J.L. Pujol

Randomized study of vinorelbine and cisplatin versus vindesine and cisplatin versus vinorelbine alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a European multicenter trial including 612 patients.

PURPOSE We designed a prospective randomized trial to compare vinorelbine and cisplatin (NVB-P) with vindesine and cisplatin (VDS-P) and to evaluate whether the best of these regimens affords a survival benefit compared with vinorelbine alone (NVB), an outpatient regimen, in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Forty-five centers included 612 patients in this study: 206 on NVB-P, 200 on VDS-P, and 206 on NVB. Vinorelbine was administered at a dose of 30 mg/m2 weekly, cisplatin at 120 mg/m2 on days 1 and 29 and then every 6 weeks, and vindesine at 3 mg/m2 weekly for 6 weeks and then every other week. Treatment was continued until progression or toxicity. Four percent of the patients entered were ineligible and 59% had metastatic disease. RESULTS An objective response rate was observed in 30% of patients in the NVB-P arm versus 19% in the VDS-P arm (P = .02) and 14% in the NVB arm (P < .001). The median duration of survival was 40 weeks in the NVB-P arm, compared with 32 weeks in the VDS-P arm and 31 weeks in the NVB arm. Comparison of survival among the three groups demonstrated an advantage for NVB-P compared with VDS-P (P = .04) and NVB (P = .01). Neutropenia was significantly higher in the NVB-P group (P < .001), and neurotoxicity was more frequent with VDS-P (P < .004). CONCLUSION Since our results have demonstrated that NVB-P yields a longer survival duration and a higher response rate than VDS-P or NVB alone, with acceptable toxicity, this combination should be considered a relevant regimen in advanced NSCLC.

Patterns of relapse of N2 nonsmall-cell lung carcinoma patients treated with preoperative chemotherapy

Although it induces a relevant reduction in the risk of both visceral metastases and locoregional recurrences, the combination of chemotherapy and surgery only marginally improves the survival of patients with Stage IIIA(N2) (International Union Against Cancer staging and classification system) nonsmall‐cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). The purpose of the current study was to analyze the patterns of relapse in these patients.

Aneuploidy and prognosis of non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of published data

In lung cancer, DNA content abnormalities have been described as a heterogeneous spectrum of impaired tumour cell DNA histogram patterns. They are merged into the common term of aneuploidy and probably reflect a high genotypic instability. In non-small-cell lung cancer, the negative effect of aneuploidy has been a subject of controversy inasmuch as studies aimed at determining the survival–DNA content relationship have reported conflicting results. We made a meta-analysis of published studies aimed at determining the prognostic effect of aneuploidy in surgically resected non-small-cell lung cancer. 35 trials have been identified in the literature. A comprehensive collection of data has been constructed taking into account the following parameters: quality of specimen, DNA content assessment method, aneuploidy definition, histology and stage grouping, quality of surgical resection and demographic characteristics of the analysed population. Among the 4033 assessable patients, 2626 suffered from non-small-cell lung cancer with aneuploid DNA content (overall frequency of aneuploidy: 0.65; 95% CI: (0.64–0.67)). The DerSimonian and Laird method was used to estimate the size effects and the Peto and Yusuf method was used in order to generate the odds ratios (OR) of reduction in risk of death for patients affected by a nearly diploid (non-aneuploid) non-small-cell lung cancer. Survivals following surgical resection, from 1 to 5 years, were chosen as the end-points of our meta-analysis. Patients suffering from a nearly diploid tumour benefited from a significant reduction in risk of death at 1, 2, 3 and 4 years with respective OR: 0.51, 0.51, 0.45 and 0.67 (P< 10–4 for each end-point). 5 years after resection, the reduction of death was of lesser magnitude: OR: 0.87 (P = 0.08). The test for overall statistical heterogeneity was conventionally significant (P< 0.01) for all 5 end-points, however. None of the recorded characteristics of the studies could explain this phenomenon precluding a subset analysis. Therefore, the DerSimonian and Laird method was applied inasmuch as this method allows a correction for heterogeneity. This method demonstrated an increase in survival at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years for patients with diploid tumours with respective size effects of 0.11, 0.15, 0.20, 0.20 and 0.21 (value taking into account the correction for heterogeneity; P< 10–4 for each end-point). Patients who benefit from a surgical resection for non-small-cell lung cancer with aneuploid DNA content prove to have a higher risk of death. This negative prognostic factor decreases the probability of survival by 11% at one year, a negative effect deteriorating up to 21% at 5 years following surgery.

Brain metastases at the time of presentation of non-small cell lung cancer: a multi-centric AERIO * analysis of prognostic factors

A multi-centre retrospective study involving 4 French university institutions has been conducted in order to identify routine pre-therapeutic prognostic factors of survival in patients with previously untreated non-small cell lung cancer and brain metastases at the time of presentation. A total of 231 patients were recorded regarding their clinical, radiological and biological characteristics at presentation. The accrual period was January 1991 to December 1998. Prognosis was analysed using both univariate and multivariate (Cox model) statistics. The median survival of the whole population was 28 weeks. Univariate analysis (log-rank), showed that patients affected by one of the following characteristics proved to have a shorter survival in comparison with the opposite status of each variable: male gender, age over 63 years, poor performance status, neurological symptoms, serum neuron-specific enolase (NSE) level higher than 12.5 ng ml–1, high serum alkaline phosphatase level, high serum LDH level and serum sodium level below 132 mmol l−1. In the Cox’s model, the following variables were independent determinants of a poor outcome: male gender: hazard ratio (95% confidence interval): 2.29 (1.26–4.16), poor performance status: 1.73 (1.15–2.62), age: 1.02 (1.003–1.043), a high serum NSE level: 1.72 (1.11–2.68), neurological symptoms: 1.63 (1.05–2.54), and a low serum sodium level: 2.99 (1.17–7.62). Apart from 4 prognostic factors shared in common with other stage IV NSCLC patients, whatever the metastatic site (namely sex, age, gender, performance status and serum sodium level) this study discloses 2 determinants specifically resulting from brain metastasis: i.e. the presence of neurological symptoms and a high serum NSE level. The latter factor could be in relationship with the extent of normal brain tissue damage caused by the tumour as has been demonstrated after strokes. Additionally, the observation of a high NSE level as a prognostic determinant in NSCLC might reflect tumour heterogeneity and understimated neuroendocrine differentiation.

Serum EGF-receptor and HER-2 extracellular domains and prognosis of non-small-cell lung cancer

This retrospective study aimed at evaluating the prognostic impact of high serum levels of either the HER-2 extracellular domain (ECD) or the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) ECD measured using two specific ELISAs in 221 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving conventional therapy and 41 nonmalignant pulmonary diseases patients. It was not possible to discriminate between lung cancer and benign lung disease owing to the lack of sensitivity–specificity relationship of HER-2 and EGFR ECD levels. Neither HER-2 nor EGFR ECD specific levels were associated with a particular prognosis of NSCLC patients receiving conventional therapy.

Third CECOG consensus on the systemic treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer

The current third consensus on the systemic treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) builds upon and updates similar publications on the subject by the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group (CECOG), which has published such consensus statements in the years 2002 and 2005 (Zielinski CC, Beinert T, Crawford J et al. Consensus on medical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer-update 2004. Lung Cancer 2005; 50: 129-137). The principle of all CECOG consensus is such that evidence-based recommendations for state-of-the-art treatment are given upon which all participants and authors of the manuscript have to agree (Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein HJ et al. Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (11): 1771-1785). This is of particular importance in diseases in which treatment options depend on very particular clinical and biologic variables (Zielinski CC, Beinert T, Crawford J et al. Consensus on medical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer-update 2004. Lung Cancer 2005; 50: 129-137; Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein HJ et al. Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (11): 1771-1785). Since the publication of the last CECOG consensus on the medical treatment of NSCLC, a series of diagnostic tools for the characterization of biomarkers for personalized therapy for NSCLC as well as therapeutic options including adjuvant treatment, targeted therapy, and maintenance treatment have emerged and strongly influenced the field. Thus, the present third consensus was generated that not only readdresses previous disease-related issues but also expands toward recent developments in the management of NSCLC. It is the aim of the present consensus to summarize minimal quality-oriented requirements for individual patients with NSCLC in its various stages based upon levels of evidence in the light of a rapidly expanding array of individual therapeutic options.The current third consensus on the systemic treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) builds upon and updates similar publications on the subject by the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group (CECOG), which has published such consensus statements in the years 2002 and 2005 (Zielinski CC, Beinert T, Crawford J et al. Consensus on medical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer--update 2004. Lung Cancer 2005; 50: 129-137). The principle of all CECOG consensus is such that evidence-based recommendations for state-of-the-art treatment are given upon which all participants and authors of the manuscript have to agree (Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein HJ et al. Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (11): 1771-1785). This is of particular importance in diseases in which treatment options depend on very particular clinical and biologic variables (Zielinski CC, Beinert T, Crawford J et al. Consensus on medical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer--update 2004. Lung Cancer 2005; 50: 129-137; Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein HJ et al. Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (11): 1771-1785). Since the publication of the last CECOG consensus on the medical treatment of NSCLC, a series of diagnostic tools for the characterization of biomarkers for personalized therapy for NSCLC as well as therapeutic options including adjuvant treatment, targeted therapy, and maintenance treatment have emerged and strongly influenced the field. Thus, the present third consensus was generated that not only readdresses previous disease-related issues but also expands toward recent developments in the management of NSCLC. It is the aim of the present consensus to summarize minimal quality-oriented requirements for individual patients with NSCLC in its various stages based upon levels of evidence in the light of a rapidly expanding array of individual therapeutic options.

Phase II study of docetaxel in the treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer in routine daily practice

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of docetaxel as first- and second-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) under routine clinical conditions. Two hundred and three patients with advanced NSCLC received docetaxel 100 mg/m2 (1-h intravenous infusion) every 3 weeks, with oral corticosteroid pre-medication, of whom 173 were eligible. Median age was 60 (29-78) years and median Karnofsky performance status was 80% (60-100). A total of 77% of patients had metastatic disease, 33% had bone metastases and 18% had liver metastases. The treatment was second-line or more for 72 patients (35%). Overall response rates in the eligible population were 19.7% [95% CI, 12.5-23.0] for both treatments, 22.6% for first-line treatment and 13.8% for second-line treatment. Median survival was 8.3 months and 1-year survival was 35% for the overall population (8.7 months and 38%, respectively, for patients receiving first-line treatment and 7.2 months and 27%, respectively, for patients receiving second-line treatment). Neutropenia, grade 3 and 4, occurred in 57% of the cycles and 5% of patients experienced febrile neutropenia. Alopecia (62% of patients), neuro-sensory symptoms (32%), asthenia (28%), diarrhea (22%), nausea (22%) and nail disorders (20%) were the most common non-hematological adverse effects. A total of 33% of patients suffered fluid retention, despite the use of corticosteroid pre-medication, but this was only severe in 1.5% of patients. It was possible to confirm the efficacy of docetaxel as a single agent for first- and second-line chemotherapy in a large patient population treated in a community setting.

Phase II study of nitrosourea fotemustine as single-drug chemotherapy in poor-prognosis non-small-cell lung cancer.

A phase II study was designed to evaluate objective response rate and toxicity of fotemustine as single-drug chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer. Eighty-seven patients with unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer took part in the study. Seventy-seven were evaluable for response. Of these, 60% had received prior chemotherapy and 74% had metastatic disease. Moreover, 22 patients had central nervous system metastases (of whom 12 were evaluable for this site). Treatment consisted of fotemustine 100 mg m-2 administered on days 1 and 8 followed by a 5 week rest period. Afterwards, responding or stabilised patients received fotemustine 100 mg m-2 every 3 weeks as a maintenance therapy. Toxicity and quality of life were recorded during therapy. Thirteen patients (17%; 95% CI 9-25%) had an objective response (11% for pretreated, 26% for non-pretreated) with a median duration of 22 weeks (range 7-41 weeks). Two objective responses were observed among the 12 patients with evaluable brain metastases. No response was observed among the 14 patients with adenocarcinoma. Haematological, gastrointestinal, hepatic and renal toxicities were mild to moderate and manageable. The most frequent biological adverse reactions were delayed thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. Quality of life did not significantly decrease during the first 6 treatment weeks. Moreover, it remained stable during the study period in patients with response or stabilisation, whereas it significantly decreased in patients who experienced progression of the disease. Fotemustine is feasible for single-drug chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer even though poor prognostic variables such as brain metastases are present. It can be administered on an outpatient basis and toxicity is moderate and manageable. Thus, fotemustine can be considered as a putative drug in further combinations.

Combined treatment modalities in non-small cell lung cancer: a French experience

Non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), which accounts for 80% of lung cancers, is the first cause of mortality from cancer in males in western countries [l]. Its curative treatment is surgery. In most cases, however, the disease is inoperable at the time of presentation because of either locally advanced tumor (stage III) or distant metastasis (stage IV). Sixty to 70% of patients with locally advanced NSCLC will die from intrathoracic disease, with or without distant metastases [2,3] and the median survival of such patients is less than 6 months without treatment 141. A complete radiologic response can be obtained in 7 to 30% of cases after radical radiotherapy [5] but, even in the case of apparent local control, long-term survival remains disappointing because of the high rate of distant metastases [6]. Better local control and a decrease in distant metastases are required to improve survival. There is, however, a need for an optimal definition of locoregional staging which would facilitate the design of a therapeutic strategy which might include surgery, radiotherapy (RT) and/or chemotherapy (CT). The purpose of this paper is to summarize the experience of French groups conducting randomized trials on the combined management of NSCLC.

Phase II pilot study of Ifosfamide-Cisplatine-Etoposide association as Neo-Adjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancers

Locally advanced non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) have a poor prognosis following surgery alone when this has been possible, because of a high rate of local and metastatic relapses [1-3]. Probability of 5 years survival for these patients ranges between 5 and 15 % [4–6]. Thus, locally advanced NSCLC for which resection is potentially possible but poorly curative are usually designated as marginally resectable [7]. Adjuvant post-operative chemotherapy or radiation therapy hardly seem to improve survival [8]. Therefore, other modality treatments might be proposed to improve survival.