Comments on treatment strategy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer
Institute of Oncology, Zaloska 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. Lung Cancer
(Impact Factor: 3.96).
01/2003; 38 Suppl 3(3):S33-5. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-5002(02)00265-9
In spite of significant improvement in local and in systemic treatment, long-term survival of patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains disappointing. The main reason may be our reluctance to explore the optimal ways of combining new modalities of irradiation with the new drugs. A survey of on-going clinical trials points to weak scientific collaboration between radiotherapists and medical oncologists. A comparison of different treatment strategies reveals that only the best local treatment combined with the best systemic treatment can lead to a clinically meaningful improvement in long-term survival. Curing a higher percentage of patients is the first step in our attempts to combat therapeutic nihilism.
Available from: Suzanne K Chambers
- "Moreover, longitudinal research to examine the relative influence of individual level variables (e.g., stigma-related negative self-perceptions); and group level factors (e.g., socio-economic and geographic variables) is needed to clearly identify targets for change. Commentary suggests tobacco control activities may be linked to health-related stigma in lung cancer however this is a complex issue with little clear empirical data on the topic [25,58-60]. More broadly, it has been suggested that there needs to be a dialogue between tobacco control researchers and lung cancer care researchers and clinicians to develop an integrated approach to lung cancer research, policy and services planning . "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
This study systematically reviewed the evidence on the influence of stigma and nihilism on lung cancer patterns of care; patients’ psychosocial and quality of life (QOL) outcomes; and how this may link to public health programs.
Medline, EMBASE, ProQuest, CINAHL, PsycINFO databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were: included lung cancer patients and/or partners or caregivers and/or health professionals (either at least 80% of participants had lung cancer or were partners or caregivers of lung cancer patients, or there was a lung cancer specific sub-group focus or analysis), assessed stigma or nihilism with respect to lung cancer and published in English between 1st January 1999 and 31st January 2011. Trial quality and levels of evidence were assessed.
Eighteen articles describing 15 studies met inclusion criteria. The seven qualitative studies were high quality with regard to data collection, analysis and reporting; however most lacked a clear theoretical framework; did not address interviewer bias; or provide a rationale for sample size. The eight quantitative studies were generally of low quality with highly selected samples, non-comparable groups and low participation rates and employed divergent theoretical and measurement approaches. Stigma about lung cancer was reported by patients and health professionals and was related to poorer QOL and higher psychological distress in patients. Clear empirical explorations of nihilism were not evident. There is qualitative evidence that from the patients’ perspectives public health programs contribute to stigma about lung cancer and this was supported by published commentary.
Health-related stigma presents as a part of the lung cancer experience however there are clear limitations in the research to date. Future longitudinal and multi-level research is needed and this should be more clearly linked to relevant theory.
Available from: Berna Komurcuoglu
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate the efficacy of curative and palliative radiotherapy in inoperable advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with a performance status (PS) equal or greater than 2, and to compare the therapy effect on survival with or without metastatic disease.
From January 1998 through December 2004, 797 patients with inoperable stage III and IV NSCLC were treated with radiotherapy alone because of older age, cardiovascular disease, insufficient respiratory reserve or general frailty. Radical radiotherapy, consisting of approximately 60 Gy, given in 30 fractions was performed in 363 (45.5 %) of these patients. The other 434 patients (54.5%) were treated with palliative dose radiotherapy. Conventional follow-up of the patients was conducted at Izmir Oncology Center. All results were evaluated statistically.
Seven hundred and sixty-three patients (95.7%) were male. The mean age was 61.02 years (+/- 9.678), ranging from 30-88 years. The prominent histology was squamous cell carcinoma (70.7%). Sixty-five patients (8.2%) have been staged IIIA, 419 (52.6%) IIIB, and 313 (39.3%) IV. The median follow up of patients was 274.19 days. One-year survival rate was 37%, and 2-year survival rate was 11% in the radical radiotherapy group, while these rates were 20% and 5% in the others.
Although radical thoracic radiotherapy for metastatic NSCLC has not been adopted universally, this study shows that curative radiotherapy for the primary tumor provides additional survival benefit in patients with metastatic disease compared with palliative radiotherapy. This result raises the question of whether treatment with radical radiotherapy alone might be the most beneficial and cost-effective treatment of advanced stage NSCLC.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Despite recent therapeutic advances, lung cancer is a difficult disease to manage. This study assessed clinicians' perceptions of care difficulty, quality of life (QOL), and symptom reports for their lung cancer patients compared with their patients with breast, prostate, and colon cancer.
This report focused on secondary analyses from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Symptom Outcomes and Practice Patterns study (E2Z02); outcome measures included clinician ratings of 3106 solid tumor patients. Univariate analyses focused on patterns of disease-specific perceptions; multivariable analyses examined whether disease-specific differences persisted after covariate inclusion.
In univariate comparisons, clinicians rated lung cancer patients as more difficult to treat than other solid tumor patients, with poorer QOL and higher symptom reports. After covariates were adjusted, the odds of clinicians perceiving lower QOL for their lung cancer patients were 3.6 times larger than for patients with other solid tumors (odds ratio = 3.6 [95% confidence interval, 2.0-6.6]; p < 0.0001). In addition, the odds of clinicians perceiving weight difficulties for their lung cancer patients were 3.2 times larger (odds ratio = 3.2 [95% confidence interval, 1.7-6.0]; p = 0.0004). No other outcome showed significant differences between lung versus other cancers in multivariable models.
Clinicians were more pessimistic about the well-being of their lung cancer patients compared with patients with other solid tumors. Differences remained for clinician perceptions of patient QOL and weight difficulty, even after controlling for such variables as stage, performance status, and patient-reported outcomes. These continuing disparities suggest possible perception bias. More research is needed to confirm this disparity and explore the underpinnings.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.