively, and the corresponding XPF-positive rates were 70.5% and 68.5%. Accrual stopped early in 2012 for squamous patients because OS for nonplatinum therapy was inferior to platinum therapy (median OS, 7.6 months [paclitaxel and gemcitabine] v 10.7 months [cisplatin and gemcitabine]; HR, 1.46; P = .02). Accrual for nonsquamous patients halted in 2013. Median OS was 8.0 (paclitaxel and pemetrexed) versus 9.6 (cisplatin and pemetrexed) months for ERCC1-positive patients (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.44), and 10.3 (paclitaxel and pemetrexed) versus 11.6 (cisplatin and pemetrexed) months for ERCC1-negative patients (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.33; interaction P = .64). OS HR was 1.09 (95% CI, 0.83 to 1.44) for XPF-positive patients, and 1.39 (95% CI, 0.90 to 2.15) for XPF-negative patients (interaction P = .35). Neither ERCC1 nor XPF were prognostic: among nonsquamous patients, OS HRs for positive versus negative were ERCC1, 1.11 ( P = .32), and XPF, 1.08 ( P = .55). Conclusion Superior outcomes were observed for patients with squamous histology who received platinum therapy compared with nonplatinum chemotherapy; however, selecting chemotherapy by using commercially available ERCC1 or XPF antibodies did not confer any extra survival benefit.

Arginine Deprivation With Pegylated Arginine Deiminase in Patients With Argininosuccinate Synthetase 1-Deficient Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Preclinical studies show that arginine deprivation is synthetically lethal in argininosuccinate synthetase 1 (ASS1)-negative cancers, including mesothelioma. The role of the arginine-lowering agent pegylated arginine deiminase (ADI-PEG20) has not been evaluated in a randomized and biomarker-driven study among patients with cancer. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical impact of arginine depletion in patients with ASS1-deficient malignant pleural mesothelioma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter phase 2 randomized clinical trial, the Arginine Deiminase and Mesothelioma (ADAM) study, was conducted between March 2, 2011, and May 21, 2013, at 8 academic cancer centers. Immunohistochemical screening of 201 patients (2011-2013) identified 68 with advanced ASS1-deficient malignant pleural mesothelioma. INTERVENTIONS: Randomization 2:1 to arginine deprivation (ADI-PEG20, 36.8 mg/m2, weekly intramuscular) plus best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) (target hazard ratio, 0.60). Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), tumor response rate, safety, and quality of life, analyzed by intention to treat. We measured plasma arginine and citrulline levels, anti-ADI-PEG20 antibody titer, ASS1 methylation status, and metabolic response by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography. RESULTS: Median (range) follow-up in 68 adults (median [range] age, 66 [48-83] years; 19% female) was 38 (2.5-39) months. The PFS hazard ratio was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.33-0.96), with a median of 3.2 months in the ADI-PEG20 group vs 2.0 months in the BSC group (P = .03) (absolute risk, 18% vs 0% at 6 months). Best response at 4 months (modified RECIST) was stable disease: 12 of 23 (52%) in the ADI-PEG20 group vs 2 of 9 (22%) in the BSC group (P = .23). The OS curves crossed, so life expectancy was used: 15.7 months in the ADI-PEG20 group vs 12.1 months in the BSC group (difference of 3.6 [95% CI, -1.0 to 8.1] months; P = .13). The incidence of symptomatic adverse events of grade at least 3 was 11 of 44 (25%) in the ADI-PEG20 group vs 4 of 24 (17%) in the BSC group (P = .43), the most common being immune related, nonfebrile neutropenia, gastrointestinal events, and fatigue. Differential ASS1 gene-body methylation correlated with ASS1 immunohistochemistry, and longer arginine deprivation correlated with improved PFS. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this trial, arginine deprivation with ADI-PEG20 improved PFS in patients with ASS1-deficient mesothelioma. Targeting arginine is safe and warrants further clinical investigation in arginine-dependent cancers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01279967.

Statistical validation of the EORTC prognostic model for malignant pleural mesothelioma based on three consecutive phase II trials.

PURPOSE: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) carries a poor prognosis due to chemoresistance. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) prognostic model was reported to predict survival in MPM. Our retrospective analysis set out to test the validity of the model as a prognostic tool in patients treated in three phase II trials at St Bartholomew's Hospital (London, United Kingdom) between 1999 and 2003. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 145 patients were treated in three phase II trials; vinorelbine (VIN; 70 patients), vinorelbine/oxaliplatin (VO; 26 patients), and irinotecan/cisplatin/mitomycin C (IPM; 49 patients). Two subgroups, high-risk and low-risk, were defined by EORTC prognostic score (EPS). EPS was determined by a five-parameter model incorporating age, sex, histology, probability of diagnosis, and leukocyte count. An EPS cutoff of less than 1.27 (low risk) or more than 1.27 (high risk) was used to stratify Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Each of the EPS variables exhibited either trends or significant stratification of overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Multivariate analysis confirmed leukocyte count, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and sarcomatous histology as independent prognostic variables. EPS stratified OS in both individual and pooled trial datasets. No association between objective tumor response and EPS classification was identified by multinomial logistic regression. EPS stratified progression-free survival for the VO and IPM cohorts, but not for VIN. CONCLUSION: This study validates the EPS system as a robust tool for stratifying small trials into low- and high-risk subgroups. EPS should facilitate patient selection and analysis in randomized clinical trials.

A randomised comparison of radical radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy for patients with non-small lung cancer: results from the Big Lung Trial.

BACKGROUND: A meta-analysis of trials comparing primary treatment with or without chemotherapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer published in 1995 suggested a survival benefit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy in each of the primary treatment settings studied, but it included many small trials, and trials with differing eligibility criteria and chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: The Big Lung Trial was a large pragmatic trial designed to confirm the survival benefits seen in the meta-analysis, and this paper reports the findings in the radical radiotherapy setting. The trial closed before the required sample size was achieved due to slow accrual, with a total of 288 patients randomised to receive radical radiotherapy alone (146 patients) or sequential radical radiotherapy and cisplatin-based chemotherapy (142 patients). RESULTS: There was no evidence that patients allocated sequential chemotherapy and radical radiotherapy had a better survival than those allocated radical radiotherapy alone, HR 1.07 (95% CI 0.84-1.38, P=0.57), median survival 13.0 months for the sequential group and 13.2 for the radical radiotherapy alone group. In addition, exploratory analyses could not identify any subgroup that might benefit more or less from chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite not suggesting a survival benefit for the sequential addition of chemotherapy to radical radiotherapy, possibly because of the relatively small sample size and consequently wide confidence intervals, the results can still be regarded as consistent with the meta-analysis, and other similarly designed recently published large trials. Combining all these results suggests there may be a small median survival benefit with chemotherapy of between 2 and 8 weeks.

Prognostic factors in mesothelioma.

Prognostic factors can help clinicians and patients when deciding a treatment plan. Patients in the best prognostic groups can be considered for more intensive or experimental therapy. Alternatively, patients in the best prognostic groups might prefer a period of observation prior to commencement of therapy. For patients with mesothelioma prognostic factors are potentially especially important because of the lack of a widely applicable anatomical staging system. Both the International Mesothelioma Interest Group (IMIG) and Brigham staging systems are of limited relevance to patients not undergoing radical debulking surgery. Radiological prediction of IMIG or Brigham stage is of little value. Review of the best-known prognostic scoring systems from the EORTC and CALGB has shown that the most important predictors of poor prognosis are: poor performance status; non-epithelioid histology; male gender; low hemoglobin; high platelet count; high white blood cell count; and high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). The EORTC model was validated at St Bartholomew's Hospital in a group of 145 patients treated in sequential phase II chemotherapy trials. For 70 patients treated with vinorelbine, those having the best EORTC prognosis had a median survival of 19.2 months [95% C.I.=14.7-23.7] compared to 9.9 months [95% C.I.=8.5-11.3] for those in the worst group. The suggestion is that all clinical and biological factors relevant to prognosis should be recorded prospectively in mesothelioma patients selected for clinical trials.

Phase II trial of vinorelbine and oxaliplatin as first-line therapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma.

UNLABELLED: The incidence of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is increasing. Treatment options are limited, although recently published data have offered cause for optimism. We reported a response rate of 24% with low toxicity for single agent vinorelbine. Here we report a phase II trial of vinorelbine with oxaliplatin (VO) in patients with untreated MPM. Chemotherapy consisted of vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8 of a 21-day-cycle, and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2), day 1. Treatment continued up to six cycles. The primary endpoint was objective response. Secondary endpoints were toxicity, progression-free and overall survival. Responses were assessed by modified RECIST criteria. Twenty-six patients were enrolled. There were six partial remissions, 17 patients with stable disease, and three patients with PD. Response rate was 23% (95% confidence interval 9-44%). Median number of cycles delivered was four. Progression-free survival from first treatment was 4.7 months, and overall survival was 8.8 months. One-year-survival was 27%. Toxicity (% of patients with at least one episode of grade 3 or 4 toxicity): neutropenia 18%, phlebitis 12%, malaise 12%, anorexia 12%, nausea and vomiting 12%, constipation 6%. Quality of life assessed by Rotterdam symptom checklist was associated with stabilization or improvement of psychological well-being and lung symptoms in the majority of patients, but deterioration in physical symptoms. CONCLUSION: VO has activity in MPM with most patients responding or having stable disease, although this doublet is associated with significant toxicity.

Initial evaluation of the patient with lung cancer: symptoms, signs, laboratory tests, and paraneoplastic syndromes.

This chapter describes the components of the initial evaluation for a patient either suspected or known to have lung cancer. The components of the initial evaluation are based on the recognized manifestations of localized lung cancer, ie, symptoms referable to the primary tumor, intrathoracic spread of lung cancer, and patterns of metastatic dissemination. Features of the history and physical signs may be useful indicators of the extent of disease. A standardized evaluation, relying on symptoms, signs, and routinely available laboratory tests, can serve as a useful screen for metastatic disease. Also described are the common features of the various paraneoplastic syndromes associated with lung cancer.

The physiologic evaluation of patients with lung cancer being considered for resectional surgery.

The preoperative physiologic assessment of a patient being considered for surgical resection of lung cancer must consider the immediate perioperative risks from comorbid cardiopulmonary disease, the long-term risks of pulmonary disability, and the threat to survival due to inadequately treated lung cancer. As with any planned major operation, especially in a population predisposed to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease by cigarette smoking, a cardiovascular evaluation is an important component in assessing perioperative risks. Measuring the FEV(1) and the diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) measurements should be viewed as complementary physiologic tests for assessing risk related to pulmonary function. If there is evidence of interstitial lung disease on radiographic studies or undue dyspnea on exertion, even though the FEV(1) may be adequate, a DLCO should be obtained. In patients with abnormalities in FEV(1) or DLCO identified preoperatively, it is essential to estimate the likely postresection pulmonary reserve. The amount of lung function lost in lung cancer resection can be estimated by using either a perfusion scan or the number of segments removed. A predicted postoperative FEV(1) or DLCO < 40% indicates an increased risk for perioperative complications, including death, from lung cancer resection. Exercise testing should be performed in these patients to further define the perioperative risks prior to surgery. Formal cardiopulmonary exercise testing is a sophisticated physiologic testing technique that includes recording the exercise ECG, heart rate response to exercise, minute ventilation, and oxygen uptake per minute, and allows calculation of maximal oxygen consumption (.VO(2)max). Risk for perioperative complications can generally be stratified by .VO(2)max. Patients with preoperative .VO(2)max > 20 mL/kg/min are not at increased risk of complications or death; .VO(2)max< 15 mL/kg/min indicates an increased risk of perioperative complications; and patients with .VO(2)max < 10 mL/kg/min have a very high risk for postoperative complications. Alternative types of exercise testing include stair climbing, the shuttle walk, and the 6-min walk. Although often not performed in a standardized manner, stair climbing can predict .VO(2)max. In general terms, patients who can climb five flights of stairs have O(2)max > 20 mL/kg/min. Conversely, patients who cannot climb one flight of stairs have .VO(2)max < 10 mL/kg/min. Data on the shuttle walk and 6-min walk are limited, but patients who cannot complete 25 shuttles on two occasions will have .VO(2)max < 10 mL/kg/min. Desaturation during an exercise test has been associated with an increased risk for perioperative complications. Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) for patients with severe emphysema is a controversial procedure. Some reports document substantial improvements in lung function, exercise capability, and quality of life in highly selected patients with emphysema following LVRS. Case series of patients referred for LVRS indicate that perhaps 3 to 6% of these patients may have coexisting lung cancer. Anecdotal experience from these case series suggest that patients with extremely poor lung function can tolerate combined LVRS and resection of the lung cancer with an acceptable mortality rate and good postoperative outcomes. Combining LVRS and lung cancer resection should probably be limited to those patients with heterogeneous emphysema, particularly emphysema limited to the lobe containing the tumor.

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy of bronchial carcinoma.

The treatment of lung cancer is important as it represents a global health burden. Many therapies are used including surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, laser therapy, stenting, supportive care and biological agents. Treatment for individual patients is best assessed by a multidisciplinary approach. This article focuses on treatment with chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

Pulmonary toxicity and cancer treatment.

Pulmonary toxicity is a serious potential complication of the use of cytotoxic drugs that can be debilitating and life threatening. Rapid recognition of this problem and its management are critical if morbidity is to be limited. This article discusses the mechanisms, common clinical features and risk factors for cytotoxic drug-induced pulmonary toxicity, and outlines general management principles.

Carboplatin- or cisplatin-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of small-cell lung cancer: the COCIS meta-analysis of individual patient data.

PURPOSE: Since treatment efficacy of cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) remains contentious, a meta-analysis of individual patient data was performed to compare the two treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic review identified randomized trials comparing cisplatin with carboplatin in the first-line treatment of SCLC. Individual patient data were obtained from coordinating centers of all eligible trials. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). All statistical analyses were stratified by trial. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment toxicity. OS and PFS curves were compared by using the log-rank test. ORR was compared by using the Mantel-Haenszel test. RESULTS: Four eligible trials with 663 patients (328 assigned to cisplatin and 335 to carboplatin) were included in the analysis. Median OS was 9.6 months for cisplatin and 9.4 months for carboplatin (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.27; P = .37). There was no evidence of treatment difference between the cisplatin and carboplatin arms according to sex, stage, performance status, or age. Median PFS was 5.5 and 5.3 months for cisplatin and carboplatin, respectively (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.29; P = .25). ORR was 67.1% and 66.0%, respectively (relative risk, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.16; P = .83). Toxicity profile was significantly different for each of the arms: hematologic toxicity was higher with carboplatin, and nonhematologic toxicity was higher with cisplatin. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis of individual patient data suggests no differences in efficacy between cisplatin and carboplatin in the first-line treatment of SCLC, but there are differences in the toxicity profile.

Response to chemotherapy is predictive in relation to longer overall survival in an individual patient combined-analysis with pleural mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no early predictive marker of survival for patients receiving chemotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Tumour response may be predictive for overall survival (OS), though this has not been explored. We have thus undertaken a combined-analysis of OS, from a 42day landmark, of 526 patients receiving systemic therapy for MPM. We also validate published progression-free survival rates (PFSRs) and a progression-free survival (PFS) prognostic-index model. METHODS: Analyses included nine MPM clinical trials incorporating six European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) studies. Analysis of OS from landmark (from day 42 post-treatment) was considered regarding tumour response. PFSR analysis data included six non-EORTC MPM clinical trials. Prognostic index validation was performed on one non-EORTC data-set, with available survival data. RESULTS: Median OS, from landmark, of patients with partial response (PR) was 12·8months, stable disease (SD), 9·4months and progressive disease (PD), 3·4months. Both PR and SD were associated with longer OS from landmark compared with disease progression (both p<0·0001). PFSRs for platinum-based combination therapies were consistent with published significant clinical activity ranges. Effective separation between PFS and OS curves provided a validation of the EORTC prognostic model, based on histology, stage and performance status. CONCLUSION: Response to chemotherapy is associated with significantly longer OS from landmark in patients with MPM.