Treatment patterns and outcomes for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma in England in 2013-2017: A nationwide CAS registry analysis from the I-O Optimise initiative.

OBJECTIVES: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and aggressive cancer with a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. This study assessed the characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes for patients diagnosed with MPM in England. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As part of I-O Optimise, this retrospective cohort study analyzed data recorded in the Cancer Analysis System in England for all adult patients newly diagnosed with MPM between 2013 and 2017, with follow-up to March 2018 or death, whichever occurred first. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. A Cox regression model was used to describe the impact of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics at diagnosis on OS. RESULTS: 9458 patients diagnosed with MPM were analyzed. Median age at diagnosis was 75 years; 83.4% were male. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) was 0-1 for 44.5%; 2 for 11.5%; >2 for 9.1%; and missing for 34.9% of patients. TNM stage was missing for 60.4%. A majority of patients had epithelioid histology (36.4%) or not otherwise specified (NOS) MPM (43.3%). After diagnosis, 48.7% of all patients received best supportive care (BSC; no surgery, radiotherapy, SACT); 11.4% received palliative radiotherapy alone; 6.5% underwent surgery; 33.4% received systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) as initial treatment. Platinum plus pemetrexed was the main SACT regimen used in both first and second line. Median OS (8.3 months) varied by histopathology and ranged from 4.3 to 13.3 months for sarcomatoid and epithelioid MPM, respectively. After adjusting for age, sex, and ECOG PS, sarcomatoid, biphasic, and NOS MPM remained significantly associated with worse OS than epithelioid MPM (all p < 0.001). Median OS varied from 4.6 to 17.0 months for patients receiving BSC/palliative radiotherapy, and patients receiving surgery, respectively. CONCLUSION: Outcomes for patients with MPM in England remain poor. Future studies will investigate the impact of newer therapies on the treatment patterns and survival of MPM patients.

Treatment patterns and survival outcomes for patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the UK in the preimmunology era: a REAL-Oncology database analysis from the I-O Optimise initiative.

OBJECTIVES: To report characteristics, treatment and overall survival (OS) trends, by stage and pathology, of patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust in 2007-2018. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study based on electronic medical records. SETTING: Large NHS university hospital in Leeds. PARTICIPANTS: 3739 adult patients diagnosed with incident NSCLC from January 2007 to August 2017, followed up until March 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient characteristics at diagnosis, treatment patterns and OS. RESULTS: 34.3% of patients with NSCLC were clinically diagnosed (without pathological confirmation). Among patients with known pathology, 45.2% had non-squamous cell carcinoma (NSQ) and 33.3% had squamous cell carcinoma (SQ). The proportion of patients diagnosed at stage I increased (16.4%-27.7% in 2010-2017); those diagnosed at stage IV decreased (57.0%-39.1%). Surgery was the most common initial treatment for patients with pathologically confirmed stage I NSCLC. Use of radiotherapy alone increased over time in patients with clinically diagnosed stage I NSCLC (39.1%-60.3%); chemoradiation increased in patients with stage IIIA NSQ (21.6%-33.3%) and SQ (24.2%-31.9%). Initial treatment with systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) increased in patients with stages IIIB-IV NSQ (49.0%-67.5%); the proportion of untreated patients decreased (30.6%-15.0%). Median OS improved for patients diagnosed with stage I NSQ and SQ and stage IIIA NSQ over time. Median OS for patients with stages IIIB-IV NSQ and SQ remained stable, <10% patients were alive 3 years after diagnosis. Median OS for clinically diagnosed stages IIIB-IV patients was 1.2 months in both periods. CONCLUSIONS: OS for stage I and IIIA patients improved over time, likely due to increased use of stereotactic ablative radiation, surgery (stage I) and chemoradiation (stage IIIA). Conversely, OS outcomes remained poor for stage IIIB-IV patients despite increasing use of SACT for NSQ. Many patients with advanced-stage disease remained untreated.

Trends in the prescription of systemic anticancer therapy and mortality among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a real-world retrospective observational cohort study from the I-O optimise initiative.

OBJECTIVES: To assess how a decade of developments in systematic anticancer therapy (SACT) for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) affected overall survival (OS) in a large UK University Hospital. DESIGN: Real-world retrospective observational cohort study using existing data recorded in electronic medical records. SETTING: A large National Health Service (NHS) university teaching hospital serving 800 000 people living in a diverse metropolitan area of the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 2119 adults diagnosed with advanced NSCLC (tumour, node, metastasis stage IIIB or IV) between 2007 and 2017 at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: OS following diagnosis and the analysis of factors associated with receiving SACT. RESULTS: Median OS for all participants was 2.9 months, increasing for the SACT-treated subcohort from 8.4 months (2007-2012) to 9.1 months (2013-2017) (p=0.02); 1-year OS increased from 33% to 39% over the same period for the SACT-treated group. Median OS for the untreated subcohort was 1.6 months in both time periods. Overall, 30.6% (648/2119) patients received SACT; treatment rates increased from 28.6% (338/1181) in 2007-2012 to 33.0% (310/938) in 2013-2017 (p=0.03). Age and performance status were independent predictors for SACT treatment; advanced age and higher performance status were associated with lower SACT treatment rates. CONCLUSION: Although developments in SACT during 2007-2017 correspond to some changes in survival for treated patients with advanced NSCLC, treatment rates remain low and the prognosis for all patients remains poor.

SABRTooth: a randomised controlled feasibility study of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with surgery in patients with peripheral stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer considered to be at higher risk of complications from surgical resection.

OBJECTIVES: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a well-established treatment for medically inoperable peripheral stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Previous nonrandomised evidence supports SABR as an alternative to surgery, but high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence is lacking. The SABRTooth study aimed to establish whether a UK phase III RCT was feasible. DESIGN AND METHODS: SABRTooth was a UK multicentre randomised controlled feasibility study targeting patients with peripheral stage I NSCLC considered to be at higher risk of surgical complications. 54 patients were planned to be randomised 1:1 to SABR or surgery. The primary outcome was monthly average recruitment rates. RESULTS: Between July 2015 and January 2017, 318 patients were considered for the study and 205 (64.5%) were deemed ineligible. Out of 106 (33.3%) assessed as eligible, 24 (22.6%) patients were randomised to SABR (n=14) or surgery (n=10). A key theme for nonparticipation was treatment preference, with 43 (41%) preferring nonsurgical treatment and 19 (18%) preferring surgery. The average monthly recruitment rate was 1.7 patients against a target of three. 15 patients underwent their allocated treatment: SABR n=12, surgery n=3. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that a phase III RCT randomising higher risk patients between SABR and surgery is not feasible in the National Health Service. Patients have pre-existing treatment preferences, which was a barrier to recruitment. A significant proportion of patients randomised to the surgical group declined and chose SABR. SABR remains an alternative to surgery and novel study approaches are needed to define which patients benefit from a nonsurgical approach.

18F-Fludeoxyglucose PET/CT in SCLC: Analysis of the CONVERT Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: We used phase-3 CONVERT trial data to investigate the impact of fludeoxyglucose F 18 (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in SCLC. METHODS: CONVERT randomized patients with limited-stage SCLC to twice-daily (45 Gy in 30 fractions) or once-daily (66 Gy in 33 fractions) chemoradiotherapy. Patients were divided into two groups in this unplanned analysis: those staged with conventional imaging (contrast-enhanced thorax and abdomen CT and brain imaging with or without bone scintigraphy) and those staged with 18F-FDG PET/CT in addition. RESULTS: Data on a total of 540 patients were analyzed. Compared with patients who underwent conventional imaging (n = 231), patients also staged with 18F-FDG PET/CT (n = 309) had a smaller gross tumor volume (p = 0.003), were less likely to have an increased pretreatment serum lactate dehydrogenase level (p = 0.035), and received more chemotherapy (p = 0.026). There were no significant differences in overall (hazard ratio = 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.70-1.08, p = 0.192) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio = 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.71-1.07], p = 0.198) between patients staged with or without 18F-FDG PET/CT. In the conventional imaging group, we found no survival difference between patients staged with or without bone scintigraphy. Although there were no differences in delivered radiotherapy dose, 18F-FDG PET/CT-staged patients received lower normal tissue (lung, heart, and esophagus) radiation doses. Apart from a higher incidence of late esophagitis in patients staged with conventional imaging (for grade ≥1, 19% versus 11%; [p = 0.012]), the incidence of acute and late radiotherapy-related toxicities was not different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In CONVERT, survival outcomes were not significantly different in patients staged with or without 18F-FDG PET/CT. However, this analysis cannot support the use or omission of 18F-FDG PET/CT owing to study limitations.

Prophylactic Irradiation of Tracts in Patients With Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: An Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase III Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: Prophylactic irradiation to the chest wall after diagnostic or therapeutic procedures in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has been a widespread practice across Europe, although the efficacy of this treatment is uncertain. In this study, we aimed to determine the efficacy of prophylactic radiotherapy in reducing the incidence of chest wall metastases (CWM) after a procedure in MPM. METHODS: After undergoing a chest wall procedure, patients with MPM were randomly assigned to receive prophylactic radiotherapy (within 42 days of the procedure) or no radiotherapy. Open thoracotomies, needle biopsies, and indwelling pleural catheters were excluded. Prophylactic radiotherapy was delivered at a dose of 21 Gy in three fractions over three consecutive working days, using a single electron field adapted to maximize coverage of the tract from skin surface to pleura. The primary outcome was the incidence of CWM within 6 months from random assignment, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Stratification factors included epithelioid histology and intention to give chemotherapy. RESULTS: Between July 30, 2012, and December 12, 2015, 375 patients were recruited from 54 centers and randomly assigned to receive prophylactic radiotherapy (n = 186) or no prophylactic radiotherapy (n = 189). Participants were well matched at baseline. No significant difference was seen in the incidence of CWM at 6 months between the prophylactic radiotherapy and no radiotherapy groups (no. [%]: 6 [3.2] v 10 [5.3], respectively; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.86; P = .44). Skin toxicity was the most common radiotherapy-related adverse event in the prophylactic radiotherapy group, with 96 patients (51.6%) receiving grade 1; 19 (10.2%), grade 2; and 1 (0.5%) grade 3 radiation dermatitis (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0). CONCLUSION: There is no role for the routine use of prophylactic irradiation to chest wall procedure sites in patients with MPM.

Surgery or radiotherapy for stage I lung cancer? An intention-to-treat analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery is the standard of care for early-stage lung cancer, with stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) a lower morbidity alternative for patients with limited physiological reserve. Comparisons of outcomes between these treatment options are limited by competing comorbidities and differences in pre-treatment pathological information. This study aims to address these issues by assessing both overall and cancer-specific survival for presumed stage I lung cancer on an intention-to-treat basis. METHODS: This retrospective intention-to-treat analysis identified all patients treated for presumed stage I lung cancer within a single large UK centre. Overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and combined cancer and treatment-related survival were assessed with adjustment for confounding variables using Cox proportional hazards and Fine-Gray competing risks analyses. RESULTS: 468 patients (including 316 surgery and 99 SABR) were included in the study population. Compared with surgery, SABR was associated with inferior overall survival on multivariable Cox modelling (SABR HR 1.84 (95% CI 1.32-2.57)), but there was no difference in cancer-specific survival (SABR HR 1.47 (95% CI 0.80-2.69)) or combined cancer and treatment-related survival (SABR HR 1.27 (95% CI 0.74-2.17)). Combined cancer and treatment-related death was no different between SABR and surgery on Fine-Gray competing risks multivariable modelling (subdistribution hazard 1.03 (95% CI 0.59-1.81)). Non-cancer-related death was significantly higher in SABR than surgery (subdistribution hazard 2.16 (95% CI 1.41-3.32)). CONCLUSION: In this analysis, no difference in cancer-specific survival was observed between SABR and surgery. Further work is needed to define predictors of outcome and help inform treatment decisions.

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).

Protocol for the CONVERT trial-Concurrent ONce-daily VErsus twice-daily RadioTherapy: an international 2-arm randomised controlled trial of concurrent chemoradiotherapy comparing twice-daily and once-daily radiotherapy schedules in patients with limited stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) and good performance status.

INTRODUCTION: Concurrent ONce-daily VErsus twice-daily RadioTherapy (CONVERT) is the only multicentre, international, randomised, phase III trial open in Europe and Canada looking at optimisation of chemoradiotherapy (RT) in limited stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC). Following on from the Turrisi trial of once-daily versus twice-daily (BD) concurrent chemoradiotherapy, there is a real need for a new phase III trial using modern conformal RT techniques and investigating higher once-daily radiation dose. This trial has the potential to define a new standard chemo-RT regimen for patients with LS-SCLC and good performance status. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 447 patients with histologically or cytologically proven diagnosis of SCLC were recruited from 74 centres in eight countries between 2008 and 2013. Patients were randomised to receive either concurrent twice-daily RT(45 Gy in 30 twice-daily fractions over 3 weeks) or concurrent once-daily RT(66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions over 6.5 weeks) both starting on day 22 of cycle 1. Patients are followed up until death. The primary end point of the study is overall survival and secondary end points include local progression-free survival, metastasis-free survival, acute and late toxicity based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.3.0, chemotherapy and RTdose intensity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial received ethical approval from NRES Committee North West-Greater Manchester Central (07/H1008/229). There is a trial steering committee, including independent members and an independent data monitoring committee. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN91927162; Pre-results.

Lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR): dosimetric considerations for chest wall toxicity.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate chest wall pain in patients with peripheral early stage lung cancer treated with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), and to identify factors predictive of Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events Grade 2 + chest wall pain. METHODS: Patients who received 55 Gy in five fractions were included. A chest wall structure was retrospectively defined on planning scans, and chest wall dosimetry and tumour-related factors recorded. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors predictive of ≥Grade 2 chest wall pain. RESULTS: 182 patients and 187 tumours were included. There were 20 (10.9%) episodes of ≥Grade 2 chest wall pain. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that the maximum dose received by 1 cm(3) of chest wall (Dmax1 cm(3)) and tumour size were significant predictors of ≥Grade 2 chest wall pain [Dmax1 cm(3) odds ratio : 1.104, 95% confidence interval : 1.012-1.204, p = 0.025; tumour size (mm) odds ratio : 1.080, 95% confidence interval : 1.026-1.136, p = 0.003]. This model was an adequate fit to the data (Hosmer and Lemeshow test non-significant) and a fair discriminator for chest wall pain (area under receiver-operating characteristic curve: 0.74). Using the multivariate logistic regression model, parameters for Dmax1 cm(3) are provided, which predict <10% and <20% risks of ≥Grade 2 chest wall pain for different tumour sizes. CONCLUSION: Grade 2+ chest wall pain is an uncommon side effect of lung SABR. Larger tumour size and increasing Dmax1 cm(3) are significant predictors of ≥Grade 2 chest wall pain. When planning lung SABR, it is prudent to try to avoid hot volumes in the chest wall, particularly for larger tumours. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This article demonstrates that Grade 2 or greater chest wall pain following lung SABR is more common when the tumour is larger in size and the Dmax1 cm(3) of the chest wall is higher. When planning lung SABR, the risk of chest wall pain may be reduced if maximum doses are minimized, particularly for larger tumours.

Occult nodal disease in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer who are suitable for stereotactic ablative body radiation.

INTRODUCTION: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy is a therapeutic option for patients with peripheral stage I NSCLC in whom surgical resection is considered high risk. Patients receiving SABR do not undergo systematic nodal dissection and any occult nodal metastases will therefore go undetected. Our aim was to determine what proportion of cases this might represent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively studied patients who underwent lung resections for presumed stage I NSCLC between 2008 and 2011 at a United Kingdom teaching hospital. We reviewed postoperative pathological lymph node staging and analyzed a subset of these patients in whom SABR would have been be technically possible. RESULTS: We reviewed 128 cases of presumed NSCLC preoperatively staged as T1/2a N0 M0. Of 89 cases with peripheral tumor location, 8 patients (8.9%) had nodal involvement at surgical resection. CONCLUSION: Our data show that approximately 1 in 11 patients with peripheral stage I NSCLC will have occult mediastinal/hilar nodal involvement. Although this is a relatively small proportion, routine use of EBUS-TBNA for nodal staging in patients undergoing SABR might identify a greater proportion of patients with nodal disease compared with a strategy of nodal staging directed according to positron emission tomography-computed tomography findings.

Radical radiotherapy with or without gemcitabine in patients with early stage medically inoperable non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical and phase I data suggest gemcitabine to be a potent radiosensitiser. This multicentre study addressed whether the addition of low dose gemcitabine to radical radiotherapy improved 2 year event-free survival in patients with medically inoperable stages I-II non-small cell lung cancer. AIM: To determine whether low dose gemcitabine increased event-free survival in patients with T1-2 N0-1 M0 NSCLC deemed unfit for surgery. METHODS: Patients with T1-2 N0-1 M0 NSCLC deemed unfit for surgery were randomised to 3D conformal radiotherapy delivering 55 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks to known sites of cancer with (Arm B) or without (Arm A) 100mg/m(2) weekly gemcitabine. RESULTS: Study entry was terminated early because of slow accrual. 111 patients were randomised between March 2003 and December 2005, of whom 4 withdrew consent and 2 were lost to follow-up. Median age was 75 (range 49-88)years and 67 (63%) were male. 86 (81%) were PS 0-1 and 31 (30%) Charlson index 2 or greater. Event-free survival in arm A and B, respectively, was 42% and 46% at 2 years and 20% and 31% at 5 years (p=0.72), while overall survival was 56% and 52% at 2 years and 20% and 33% at 5 years (p=0.87). Two deaths from accelerated interstitial lung disease were seen in arm B, but toxicity was otherwise mild. CONCLUSION: No evidence of an improvement in event-free survival was seen with the addition of weekly gemcitabine at this dose for patients with early stage NSCLC unfit for surgery, although the power of the study was low.

Extra-pleural pneumonectomy versus no extra-pleural pneumonectomy for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: clinical outcomes of the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery (MARS) randomised feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: The effects of extra-pleural pneumonectomy (EPP) on survival and quality of life in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma have, to our knowledge, not been assessed in a randomised trial. We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of patients who were randomly assigned to EPP or no EPP in the context of trimodal therapy in the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery (MARS) feasibility study. METHODS: MARS was a multicentre randomised controlled trial in 12 UK hospitals. Patients aged 18 years or older who had pathologically confirmed mesothelioma and were deemed fit enough to undergo trimodal therapy were included. In a prerandomisation registration phase, all patients underwent induction platinum-based chemotherapy followed by clinical review. After further consent, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to EPP followed by postoperative hemithorax irradiation or to no EPP. Randomisation was done centrally with computer-generated permuted blocks stratified by surgical centre. The main endpoints were feasibility of randomly assigning 50 patients in 1 year (results detailed in another report), proportion randomised who received treatment, proportion eligible (registered) who proceeded to randomisation, perioperative mortality, and quality of life. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. This is the principal report of the MARS study; all patients have been recruited. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN95583524. FINDINGS: Between Oct 1, 2005, and Nov 3, 2008, 112 patients were registered and 50 were subsequently randomly assigned: 24 to EPP and 26 to no EPP. The main reasons for not proceeding to randomisation were disease progression (33 patients), inoperability (five patients), and patient choice (19 patients). EPP was completed satisfactorily in 16 of 24 patients assigned to EPP; in five patients EPP was not started and in three patients it was abandoned. Two patients in the EPP group died within 30 days and a further patient died without leaving hospital. One patient in the no EPP group died perioperatively after receiving EPP off trial in a non-MARS centre. The hazard ratio [HR] for overall survival between the EPP and no EPP groups was 1·90 (95% CI 0·92-3·93; exact p=0·082), and after adjustment for sex, histological subtype, stage, and age at randomisation the HR was 2·75 (1·21-6·26; p=0·016). Median survival was 14·4 months (5·3-18·7) for the EPP group and 19·5 months (13·4 to time not yet reached) for the no EPP group. Of the 49 randomly assigned patients who consented to quality of life assessment (EPP n=23; no EPP n=26), 12 patients in the EPP group and 19 in the no EPP group completed the quality of life questionnaires. Although median quality of life scores were lower in the EPP group than the no EPP group, no significant differences between groups were reported in the quality of life analyses. There were ten serious adverse events reported in the EPP group and two in the no EPP group. INTERPRETATION: In view of the high morbidity associated with EPP in this trial and in other non-randomised studies a larger study is not feasible. These data, although limited, suggest that radical surgery in the form of EPP within trimodal therapy offers no benefit and possibly harms patients. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK (CRUK/04/003), the June Hancock Mesothelioma Research Fund, and Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust.

Guidelines on the radical management of patients with lung cancer.

A joint initiative by the British Thoracic Society and the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland was undertaken to update the 2001 guidelines for the selection and assessment of patients with lung cancer who can potentially be managed by radical treatment.

The Mesothelioma and Radical surgery randomized controlled trial: the Mars feasibility study.

HYPOTHESIS: The effectiveness of extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) to extend quality-adjusted survival in malignant pleural mesothelioma within multimodality treatment should be proven in a randomized controlled trial if this radical surgery is to be regarded as the standard of care. The question was whether randomization to surgery versus no surgery would be possible. METHODS: The Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery trial was planned to randomize 50 patients to test feasibility. There was a two-stage consent process. At first consent, the patients who were possible candidates for radical surgery were registered into the trial for completion of assessment and staging. All received platinum-based chemotherapy. If still eligible, they completed a second consent to be randomized to have either EPP followed by radical hemithorax radiotherapy or to have continued best care. RESULTS: Patients were recruited through 11 collaborating centers in the United Kingdom. One hundred twelve potentially eligible patients gave informed consent to enter the registration phase and undergo chemotherapy. One died, 27 progressed, five were inoperable, four were treated off trial, and 18 withdrew either during or after chemotherapy but before final review. Additionally six were deemed inoperable at review after completing chemotherapy and one more patient withdrew. The remaining 50 were randomized; 24 to EPP and 26 to continued best care. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, 50/112 (45%) of patients entering the evaluation and induction phase of the trial went on to be randomized. We have shown that this randomization between surgery and no surgery is feasible. This was the primary aim of the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery trial.

Prophylactic cranial irradiation in extensive disease small-cell lung cancer: short-term health-related quality of life and patient reported symptoms: results of an international Phase III randomized controlled trial by the EORTC Radiation Oncology and Lung Cancer Groups.

PURPOSE: Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) in patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) leads to significantly fewer symptomatic brain metastases and improved survival. Detailed effects of PCI on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) are reported here. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (age, 18 to 75 years; WHO < or = 2) with ED-SCLC, and any response to chemotherapy, were randomly assigned to either observation or PCI. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and patient-reported symptoms were secondary end points. The European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer core HRQOL tool (Quality of Life Questionnaire C30) and brain module (Quality of Life Questionnaire Brain Cancer Module) were used to collect self-reported patient data. Six HRQOL scales were selected as primary HRQOL end points: global health status; hair loss; fatigue; and role, cognitive and emotional functioning. Assessments were performed at random assignment, 6 weeks, 3 months, and then 3-monthly up to 1 year and 6-monthly thereafter. RESULTS: Compliance with the HRQOL assessment was 93.7% at baseline and dropped to 60% at 6 weeks. Short-term results up to 3 months showed that there was a negative impact of PCI on selected HRQOL scales. The largest mean difference between the two arms was observed for fatigue and hair loss. The impact of PCI on global health status as well as on functioning scores was more limited. For global health status, the observed mean difference was eight points on a scale 0 to 100 at 6 weeks (P = .018) and 3 months (P = .055). CONCLUSION: PCI should be offered to all responding ED SCLC patients. Patients should be informed of the potential adverse effects from PCI. Clinicians should be alert to these; monitor their patients; and offer appropriate support, clinical, and psychosocial care.

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.