[American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline update on chemotherapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer].

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer 03/2010; 13(3):171-89. DOI: 10.3779/j.issn.1009-3419.2010.03.15
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to provide updated recommendations for the treatment of patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer. A literature search identified relevant randomized trials published since 2002. The scope of the guideline was narrowed to chemotherapy and biologic therapy. An Update Committee reviewed the literature and made updated recommendations. One hundred sixty-two publications met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations were based on treatment strategies that improve overall survival. Treatments that improve only progression-free survival prompted scrutiny of toxicity and quality of life. For first-line therapy in patients with performance status of 0 or 1, a platinum-based two-drug combination of cytotoxic drugs is recommended. Nonplatinum cytotoxic doublets are acceptable for patients with contraindications to platinum therapy. For patients with performance status of 2, a single cytotoxic drug is sufficient. Stop first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy at disease progression or after four cycles in patients who are not responding to treatment. Stop two-drug cytotoxic chemotherapy at six cycles even in patients who are responding to therapy. The first-line use of gefitinib may be recommended for patients with known epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation; for negative or unknown EGFR mutation status, cytotoxic chemotherapy is preferred. Bevacizumab is recommended with carboplatin-paclitaxel, except for patients with certain clinical characteristics. Cetuximab is recommended with cisplatin-vinorelbine for patients with EGFR-positive tumors by immunohistochemistry. Docetaxel, erlotinib, gefitinib, or pemetrexed is recommended as second-line therapy. Erlotinib is recommended as third-line therapy for patients who have not received prior erlotinib or gefitinib. Data are insufficient to recommend the routine third-line use of cytotoxic drugs. Data are insufficient to recommend routine use of molecular markers to select chemotherapy.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Limited data exist regarding real-world treatment patterns, resource utilization, and costs of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (esSCLC) among elderly patients in the United States. While abundant data are available on treatment patterns in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), to our knowledge no data exist comparing costs and resource use between patients with esSCLC or mNSCLC.Methods We retrospectively analyzed administrative claims data (2000¿2008) of patients aged ¿65 years from the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Patients were selected on the basis of having newly diagnosed esSCLC (n=5,855) or mNSCLC (n=24,090) during 1/1/-12/31/2005, and were required to have received cancer-directed therapy. Survival and other measures were compared between esSCLC and mNSCLC patients using Kaplan-Meier log-rank and univariate chi-square and t-tests. Study measures were followed from first diagnosis date of either esSCLC or mNSCLC until the earlier of death or end of the database.ResultsSurvival between the cohorts did not differ significantly: mean of 10.4 months for esSCLC patients versus 11.1 months for mNSCLC; median survival was 7.4 months versus 5.9 months. A higher percentage of mNSCLC patients (vs. esSCLC) received radiation therapy (75.6% vs. 65.4%; P < 0.001) and surgery (13.6% vs. 7.8%; P < 0.001) during the metastatic disease period. Conversely, a higher percentage of esSCLC patients than mNSCLC patients received chemotherapy (85.5% vs. 60.3%; P < 0.001), red blood-cell transfusion (20.7% vs. 10.9%; P < 0.001), platelet transfusion (5.6% vs. 1.8%; P < 0.001), and growth-factor support (59.0% vs. 39.5%; P < 0.001). esSCLC patients incurred higher lifetime disease-related costs ($44,167 vs. $37,932; P < 0.001) and all-cause costs ($70,549 vs. $67,176; P < 0.001) than mNSCLC patients.Conclusions Lifetime total and disease-related costs per patient were high. Increased use of chemotherapy, supportive care therapies (including growth factors), and disease-related hospitalizations were observed in esSCLC patients as compared with mNSCLC patients. Disease-related and all-cause costs for esSCLC also exceeded those of mNSCLC, except for hospice and skilled nursing services. Survival and per-patient costs for both groups underscore the unmet medical need for more effective therapies in patients with esSCLC or mNSCLC.
    BMC Health Services Research 11/2014; 14(1):555. · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Advances in Lung Cancer 01/2013; 02(03):55-61.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines are widely available for enhancing the care of cancer patients. Despite subtle differences in their definition and purpose, these terms are often used interchangeably. We systematically assessed the methodological quality of consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published in three commonly read, geographically diverse, cancer-specific journals. Methods Consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published between January 2005 and September 2013 in Current Oncology, European Journal of Cancer and Journal of Clinical Oncology were evaluated. Each publication was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) rigour of development and editorial independence domains. For assessment of transparency of document development, 7 additional items were taken from the Institute of Medicine's standards for practice guidelines and the Journal of Clinical Oncology guidelines for authors of guidance documents.
    PLoS ONE 10/2014; · 3.53 Impact Factor