Biomedical subjects

European Lung Cancer Working Party

Publications and source records attributed to European Lung Cancer Working Party.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2004

Survival is better predicted with a new classification of stage III unresectable non-small cell lung carcinoma treated by chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

UNLABELLED: The 1997 International staging system (ISS) classification separated stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) into stages IIIA and IIIB. In a previous study including unresectable NSCLC initially treated with chemotherapy, we analysed survival according to tumour (T) and node (N) stages and derived a classification into stages IIIbeta (T3-4N3) and IIIalpha (other TN stage III) that had a better discrimination on survival distribution. The aim of this study was to validate these results in a further set of patients. Patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC included in a phase III trial assessing the role of increased dose chemotherapy (SuperMIP: mitomycin 6 mg/m2, ifosfamide 4.5 g/m2, cisplatin 60 mg/m2, carboplatin 200 mg/m2) in comparison to standard chemotherapy MIP (mitomycin 6 mg/m2, ifosfamide 3 g/m2, cisplatin 50 mg/m2), before thoracic irradiation (60 Gy in 30 fractions over 6 weeks) were the subject of this study. Survival distributions were assessed by the method of Kaplan-Meier. Survival comparisons were made by the log-rank test. Multivariate analyses using Cox regression models, included all potential prognostic factors for survival with a P-value <0.2 in univariate analysis. According to the 1997 International staging system classification, 328 eligible patients were included in the study. There was no imbalance between the two arms. Five parameters were significantly associated (P < or = 0.05) with survival in univariate analysis: European lung cancer working party (ELCWP) staging (IIIalpha[n = 294 pts] versus IIIbeta [n = 46]), Karnofsky index, weight loss, platelet count and haemoglobin level. These variables as well as the 1997 ISS staging, white blood cell (WBC) count, LDH and sodium levels were included in a multivariate analysis. Two models were constructed, including either the ELCWP or the 1997 ISS. In model 1 (ISS included), Karnofsky index (HR 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-1.00; P = 0.05) and haemoglobin (HR 1.49; 95% CI 1.11-1.99; P = 0.007) were found significant. In model 2, including ELCWP staging, two variables were associated with survival: ELCWP staging (HR 1.68; 95% CI 1.20-2.35; P = 0.002) and haemoglobin (HR 1.54; 95% CI 1.15-2.07; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In initially unresectable stage III NSCLC treated by chemotherapy and radiotherapy, we validated the results of our previous study. The classification into stages IIIbeta (T3-4N3M0) and IIIalpha (other TN stage III) better discriminates the patients in term of survival than the 1997 ISS classification.

Aged↗

PubMed2004

A phase III randomised study comparing two different dose-intensity regimens as induction chemotherapy followed by thoracic irradiation in patients with advanced locoregional non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the role of chemotherapy dose intensity in patients with initially unresectable non-metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with survival as primary end point, by testing two different regimens as induction chemotherapy followed by thoracic irradiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had pathologically proven NSCLC, an initially unresectable non-metastatic tumour without homolateral malignant pleural effusion, no prior history of malignancy and had received no prior therapy. Treatment was randomised for chemotherapy between three courses of MIP (mitomycin C 6 mg/m2; ifosfamide 3 g/m2; cisplatin 50 mg/m2) or SuperMIP (mitomycin C 6 mg/m2; ifosfamide 4.5 g/m2; cisplatin 60 mg/m2, carboplatine 200 mg/m2), followed by chest irradiation (60 Gy; five times per week, for 6 weeks). If the tumour became resectable after chemotherapy, surgery was performed, followed by mediastinal irradiation. RESULTS: A total of 351 patients were eligible: 176 in the MIP arm and 175 in the SuperMIP arm, with 43% and 51% stages IIIA and IIIB, respectively. There was a significantly higher objective response rate with SuperMIP (46%) compared with MIP (35%) (P=0.03) [95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the response rates, 1% to 22%]. After induction chemotherapy, surgery was performed in 54 (15%) patients (27 per arm) and chest irradiation in 203 (57%) patients (102 in the MIP arm and 101 in the SuperMIP). In terms of survival, there was no statistically significant difference between the two study arms (P=0.16), with median survival times of, for MIP and SuperMIP, respectively, 12.5 (95% CI 10.1-14.9) and 11.2 (95% CI 9.7-12.8) months. Haematological toxicity and dosage reductions were higher with SuperMIP, which was nevertheless associated with a significantly increased absolute dose intensity. CONCLUSIONS: High dose-intensity induction chemotherapy does not improve survival in initially unresectable non metastatic NSCLC.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

A phase II study testing paclitaxel as second-line single agent treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer failing after a first-line chemotherapy.

The purpose of this study was to determine the activity of paclitaxel as a second-line chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This multicentric trial included patients who had failed to a first-line chemotherapy with platinum derivatives and/or ifosfamide. After registration, patients were treated by paclitaxel i.v. at a dose of 225 mg/m(2) given over 3 h administered every 3 weeks. Response was assessed after three courses of therapy. Sixty-seven patients were registered, one was ineligible and 64 were assessable for response. Two partial responses were observed (3% of the eligible patients; 95% confidence interval: 0-7%). No change was documented in 16 cases (24%). Tolerance was acceptable, the main toxicity being cumulative polyneuropathy. Median survival duration was 4.5 months with a 1-year rate at 19%. We concluded that paclitaxel is not active in terms of response as second-line chemotherapy for NSCLC.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

A three-arm phase III randomised trial comparing combinations of platinum derivatives, ifosfamide and/or gemcitabine in stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine, in stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), if the combination of gemcitabine-a new active drug-with ifosfamide (IG) or with the cisplatin-carboplatin association (CCG) will improve survival (primary end point) in comparison with a first-generation regimen, cisplatin-carboplatin-ifosfamide (CCI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 284 chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic NSCLC were randomised. Four were ineligible and 16 were not assessable for responses. Cisplatin was given at 60 mg/m2 on day 1, carboplatin AUC 3 mg.min/ml on day 1, ifosfamide 4.5 g/m2 on day 1 and gemcitabine 1 g/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15. Courses were repeated every 4 weeks. Response was assessed after three courses and chemotherapy was continued in responding patients until best response. There were 94 eligible patients in the CCI arm, 92 in CCG and 94 in the IG arm. RESULTS: The objective response rates for CCI, CCG and IG were 23% [95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 32%], 29% (95% CI 20% to 39%) and 25% (95% CI 16% to 33%), respectively ( P = 0.61). Median survival time was 24, 34 and 30 weeks, respectively (P = 0.20). One-year survival was 23, 33 and 35%, and 2-year survival was 11, 14 and 17%, respectively. In some subgroups (older patients, women), there was a significant survival advantage for CCG and IG compared with CCI. Toxicity was tolerable: severe alopecia was less frequent in the CCG arm, and IG was associated with significantly more thrombopenia while CCG was associated with more leucopenia. CONCLUSION: In stage IV NSCLC, treatment with regimens including the new drug gemcitabine were associated with a better but not statistically significant observed survival compared with a classical first-generation cisplatin-containing regimen. The non-platinum combination of gemcitabine was as effective as its combination with platinum.

Adult↗

PubMed2001

A three-arm phase III randomised trial assessing, in patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer, accelerated chemotherapy with support of haematological growth factor or oral antibiotics.

The European Lung Cancer Working Party (ELCWP) designed a 3-arm phase III randomised trial to determine the role of accelerated chemotherapy in extensive-disease (ED) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Eligible patients were randomised between the 3 following arms: (A) Standard chemotherapy with 6 courses of EVI (epirubicin 60 mg m(-2), vindesine 3 mg m(-2), ifosfamide 5 g m(-2); all drugs given on day 1 repeated every three weeks. (B) Accelerated chemotherapy with EVI administered every 2 weeks and GM-CSF support. (C) Accelerated chemotherapy with EVI and oral antibiotics (cotrimoxazole). Primary endpoint was survival. 233 eligible patients were randomised. Chemotherapy could be significantly accelerated in arm B with increased absolute dose-intensity. Best response rates, in the population of evaluable patients, were, respectively for arm A, B and C, 59%, 76% and 70%. The response rate was significantly higher in arm B in comparison to arm A (P = 0.04). There was, however, no survival difference with respective median duration and 2-year rate of 286 days and 5% for arm A, 264 days and 6% for arm B and 264 days and 6% for arm C. Severe thrombopenia occurred more frequently in arm B but without an increased rate of bleeding. Non-severe infections were more frequent in arm B and severe infections were less frequent in arm C. Our trial failed to demonstrate, in ED-SCLC, a survival benefit of chemotherapy acceleration by using GM-CSF support.

Administration, Oral↗

PubMed2001

The role of mitomycin in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis of the literature.

In order to clarify the role of mitomycin (MMC) in the treatment of NSCLC, we performed a systematic review of the literature and qualitatively assessed the selected studies using the ELCWP and Chalmers scales. 5 trials (202 patients) assessed the activity of MMC as single-agent chemotherapy in NSCLC. The overall response rate was 25% (95% Cl 19-31). In 10 randomized phase III trials (1769 patients), we studied the role of MMC in combination therapy. A meta-analysis, based on the available published data, failed to show any survival advantage of the MMC containing regimens (hazard ratio = 0.95; 95% Cl 0.83-1.10). Finally, 4 eligible trials (139 patients) assessed the activity of MMC regimens as salvage therapy, 3 in combination with vindesine and one with cisplatin and vinblastine. The overall response rate for the MMC-vindesine regimen was 10.5% (95% Cl 1.7-19.4). In conclusion, MMC is an active drug for NSCLC but does not improve survival when combined with other active drugs, particularly cisplatin. Its use for salvage therapy appears to be associated with marginal activity only.

Antibiotics, Antineoplastic↗

PubMedDate not supplied

[Management of resectable non-small cell lung cancer. Guidelines of clinical practice made by the European Lung Cancer Working Party].

The present article reports the guidelines made by the European Lung Cancer Working Party (ELCWP) in April 2005 for the management of resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). They aim to answer to the following eleven questions: 1) Is surgery the best therapy for a potentially resectable cancer? 2) How is complete resection defined? 3) Is a systematic lymph node dissection necessary during surgery? 4) Which place for radiotherapy after complete resection? 5) Should adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy be administered in case of clinical stage I or II? 6) Should adjuvant chemotherapy be administered in case of pathological stage I or II? 7) Is adjuvant therapy advisable after complete resection for pathological stage IIIA N2? If yes, what type: chemotherapy, radiotherapy, radiochemotherapy? 8) What are the indications for surgery after induction treatment in clinical stage IIIA or B? 9) In clinical stage IIIA or B, is preoperative induction therapy required, and if yes, what type? 10) What type of treatment is indicated after an incomplete surgical resection? 11) What is the best regimen for (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy?

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung↗

PubMedDate not supplied

[Management of unresectable non-metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Guidelines of clinical practice made by the European Lung Cancer Working Party].

The present guidelines on the management of unresectable non-metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were formulated by the ELCWP in October 2005. They are designed to answer the following eight questions: 1) Is chest irradiation curative for NSCLC? 2) What are the contraindications (anatomical or functional) to chest irradiation? 3) Does the addition of chemotherapy add any advantage to radiotherapy? 4) Does the addition of radiotherapy add any advantage to chemotherapy? 5) In marginally respectable stage III is irradiation as effective as surgery? 6) How to best combine chemotherapy with radiotherapy: sequentially, concomitantly, as consolidation, as induction, as radiosensitiser? 7) In case of too advanced locoregional disease, is there a role for consolidation (salvage) local treatment (surgery, radiotherapy) after induction chemotherapy? 8) In 2005, what are the technical characteristics of an adequate radiotherapy?

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung↗