Limited-stage small-cell lung cancer: patient survival after combined chemotherapy and radiation therapy with and without treatment protocols

European Society of Gynaecological Oncology quality indicators for the surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Quality of surgical care as a crucial component of a comprehensive multi-disciplinary management improves outcomes in patients with endometrial carcinoma, notably helping to avoid suboptimal surgical treatment. Quality indicators (QIs) enable healthcare professionals to measure their clinical management with regard to ideal standards of care.

OBJECTIVE

In order to complete its set of QIs for the surgical management of gynecological cancers, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) initiated the development of QIs for the surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma.

METHODS

QIs were based on scientific evidence and/or expert consensus. The development process included a systematic literature search for the identification of potential QIs and documentation of the scientific evidence, two consensus meetings of a group of international experts, an internal validation process, and external review by a large international panel of clinicians and patient representatives. QIs were defined using a structured format comprising metrics specifications, and targets. A scoring system was then developed to ensure applicability and feasibility of a future ESGO accreditation process based on these QIs for endometrial carcinoma surgery and support any institutional or governmental quality assurance programs.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine structural, process and outcome indicators were defined. QIs 1-5 are general indicators related to center case load, training, experience of the surgeon, structured multi-disciplinarity of the team and active participation in clinical research. QIs 6 and 7 are related to the adequate pre-operative investigations. QIs 8-22 are related to peri-operative standards of care. QI 23 is related to molecular markers for endometrial carcinoma diagnosis and as determinants for treatment decisions. QI 24 addresses the compliance of management of patients after primary surgical treatment with the standards of care. QIs 25-29 highlight the need for a systematic assessment of surgical morbidity and oncologic outcome as well as standardized and comprehensive documentation of surgical and pathological elements. Each QI was associated with a score. An assessment form including a scoring system was built as basis for ESGO accreditation of centers for endometrial cancer surgery.

Impact of Clinical Trial Participation on Survival of Patients with Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The impact of clinical trial participation on overall survival is unclear. We hypothesized that enrollment in a therapeutic drug clinical trial is associated with longer overall survival in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We linked electronic medical record and Washington State cancer registry data to identify patients with metastatic NSCLC diagnosed between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2015 who received treatment at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center. The exposure was trial enrollment. The primary outcome was overall survival, defined as the date of second-line treatment initiation to date of death or last follow-up. We used a conditional landmark analysis starting at the date of second-line treatment initiation and propensity scores with inverse probability of treatment weighting to estimate the association between trial enrollment and survival.

RESULTS

Of 215 patients, 40 (19%) participated in a second-line trial. Trial participants were more likely to be never smokers (45% vs 27%), have a good performance status (88% vs 77%) and have EGFR (48% vs 14%) and ALK mutations (8% vs 5%) than nonparticipants. Trial participants had similar overall survival to nonparticipants (HR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.72, 1.53; p = 0.81) after adjusting for sociodemographic and disease characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Accounting for the immortal time bias and selection bias, trial participation does not appear detrimental to survival. This finding may be reassuring to patients and supports programs and policies to improve clinical trial access.

Survival trends among non-small-cell lung cancer patients over a decade: impact of initial therapy at academic centers

Background

Treatment of non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been rapidly advancing over the last decade. Academic centers are considered equipped with better expertise. NSCLC outcome trends in novel therapeutic era and impact of initial treatment at academic centers have not been reported.

Methods

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify NSCLC incident cases from 2004 to 2013. Overall survival (OS) was plotted by year of diagnosis and type of initial treatment center, accounting for several factors available in NCDB.

Results

A total of 1 150 722 NSCLC patients were included and separated by initial treatment center type (academic: 31.5%; nonacademic: 68.5%). Median follow‐up and OS for all patients were 11.8 months (range: 0‐133.6 months) and 13.1 months (95% CI: 13.08‐13.17), respectively. Median OS improved significantly for those diagnosed in 2010‐2013 (14.8 months [95% CI: 14.7‐14.9]) as compared to 2004‐2009 (12.4 months [95% CI: 12.3‐12.5]) (P < 0.001). Treatment at academic centers was associated with improved OS (multivariate HR for OS = 0.929 [95% CI: 0.92‐0.94], P < 0.0010). Four‐year OS for academic and nonacademic cohorts was 28.5%% and 22.1%, respectively (P < 0.001), and the difference was more pronounced in stage I to III NSCLC.

Conclusion

In this largest analysis, thus far, NSCLC survival has improved over time, and type of initial treatment center significantly influences survival. Identifying and removing barriers to obtaining initial treatment of NSCLC at academic medical centers could improve OS.

The Effect of Receiving Treatment Within a Clinical Trial Setting on Survival and Quality of Care Perception in Advanced Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

OBJECTIVES

Treatment outcomes of advanced stage (IIIB and IV) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are poor. In this study, we explore the survival outcomes and the perception of the quality of care delivered in stage IIIB and IV NSCLC patients treated within versus outside a clinical trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were obtained from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium (CanCORS). Baseline characteristics according to clinical trial participation were determined. The association between clinical trial enrollment and survival was assessed using a Cox proportional hazard model after adjusting for age, income, primary data collection and research site, comorbidities, self-reported performance status, presence of brain metastasis, stage IIIB versus IV, and cancer histology.

RESULTS

Of 815 stage IIIB and IV NSCLC patients, 56 (7%) were enrolled in clinical trials. Median survival for the patients treated within versus outside a clinical trial was 20.5 versus 16.7 months, respectively (P=0.21). Using a multivariate survival model, clinical trial enrollment did not correlate with longer survival (P=0.81). Comparing patients according to clinical trial enrollment, patients treated within a clinical trial setting perceived a better overall quality of care (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Management of stage IIIB and IV NSCLC patients within a clinical trial setting conveyed a perception of superior care that did not translate into survival benefit. These findings suggest that providing cancer care within a clinical trial should not imply a survival benefit when counseling stage IIIB and IV NSCLC patients about entering clinical trials.

Comparison of survival outcomes among cancer patients treated in and out of clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials test the efficacy of a treatment in a select patient population. We examined whether cancer clinical trial patients were similar to nontrial, "real-world" patients with respect to presenting characteristics and survival.

METHODS

We reviewed the SWOG national clinical trials consortium database to identify candidate trials. Demographic factors, stage, and overall survival for patients in the standard arms were compared with nontrial control subjects selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Multivariable survival analyses using Cox regression were conducted. The survival functions from aggregate data across all studies were compared separately by prognosis (≥50% vs <50% average 2-year survival). All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

We analyzed 21 SWOG studies (11 good prognosis and 10 poor prognosis) comprising 5190 patients enrolled from 1987 to 2007. Trial patients were younger than nontrial patients (P < .001). In multivariable analysis, trial participation was not associated with improved overall survival for all 11 good-prognosis studies but was associated with better survival for nine of 10 poor-prognosis studies (P < .001). The impact of trial participation on overall survival endured for only 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Trial participation was associated with better survival in the first year after diagnosis, likely because of eligibility criteria that excluded higher comorbidity patients from trials. Similar survival patterns between trial and nontrial patients after the first year suggest that trial standard arm outcomes are generalizable over the long term and may improve confidence that trial treatment effects will translate to the real-world setting. Reducing eligibility criteria would improve access to clinical trials.

Does enrollment in cancer trials improve survival?

BACKGROUND

Stakeholders derive many benefits from cancer clinical trials, including guidance for future oncologic treatment decisions. However, whether enrollment in cancer trials also improves patient survival independently of trial outcomes remains underinvestigated. We hypothesized that cancer trial enrollment is not associated with patient survival outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Using the 2002 to 2008 California Cancer Registry, we identified 555,469 patients with stage I to IV solid organ tumors. Baseline characteristics were compared by trial participation status. Logistic regression determined predictors of trial enrollment. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression examined the impact of trial participation on overall and cancer-specific mortality with adjustment for covariates.

RESULTS

Only 0.33% of our cohort was enrolled in clinical trials. Trial participants were likely to be younger than 65 (odds ratio [OR] 2.13; 95% CI 1.90 to 2.38), Hispanic rather than non-Hispanic white (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.90), and have breast cancer (OR 3.14; 95% CI 2.62 to 3.77). Multivariate survival analyses demonstrated that enrollment in cancer trials predicted a lower hazard of death. However, when stratified by disease site, this survival benefit was observed only in lung, colon, and breast cancers. Sensitivity and interaction analyses confirmed these relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

In this first population-based study examining trial effect in solid organ cancers, enrollment into cancer trials predicted lower overall and cancer-specific mortality among common cancer sites. Although these findings may demonstrate a survival benefit due to trial enrollment, they likely also reflect the favorable attributes of trial enrollees. Once corroborated, stakeholders must consider broader cancer trial designs representative of the cancer burden treated in the real world.

Does enrollment in cancer trials improve survival?

BACKGROUND

Stakeholders derive many benefits from cancer clinical trials, including guidance for future oncologic treatment decisions. However, whether enrollment in cancer trials also improves patient survival independently of trial outcomes remains underinvestigated. We hypothesized that cancer trial enrollment is not associated with patient survival outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Using the 2002 to 2008 California Cancer Registry, we identified 555,469 patients with stage I to IV solid organ tumors. Baseline characteristics were compared by trial participation status. Logistic regression determined predictors of trial enrollment. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression examined the impact of trial participation on overall and cancer-specific mortality with adjustment for covariates.

RESULTS

Only 0.33% of our cohort was enrolled in clinical trials. Trial participants were likely to be younger than 65 (odds ratio [OR] 2.13; 95% CI 1.90 to 2.38), Hispanic rather than non-Hispanic white (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.90), and have breast cancer (OR 3.14; 95% CI 2.62 to 3.77). Multivariate survival analyses demonstrated that enrollment in cancer trials predicted a lower hazard of death. However, when stratified by disease site, this survival benefit was observed only in lung, colon, and breast cancers. Sensitivity and interaction analyses confirmed these relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

In this first population-based study examining trial effect in solid organ cancers, enrollment into cancer trials predicted lower overall and cancer-specific mortality among common cancer sites. Although these findings may demonstrate a survival benefit due to trial enrollment, they likely also reflect the favorable attributes of trial enrollees. Once corroborated, stakeholders must consider broader cancer trial designs representative of the cancer burden treated in the real world.

Comparison of outcomes in cancer patients treated within and outside clinical trials: conceptual framework and structured review

BACKGROUND

Many oncologists believe that patients with cancer who enroll in clinical trials have better outcomes than those who do not enroll. We aimed to assess the empirical evidence that such a trial effect exists.

METHODS

We developed a conceptual framework for comparison of trial and non-trial patients. We then did a comprehensive literature search to identify studies that compared outcomes between these groups. We critically evaluated these studies to assess whether they provide valid and generalizable support for a trial effect.

FINDINGS

We identified 26 comparisons, from 24 published articles, of outcomes among cancer patients enrolled and not enrolled in clinical trials. 21 comparisons used retrospective cohort designs. 14 comparisons provided some evidence that patients enrolled in trials have improved outcomes. However, strategies to control for potential confounding factors were inconsistent and frequently inadequate. Only eight comparisons restricted non-trial patients to those meeting trial eligibility criteria. Of these, three noted better outcomes in trial patients than in non-trial patients. Children with cancer, patients with haematological malignant disease, and patients treated before 1986 were disproportionately represented in positive studies.

INTERPRETATION

Despite widespread belief that enrollment in clinical trials leads to improved outcomes in patients with cancer, there are insufficient data to conclude that such a trial effect exists. Until such data are available, patients with cancer should be encouraged to enroll in clinical trials on the basis of trials' unquestioned role in improving treatment for future patients.

Identical chemotherapy schedules given on and off trial protocol in small cell lung cancer: response and survival results

Patients who are treated within clinical trials may have a survival benefit dependent on being a trial participant. A number of factors may produce such beneficial outcome including more rigorous adherence to a peer reviewed trial protocol, management by an experienced treatment team, being treated in a specialist centre etc. The current investigation compared patients treated on and off trial with the same standard arm treatment regimen. The results could then be interpreted without the confounding factors of differing treatment regimens, treatment teams or treatment hospitals. The results demonstrated given these circumstances that survival was no different for patients participating in a randomised trial compared with a group of patients similarly treated who were not eligible for trial entry or who declined randomisation. These results were obtained by the rigorous adherence to a defined protocol with the invaluable assistance of designated lung cancer staff.

Standard- and high-dose etoposide, ifosfamide, carboplatin, and epirubicin in 100 patients with small-cell lung cancer: a mature follow-up report

BACKGROUND

We conducted a phase I-II trial to assess the feasibility and activity of a combination chemotherapy regimen with etoposide, ifosfamide, cisplatin or carboplatin, and epirubicin in limited-disease (LD, stages I-IIIB) and extensive-stage (ED, stage IV) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Standard-dose chemotherapy (SDC) consisting of etoposide (500 mg/m2), ifosfamide (4000 mg/m2), cisplatin (50 mg/m2) and epirubicin (50 mg/m2) (VIP-E), followed by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), was given to 100 patients with SCLC. Thirty patients with qualifying responses to VIP-E proceeded to high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) with autologous peripheral blood stem-cell transplantation (PBSCT) after etoposide (1,500 mg/m2), ifosfamide (12,000 mg/m2), carboplatin (750 mg/m2) and epirubicin (150 mg/m2) (VIC-E) conditioning. RESULTS OF STANDARD-DOSE VIP-E: Ninety-seven patients were evaluable for response. The objective response rate was 81% in LD SCLC (33% CR, 48% PR; excluding patients in surgical CR) and 77% in ED SCLC (18% CR, 58% PR). The treatment-related mortality (TRM) of SDC was 2%. Two additional patients in CR from their SCLC developed secondary non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC), and both were cured by surgery. The median survival was 19 months in LD SCLC and 6 months in ED SCLC. The five-year survivals were 36% in LD and 0% in ED SCLC. RESULTS OF HIGH-DOSE VIC-E: HDC was feasible in 16% of ED-, and 58% of LD-patients. All HDC patients (n = 30) improved or maintained prior responses. Four patients died of early treatment-related complications (TRM 13%). Two additional patients in CR from their SCLC developed secondary malignancies (esophageal cancer, secondary chronic myelogenous leukemia). The median survivals were 26 months in LD SCLC, and 8 months in ED SCLC. The five-year survival was 50% in LD and 0% in ED SCLC.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite high response rates, survival after VIP-E SDC and VIC-E HDC in patients with ED SCLC is not superior to that achieved with less toxic traditional regimens. The high five-year survival rates achieved with these protocols in LD SCLC probably reflect both patient selection (high proportion of patients with prior surgical resection) and the high activity of our chemotherapy regimen in combination with radiotherapy. A study comparing protocols using simultaneous radiation therapy and chemotherapy, and other dose-escalated forms of SDC with HDC is needed to further define the role of this treatment modality in SCLC. Given the high rate of secondary malignancies observed in patients in CR > 2 years in our study, close follow-up and early treatment of these neoplasms may contribute to maintaining overall survival in patients with SCLC.