National Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of non-small cell lung cancer in early, locally advanced and metastatic stages. Extended version. / Guía de Práctica Clínica Nacional para el manejo del cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas en estadios tempranos, localmente avanzados y metastásicos.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer is one the leading causes of mortality worldwide. Symptomatic manifestations of the disease generally occur in the advanced-stage setting, and therefore an important number of patients have advanced or metastatic disease by the time they are diagnosed. This situation contributes to a poor prognosis in the treatment of lung cancer. Evidencebased clinical recommendations are of great value to support decision-making for daily practice, and thus improving health care quality and patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This document was an initiative of the Mexican Society of Oncology (SMEO) in collaboration with Mexican Center of Clinical Excellence (Cenetec) according to Interna- tional Standards. Such standards included those described by the IOM, NICE, SIGN and GI-N. An interdisciplinary Guideline Development Group (GDG) was put together which included medical oncologists, surgical oncologistsc, radiation therapists, and methodologists with expertise in critical appraisal, sys- tematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines development. RESULTS: 62 clinical questions were agreed among members of the GDG. With the evidence identified from systematic reviews, the GDG developed clinical recommendations using a Modified Delphi Panel technique. Patients' representatives validated them. CONCLUSIONS: These Clinical Practice Guideline aims to support the shared decision-making process for patients with different stages of non-small cell lung cancer. Our goal is to improve health-care quality on these patients.

OBJETIVO: El cáncer de pulmón es una de las principales causas de mortalidad alrededor del mundo. Su historia natural, con la manifestación de síntomas en etapas avanzadas y el retraso en su diagnóstico hacen que una gran proporción de pacientes se diagnostiquen en estadios tardíos de la enfermedad, lo que hace muy complicado el tratamiento exitoso de la misma. De esto deriva la importancia de dar origen a recomendaciones basadas en evidencia para soportar la toma de decisiones clínicas por parte de los grupos interdisicplinarios que se encargan del manejo de este padecimiento. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Este documento se desarrolló por parte de la Sociedad Mexicana de Oncología en colaboración con el Centro Nacional de Excelencia Tec- nológica de México (Cenetec) a través de la dirección de integración de Guías de Práctica Clínica en cumplimiento a estándares internacionales como los descritos por el Ins- tituto de Medicina de EUA (IOM, por sus siglas en inglés), el Instituto de Excelencia Clínica de Gran Bretaña (NICE, por sus siglas en inglés), la Red Colegiada para el Desarrollo de Guías de Escocia (SIGN, por sus siglas en inglés), la Red Internacional de Guías (G-I-N, por sus siglas en inglés); entre otros. Se integró en representación de la Sociedad Mexicana de Oncología un Grupo de Desarrollo de la Guía (GDG) de manera interdisciplinaria, considerando oncólogos médicos, cirujanos oncólogos, cirujanos de tórax, radio-oncólogos, y metodólogos con experiencia en revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura y guías de práctica clínica. RESULTADOS: Se consensuaron 62 preguntas cllínicas que abarcaron lo establecido previamente por el GDG en el documento de alcances de la Guía. Se identificó la evidencia científica que responde a cada una de estas preguntas clínicas y se evaluó críticamente la misma, antes de ser incorporada en el cuerpo de evidencia de la Guía. El GDG acordó mediante la técnica de consenso formal de expertos Panel Delphi la redacción final de las recomendaciones clínicas. C. CONCLUSIONES: Esta Guía de Práctica Clínica pretende proveer recomendaciones clínicas para el manejo de los distintos estadios de la enfermedad y que asistan en el proceso de toma de decisiones compartida. El GDG espera que esta guía contribuya a mejorar la calidad de la atención clínica en las pacientes con cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas.

[National consensus of diagnosis and treatment of non-small cell lung cancer]. / Consenso nacional de diagnóstico y tratamiento del cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas.

Mexican specialists in oncology, oncologic surgery, thoracic surgery, pneumology, pathology, molecular biology, anesthesiology, algology, psychology, nutrition, and rehabilitation (all of them experts in lung cancer treatment) in order to develop the National Consensus on Lung Cancer. The consensus has been developed as an answer to the need of updated Mexican guidelines for the optimal treatment of the disease, as well as to the requirements that such guidelines be established by multidisciplinary panel, depicting the current attention given to cancer lung cases in Mexico. Thus, this paper analyses the epidemiological review, screening, diagnosis, staging, pathology, translational medicine, and the suitable therapies for early, locally advanced, and metastatic disease in the first, second, and third lines of management, as well as rehabilitation and palliative measures.

First and subsequent cycle use of pegfilgrastim prevents febrile neutropenia in patients with breast cancer: a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the efficacy of pegfilgrastim to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia associated with docetaxel in breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to either placebo or pegfilgrastim 6 mg subcutaneously on day 2 of each 21-day chemotherapy cycle of 100 mg/m(2) docetaxel. The primary end point was the percentage of patients developing febrile neutropenia (defined as body temperature >/= 38.2 degrees C and neutrophil count < 0.5 x 10(9)/L on the same day of the fever or the day after). Secondary end points were incidence of hospitalizations associated with a diagnosis of febrile neutropenia, intravenous (IV) anti-infectives required for febrile neutropenia, and the ability to maintain planned chemotherapy dose on time. Patients with febrile neutropenia were converted to open-label pegfilgrastim in subsequent cycles. RESULTS: Nine hundred twenty-eight patients received placebo (n = 465) or pegfilgrastim (n = 463). Patients receiving pegfilgrastim, compared with patients receiving placebo, had a lower incidence of febrile neutropenia (1% v 17%, respectively; P < .001), febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization (1% v 14%, respectively; P < .001), and use of IV anti-infectives (2% v 10%, respectively; P < .001). The percentage of patients receiving the planned dose on time was similar between patients receiving pegfilgrastim and patients who initially received placebo (80% and 78%, respectively), as would be expected of the study design. Pegfilgrastim was generally well tolerated and safe, and the adverse events reported were typical of this patient population. CONCLUSION: First and subsequent cycle use of pegfilgrastim with a moderately myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimen markedly reduced febrile neutropenia, febrile neutropenia-related hospitalizations, and IV anti-infective use.

Evaluation of a 30-gene paclitaxel, fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy response predictor in a multicenter randomized trial in breast cancer.

PURPOSE: We examined in a prospective, randomized, international clinical trial the performance of a previously defined 30-gene predictor (DLDA-30) of pathologic complete response (pCR) to preoperative weekly paclitaxel and fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (T/FAC) chemotherapy, and assessed if DLDA-30 also predicts increased sensitivity to FAC-only chemotherapy. We compared the pCR rates after T/FAC versus FACx6 preoperative chemotherapy. We also did an exploratory analysis to identify novel candidate genes that differentially predict response in the two treatment arms. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Two hundred and seventy-three patients were randomly assigned to receive either weekly paclitaxel × 12 followed by FAC × 4 (T/FAC, n = 138), or FAC × 6 (n = 135) neoadjuvant chemotherapy. All patients underwent a pretreatment fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the tumor for gene expression profiling and treatment response prediction. RESULTS: The pCR rates were 19% and 9% in the T/FAC and FAC arms, respectively (P < 0.05). In the T/FAC arm, the positive predictive value (PPV) of the genomic predictor was 38% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 21-56%], the negative predictive value was 88% (95% CI, 77-95%), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.711. In the FAC arm, the PPV was 9% (95% CI, 1-29%) and the AUC was 0.584. This suggests that the genomic predictor may have regimen specificity. Its performance was similar to a clinical variable-based predictor nomogram. CONCLUSIONS: Gene expression profiling for prospective response prediction was feasible in this international trial. The 30-gene predictor can identify patients with greater than average sensitivity to T/FAC chemotherapy. However, it captured molecular equivalents of clinical phenotype. Next-generation predictive markers will need to be developed separately for different molecular subsets of breast cancers.