[Pemetrexed salvage chemotherapy for NSCLC: implementation study]

BACKGROUND

Registration trials demonstrated the activity of pemetrexed in non small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) either in combination with first-line agents or in monotherapy for salvage treatment. The aim of our implementation study was to verify, in an unselected population, the results obtained with pemetrexed salvage chemotherapy in clinical practice.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The charts of all patients diagnosed with NSCLC, receiving pemetrexed for progressive disease after at least one previous course of chemotherapy, were retrospectively reviewed in two academic institutions. Response was assessed according to WHO and toxicity using the CTCAE and WHO criteria.

RESULTS

Between November 2004 and September 2009, 84 patients were given pemetrexed as second, third or greater than third line therapy (n=18/14/52). Intent-to-treat response rate was 11.9% (95% CI, 5%-18.8%). Median progression-free survival was 2.2 months and median survival time was 6.4 months. The most frequent grade 3-5 toxicity was neutropenia (23.9%).

CONCLUSION

Salvage chemotherapy with pemetrexed for progressing NSCLC confirmed, in an unselected population, who had been extensively treated previously, the level of activity observed in registration trials although a significant toxicity was noted.

Surrogate markers predicting overall survival for lung cancer: ELCWP recommendations

The present systematic review was performed under the auspices of the European Lung Cancer Working Party (ELCWP) in order to determine the role of early intermediate criteria (surrogate markers), instead of survival, in determining treatment efficacy in patients with lung cancer. Initially, the level of evidence for the use of overall survival to evaluate treatment efficacy was reviewed. Nine questions were then formulated by the ELCWP. After reviewing the literature with experts on these questions, it can be concluded that overall survival is still the best criterion for predicting treatment efficacy in lung cancer. Some intermediate criteria can be early predictors, if not surrogates, for survival, despite limitations in their potential application: these include time to progression, progression-free survival, objective response, local control after radiotherapy, downstaging in locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), complete resection and pathological TNM in resected NSCLC, and a few circulating markers. Other criteria assessed in these recommendations are not currently adequate surrogates of survival in lung cancer.

Validation and comparison of several published prognostic systems for patients with small cell lung cancer

The aim of the present study was to validate and compare published prognostic classifications for predicting the survival of patients with small cell lung cancer. We pooled data from phase III randomised clinical trials, and used Cox models for validation purposes and concordance probability estimates for assessing predictive ability. We included 693 patients. All the classifications impacted significantly on survival, with hazard ratios (HRs) in the range 1.57-1.68 (all p<0.0001). Median survival times were 16-19 months for the best predicted groups, while they were 6-7 months for the most poorly predicted groups. Most of the paired comparisons were statistically significant. We obtained similar results when restricting the analysis to patients with extensive disease. Multivariate Cox models for fitting survival data were also performed. The HRs for a single covariate were 8.23 (95% CI 5.88-11.69), and 9.46 (6.67-13.50), and for extensive disease were 5.60 (3.13-9.93), 12.49 (5.57-28.01) and 8.83 (4.66-16.64). Concordance probability estimates ranged 0.55-0.65 (overlapping confidence intervals). Published classifications were validated and suitable for use at a population level. As expected, prediction at an individual level remains problematic. A specific model designed for extensive-disease patients did not appear to perform better.

[Guidelines of the European Respiratory Society and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons for the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma]

恶性胸膜间皮瘤（malignant pleural mesothelioma, MPM）是一种罕见肿瘤，但发病率正逐渐上升，且预后较差。2008年，欧洲呼吸学会（European Respiratory Society, ERS）和欧洲胸外科医师学会（European Society of Thoracic Surgeons, ESTS）特别工作组召集各方专家计划制定MPM诊治经验及更新指南。

为了使MPM得到及时准确的诊断，专家推荐对患者实施胸腔镜检查，有手术禁忌和胸腔粘连的病例除外。约10%的病例采用标准染色方法无法获得满意的结果。因此我们推荐在胸膜活检的基础上，采用特异性免疫组化标志物。由于目前缺乏一个统一的、切实有效的分期系统，我们推荐应用最新的TNM分期，并且提出三个阶段的治疗前评估。在MPM的治疗中，患者的体力状态评分和组织亚型是目前唯一的、具有重要临床价值的预后因素。在临床试验中，应对其它潜在因素进行初步探讨并予以报道。MPM对化疗高度耐受，仅有少数患者可接受根治性手术。本文对新的治疗方法和策略进行了综述。

目前由于最佳综合治疗的资料有限，适合采用多种方案联合治疗策略的患者应被纳入专业机构的前瞻性试验中。

Treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma: current status and future directions

Previously considered to be rare, malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly aggressive tumour that has become a very important issue over recent years due to its poor prognosis and its increasing incidence mostly linked to previous asbestos exposure. An optimal treatment for MPM is not established yet; new therapies and predictive tools are still needed in the management of this cancer. Thus the aim of this review is to provide clinicians clear and up-to-dated data on the latest therapeutic strategies for MPM patients in 2010. The guidelines recently proposed by the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS) taskforce are summarized here. The authors also briefly reviewed the future directions in MPM treatment including targeted therapies, gene or cell therapies.

Guidelines of the European Respiratory Society and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons for the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare tumour but with increasing incidence and a poor prognosis. In 2008, the European Respiratory Society/European Society of Thoracic Surgeons Task Force brought together experts to propose practical and up-to-dated guidelines on the management of MPM. To obtain an earlier and reliable diagnosis of MPM, the experts recommend performing thoracoscopy, except in cases of pre-operative contraindication or pleural symphysis. The standard staining procedures are insufficient in approximately 10% of cases. Therefore, we propose using specific immunohistochemistry markers on pleural biopsies. In the absence of a uniform, robust and validated staging system, we advice use of the most recent TNM based classification, and propose a three step pre-treatment assessment. Patient's performance status and histological subtype are currently the only prognostic factors of clinical importance in the management of MPM. Other potential parameters should be recorded at baseline and reported in clinical trials. MPM exhibits a high resistance to chemotherapy and only a few patients are candidates for radical surgery. New therapies and strategies have been reviewed. Because of limited data on the best combination treatment, we emphasise that patients who are considered candidates for a multimodal approach should be included in a prospective trial at a specialised centre.

Clinical utility of diagnostic markers for malignant pleural mesothelioma

Malignant mesothelioma has a very dismal prognosis with very few patients surviving one year after diagnosis. Early multimodal treatment, however, is expected to improve the outcome. Today, there is a strong need to have disease markers which could be used for screening, diagnosing, and/or monitoring tumour response to treatment. Old markers such as hyaluronic acid, various cytokeratin fragments (CYFRA 21.1, TPA) and other cancer antigens (CA 15.3, CA 125 or CA 19.9 or CEA) are not sensitive or specific enough and cannot be used in practice. More recently new molecules, such as soluble mesothelin and osteopontin, have been proposed for diagnostic purposes. Soluble mesothelin has a good specificity but has a sub-optimal sensitivity being negative in all sarcomatoid and in up to one half of epithelioid mesothelioma. On the contrary osteopontin has an inadequate specificity. Combining different markers together does not lead to an improvement in diagnostic accuracy. Neither marker can be used for screening purposes, the main limitation being the very low incidence of the disease in the at-risk, asbestos exposed population. Mesothelin is also a promising marker for monitoring response to treatment but published data is still insufficient to make recommendations. There is still a strong need for research is this area both in order to discover new markers as well as to correct the positioning of each existing molecule (alone or in combination) is the evaluation of the patients with a mesothelioma.

[Other thoracic cancers. Malignant pleural mesothelioma: biology and diagnosis]

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a serious issue worldwide because of its increasing incidence and poor prognosis despite real recent improvements in the disease management. Most of the patients are diagnosed late in the course of the disease when radical treatment is no more an option. Therefore an earlier diagnosis of MPM is needed to significantly increase the survival of patients. Some soluble markers, including soluble mesothelin and osteopontin, have been previously proposed for MPM diagnosis but none has been validated yet. Soluble mesothelin, assessed in blood and in pleural effusion, seems to be the most promising candidate. However, even if it has a good diagnostic and prognostic value, it is quite specific for the epithelioid subtype, the most frequent one of mesothelioma, thus limiting its usefulness in practice. Despite sometimes a good sensitivity, other potential markers as osteopontin are of little interest for MPM diagnosis because of a low specificity. In conclusion, the present data do not justify the use of biology for MPM diagnosis in routine yet but rather suggest a need for a continuing evaluation of soluble mesothelin in clinical studies and the search for other potential tumor markers.