Search

Simple Summary: Lung cancer is the most common and deadliest cancer worldwide, and the number of new cases per year is expected to grow. Belgium is among the top 10 countries with most new cases of lung cancer in the world, with lung cancer incidence accounting for 11.8% of all cancers diagnosed and 23.8% of all cancer-related deaths. This study aimed to determine the overall acceptability of a lung cancer screening program in the Flemish population and the main factors that would influence the overall acceptability of such a program. Modeling of the results of a questionnaire distributed to the Flemish population showed 92% acceptability. Furthermore, policymakers should aim for it to be reimbursed, and campaigns should be gender-specific, focused on those with lower educational and socioeconomic status, along with investment in increasing total knowledge about lung cancer and about protective factors. Lung cancer is the most common and deadliest cancer in the world, and its incidence is expected to grow. Nonetheless, this growth can be contained through smoking cessation programs and effective lung cancer screening programs. In 2018, Belgium had the seventh highest incidence of lung cancer in the world, with lung cancer incidence accounting for 11.8% of all cancers diagnosed and 23.8% of all cancer-related deaths that same year. The aims of this study were to determine the overall acceptability of a lung cancer screening program in the Flemish population and to determine the main factors that would influence the overall acceptability of such a program. A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was performed in the Flemish population and distributed online and on paper. The results are presented with the variables of interest and the main outcome, i.e., the acceptability of participating in such a program if implemented. Odds ratios were used to compare acceptability between subgroups. A multivariate regression model was used to determine the key factors that would have the largest impact on the level of acceptability and, thus, on the possible efficiency of such a program. This study estimated that acceptability of participating in a lung cancer screening program was 92%. Irrespective of the smoking status, levels of acceptability were higher than 89%. The key factors which could significantly influence the acceptability of a lung cancer screening program were individuals with low education, low protective factor knowledge and total knowledge, and lung cancer screening reimbursement, which were significantly associated with acceptability (0.01, 0.001, 0.01, and 0.05 respectively). Low protective factor knowledge decreased the log odds of acceptability 3.08-fold. In conclusion, the acceptability of implementing a lung cancer screening program in Flanders seems to be extremely high and would be well received by all. When implementing such a program, policymakers should aim for it to be reimbursed, campaigns should be gender-specific, focused on those with lower educational and socioeconomic status, and there should be investment in increasing total knowledge about lung cancer and knowledge about protective factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cancer is the second leading cause of mortality in EU countries, and the needs to tackle cancer are obvious. New scientific understanding, techniques and methodologies are opening up horizons for significant improvements in diagnosis and care. However, take-up is uneven, research needs and potential outstrip currently available resources, manifestly beneficial practices—such as population-level screening for lung cancer—are still not generalised, and the quality of life of patients and survivors is only beginning to be given attention it merits. This paper, mainly based on a series of multistakeholder expert workshops organised by the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM), looks at some of those specifics in the interest of planning a way forward. Part of this exercise also involves taking account of the specific nature of Europe and its constituent countries, where the complexities of planning a way forward are redoubled by the wide variations in national and regional approaches to cancer, local epidemiology and the wide disparities in health systems. Despite all the differences between cancers and national and regional resources and approaches to cancer care, there is a common objective in pursuing broader and more equal access to the best available care for all European citizens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: We aim to raise awareness that sex is an important factor to take into account in modern-day thoracic oncology practice. Summarized, women should be specifically targeted in smoking cessation campaigns and sex-specific barriers should be addressed. Women present more often with adenocarcinoma histology and EGFR/ALK alterations, as lung cancer in never-smokers is more common in women compared to men. Lung cancer in female patients may show a poorer response to immune checkpoint inhibition; therefore, the addition of chemotherapy should be considered. On the other hand, women experience more benefits from targeted therapy against EGFR. In general, prognosis for women is better compared to that in men. Lung cancer screening trials report that women derive more benefit from screening, although they have not been designed for women. Future trial designs should take this into account and encourage participation of women. This paper describes where and how sex matters in today's management of lung cancer. We consecutively describe the differences between males and females in lung cancer demographics; sex-based differences in the immune system (including the poorer outcomes in women who are treated with immunotherapy but no chemotherapy); the presence of oncogenic drivers and the response to targeted therapies according to sex; the greater benefit women derive from lung cancer screening and why they get screened less; and finally, the barriers to smoking cessation that women experience. We conclude that sex is an important but often overlooked factor in modern-day thoracic oncology practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Screening for lung cancer in a high-risk population has been shown to be beneficial, with reduced mortality in large randomised trials. However, the general implementation of screening is not evident and many factors have to be considered. In this paper, we will review the current status of screening for lung cancer in Europe and the many hurdles that have to be overcome. Multidisciplinary cooperation between all specialists dealing with lung cancer is required to obtain the best outcome. Hopefully, Europe's Beating Cancer Plan will incorporate screening for lung cancer to allow general implementation by similar programmes in every European Member State. This will also provide an opportunity for further, large-scale studies to refine the inclusion of specific risk populations, diagnosis and management of screen-detected nodules. Randomized-controlled trials have shown clear evidence that lung cancer screening with low-dose CT in a high-risk population of current or former smokers can significantly reduce lung-cancer-specific mortality by an inversion of stage distribution at diagnosis. This paper will review areas in which there is good or emerging evidence and areas which still require investment, research or represent implementation challenges. The implementation of population-based lung cancer screening in Europe is variable and fragmented. A number of European countries seem be on the verge of implementing lung cancer screening, mainly through the implementation of studies or trials. The cost and capacity of CT scanners and radiologists are considered to be the main hurdles for future implementation. Actions by the European Commission, related to its published Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the proposal to update recommendations on cancer screening, could be an incentive to help speed up its implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the quality of care for all patients diagnosed with lung cancer in Belgium based on a set of evidence-based quality indicators and to study the variability of care between hospitals.Design, Setting, Participants: A retrospective study based on linked data from the cancer registry, insurance claims and vital status for all patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 2010 and 2011. Evidence-based quality indicators were identified from a systematic literature search. A specific algorithm to attribute patients to a centre was developed, and funnel plots were used to assess variability of care between centres.Intervention: None.Main Outcome Measure: The proportion of patients who received appropriate care as defined by the indicator. Secondary outcome included the variability of care between centres.Results: Twenty indicators were measured for a total of 12 839 patients. Good results were achieved for 60-day post-surgical mortality (3.9%), histopathological confirmation of diagnosis (93%) and for the use of PET-CT before treatment with curative intent (94%). Areas to be improved include the reporting of staging information to the Belgian Cancer Registry (80%), the use of brain imaging for clinical stage III patients eligible for curative treatment (79%), and the time between diagnosis and start of first active treatment (median 20 days). High variability between centres was observed for several indicators. Twenty-three indicators were found relevant but could not be measured.Conclusion: This study highlights the feasibility to develop a multidisciplinary set of quality indicators using population-based data. The main advantage of this approach is that not additional registration is required, but the non-measurability of many relevant indicators is a hamper. It allows however to easily point to areas of large variability in care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13) covers 13 typical symptoms of lung cancer patients and was the first module developed in conjunction with the EORTC core quality-of-life (QL) questionnaire. This review investigates how the module has been used and reported in cancer clinical trials in the 20 years since its publication. Thirty-six databases were searched with a prespecified algorithm. This search plus an additional hand search generated 770 hits, 240 of which were clinical studies. Two raters extracted data using a coding scheme. Analyses focused on the randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the 240 clinical studies that were identified using the LC13, 109 (45%) were RCTs. More than half of the RCTs were phase 3 trials (n = 58). Twenty RCTs considered QL as the primary endpoint, and 68 considered it as a secondary endpoint. QL results were addressed in the results section of the article (n = 89) or in the abstract (n = 92); and, in half of the articles, QL results were presented in the form of tables (n = 53) or figures (n = 43). Furthermore, QL results had an impact on the evaluation of the therapy that could be clearly demonstrated in the 47 RCTs that yielded QL differences between treatment and control groups. The EORTC QLQ-LC13 fulfilled its mission to be used as a standard instrument in lung cancer clinical trials. An update of the LC13 is underway to keep up with new therapeutic trends and to ensure optimized and relevant QL assessment in future trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the 1990s, a number of new cytotoxic agents with clinically relevant activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and with a more favourable therapeutic index than drugs already in use, became available. Given the high prices of these new drugs and the large number of patients affected, it is important to compare the relative benefits and costs of these treatments with the existing regimens before treatment policy decisions are changed.Purpose: An economic evaluation of three different regimens of chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC was performed from the perspective of the Dutch health insurance system using tariffs valid for 2002. The economic evaluation was integrated into a phase III clinical trial in which the reference regimen cisplatin-paclitaxel was compared with two experimental regimens: cisplatin-gemcitabine and gemcitabine-paclitaxel.Materials and Methods: Unit costs were applied to resource use data collected prospectively on case report forms during the trial. The average total (uncensored) cost per patient was determined for each of the treatment groups. The principal outcome measure for the economic evaluation was the estimated mean survival time per treatment group. This outcome was then incorporated into incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on costs corrected for censoring. The impact of uncertainty was assessed by bootstrap techniques, and the analysis and interpretation of the data focused on the bivariate density of differences in outcomes and costs in the incremental cost-effectiveness plane. The final results were summarised by the derivation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.Results: The estimated mean survival time was equivalent in the two cisplatin-based regimens with largely overlapping confidence intervals. There was a 99% probability that cisplatin-gemcitabine is the least costly regimen of the two and a 72% probability that this regimen reduces costs while at the same time improving survival. Compared with cisplatin-paclitaxel, the gemcitabine-paclitaxel regimen engendered a borderline significant reduction in mean survival time combined with an almost 90% probability of an increase in costs.Conclusion: The two cisplatin-based regimens are equivalent in terms of survival, but cisplatin-gemcitabine may reduce costs by approximately 2000 Euros patient compared with cisplatin-paclitaxel. Gemcitabine-paclitaxel is a dominated option with higher costs and a reduction in mean survival time compared with cisplatin-paclitaxel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Europe. Europe's Beating Cancer Plan calls for a comprehensive approach to the disease in general but not specifically to lung cancer. Such a comprehensive approach, integrating efforts to strengthen anti-tobacco policies, early detection and underlying models of care, is sorely needed for lung cancer – particularly considering disruptions to care during the COVID-19 pandemic. In a recently published think piece, a multidisciplinary group of experts proposed four key policy priority areas. First, to reduce stigma and improve awareness of potential symptoms, there is a need to foster a better understanding of lung cancer – among the public and healthcare professionals. Second, opportunities for early detection should be enhanced, and the implementation of targeted screening through low-dose computed tomography should be encouraged as a complement to smoking cessation services. This complementarity should be recognised and built into joint policy proposals, with development and better integration of screening and smoking cessation programmes on the ground. Third, the socioeconomic inequalities underpinning disparities in outcomes in people with lung cancer must be addressed, with targeted approaches to overcome barriers to access Finally, the overall quality of lung cancer care must be improved, making multidisciplinary care available to all and ensuring survivorship is given due attention. [Display omitted] • Stigma remains a key issue for people with lung cancer, and needs urgent attention. • Targeted screening through low-dose computed tomography must be implemented. • Socioeconomic inequalities underpinning disparities in outcomes need to be tackled. • Multidisciplinary care should be available to all. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, but the optimal radiotherapy schedule and dose remains controversial. The aim of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer.Methods: The CONVERT trial was an open-label, phase 3, randomised superiority trial. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had cytologically or histologically confirmed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and adequate pulmonary function. Patients were recruited from 73 centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 45 Gy radiotherapy in 30 twice-daily fractions of 1·5 Gy over 19 days, or 66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions of 2 Gy over 45 days, starting on day 22 after commencing cisplatin-etoposide chemotherapy (given as four to six cycles every 3 weeks in both groups). The allocation method used was minimisation with a random element, stratified by institution, planned number of chemotherapy cycles, and performance status. Treatment group assignments were not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by modified intention-to-treat. A 12% higher overall survival at 2 years in the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group was considered to be clinically significant to show superiority of the once-daily regimen. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00433563) and is currently in follow-up.Findings: Between April 7, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013, 547 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients). Four patients (one in the twice-daily group and three in the once-daily group) did not return their case report forms and were lost to follow-up; these patients were not included in our analyses. At a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35-58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24-34) in the twice-daily group versus 25 months (21-31) in the once-daily group (hazard ratio for death in the once daily group 1·18 [95% CI 0·95-1·45]; p=0·14). 2-year overall survival was 56% (95% CI 50-62) in the twice-daily group and 51% (45-57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5·3% [95% CI -3·2% to 13·7%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event in patients evaluated for chemotherapy toxicity was neutropenia (197 [74%] of 266 patients in the twice-daily group vs 170 [65%] of 263 in the once-daily group). Most toxicities were similar between the groups, except there was significantly more grade 4 neutropenia with twice-daily radiotherapy (129 [49%] vs 101 [38%]; p=0·05). In patients assessed for radiotherapy toxicity, was no difference in grade 3-4 oesophagitis between the groups (47 [19%] of 254 patients in the twice-daily group vs 47 [19%] of 246 in the once-daily group; p=0·85) and grade 3-4 radiation pneumonitis (4 [3%] of 254 vs 4 [2%] of 246; p=0·70). 11 patients died from treatment-related causes (three in the twice-daily group and eight in the once-daily group).Interpretation: Survival outcomes did not differ between twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, and toxicity was similar and lower than expected with both regimens. Since the trial was designed to show superiority of once-daily radiotherapy and was not powered to show equivalence, the implication is that twice-daily radiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in this setting.Funding: Cancer Research UK (Clinical Trials Awards and Advisory Committee), French Ministry of Health, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Cancer Research Fund, Lung Cancer, and Radiation Oncology Groups). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To establish the recurrence patterns when elective mediastinal irradiation was omitted, patients with Stage III non-small-cell lung cancer were treated with sequential chemotherapy (CHT) and involved-field radiotherapy (RT).Methods and Materials: Fifty patients were treated with either two or four cycles of induction CHT, followed by once-daily involved-field RT to 70 Gy, delivered using three-dimensional treatment planning. The contoured gross tumor volume consisted of the pre-CHT tumor volume and nodes with a short-axis diameter of ≥1 cm. Patients were reevaluated at 3 and 6 months after RT using bronchoscopy and chest CT. Elective nodal failure was defined as recurrence in the regional nodes outside the clinical target volume, in the absence of in-field failure.Results: Of 43 patients who received doses ≥50 Gy, 35% were disease free at last follow-up; in-field recurrences developed in 27% (of whom 16% had exclusively in-field recurrences); 18% had distant metastases exclusively. No elective nodal failure was observed. The median actuarial overall survival was 18 months (95% confidence interval 14–22) and the median progression-free survival was 12 months (95% confidence interval 6–18).Conclusion: Omitting elective mediastinal irradiation did not result in isolated nodal failure. Future studies of concurrent CHT and RT for Stage III non-small-cell lung cancer should use involved-field RT to limit toxicity. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]