Drugs for preventing lung cancer in healthy people

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of this Cochrane Review. Some studies have suggested a protective effect of antioxidant nutrients and higher dietary levels of fruits and vegetables on lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether vitamins and minerals and other potential agents, alone or in combination, reduce lung cancer incidence and lung cancer mortality in healthy populations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase from 1974 to May 2019 and screened references included in published studies and reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vitamins or mineral supplements with placebo, administered to healthy people with the aim of preventing lung cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently selected the trials to be included in the review, assessed their methodological quality and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and pooled results using the random-effects model. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' assessment tool and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we identified three new trials for a total of 12 studies. Six analysed vitamin A, three vitamin C, three combined vitamin D3 + calcium, four vitamin E combined with other products, one selenium supplements and nine studied combinations of two or more products. Four studies included only men and five only women. Vitamin A results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; 5 RCTs, 212314 participants; high-certainty evidence) and lung cancer mortality (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.38; 3 RCTs, 190118 participants; high-certainty evidence). But in smokers or asbestos workers vitamin A increases the risk of lung cancer incidence (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.20; 3 RCTs, 43995 participants; high-certainty evidence), lung cancer mortality (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.38; 2 RCTs, 29426 participants; high-certainty evidence) and all-cause mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 32883 participants; high-certainty evidence). Vitamin A increases the risk of minor side effects, such as yellowing of the skin and minor gastrointestinal symptoms (high-certainty evidence). Vitamin C likely results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.49; 2 RCTs, 14953 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In women, vitamin C increases the risk of lung cancer incidence (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.95; 1 RCT, 7627 participants; high-certainty evidence). In men, vitamin C results in little to no difference in mortality for lung cancer (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.23; 1 RCT, 7326 participants; high-certainty evidence). Vitamin D + calcium may result in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence in postmenopausal women (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.08; 3 RCTs, 37601 women; low-certainty evidence). Vitamin E results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 3 RCTs, 36841 participants; high-certainty evidence) or to lung cancer mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.18; 2 RCTs, 29214 participants; high-certainty evidence), but increases the risk of haemorrhagic strokes (hazard ratio (HR), 1.74, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.91; 1 RCT, 14641 participants; high-certainty evidence). Calcium results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence in postmenopausal women (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.18; 1 RCT, 733 participants) or in risk of renal calculi (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.20 to 18.57; 1 RCT, 733 participants; low-certainty evidence). Selenium in men results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.54; 1 RCT, 17448 participants; high-certainty evidence) and lung cancer mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.66; 1 RCT, 17448 participants; high-certainty evidence) and increases the risk for grade 1 to 2 dermatitis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 17448 participants; high-certainty evidence) and for alopecia (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.53; 1 RCT, 17448 participants; high-certainty evidence). The combination of vitamins A, C, E + selenium + zinc results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 12741 participants; high-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Well-designed RCTs have shown no beneficial effect of supplements for the prevention of lung cancer and lung cancer mortality in healthy people. Vitamin A supplements increase lung cancer incidence and mortality in smokers or persons exposed to asbestos. Vitamin C increases lung cancer incidence in women. Vitamin E increases the risk of haemorrhagic strokes.

Cisplatin versus carboplatin in combination with third-generation drugs for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death in both sexes worldwide. Approximately 50% of those diagnosed with lung cancer will have locally advanced or metastatic disease and will be treated in a palliative setting. Platinum-based combination chemotherapy has benefits in terms of survival and symptom control when compared with best supportive care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of carboplatin-based chemotherapy when compared with cisplatin-based chemotherapy, both in combination with a third-generation drug, in people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To compare quality of life in people with advanced NSCLC receiving chemotherapy with cisplatin and carboplatin combined with a third-generation drug.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 13 January 2019), MEDLINE (via PubMed) (1966 to 13 January 2019), and Embase (via Ovid) (1974 to 13 January 2019). In addition, we handsearched the proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Meetings (January 1990 to September 2018) and reference lists from relevant resources.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing regimens with carboplatin or cisplatin combined with a third-generation drug in people with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. We accepted any regimen and number of cycles that included these drugs, since there is no widely accepted standard regimen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the search results, and a third review author resolved any disagreements. The primary outcomes were overall survival and health-related quality of life. The secondary outcomes were one-year survival rate, objective response rate and toxicity.

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, we located one additional RCT, for a total of 11 included RCTs (5088 participants, 4046 of whom were available for meta-analysis). There was no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.20; 10 RCTs; 2515 participants; high-quality evidence); one-year survival rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.08; I² = 17%; 4004 participants; all 11 RCTs; high-quality evidence); or response rate (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.00; I² = 12%; all 11 RCTs; 4020 participants; high-quality evidence). A subgroup analysis comparing carboplatin with different doses of cisplatin found an overall survival benefit in favour of carboplatin-based regimens when compared to cisplatin at lower doses (40 to 80 mg/m²) (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.28; 6 RCTs; 2508 participants), although there was no overall survival benefit when carboplatin-based chemotherapy was compared to cisplatin at higher doses (80 to 100 mg/m²) (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.04; I² = 0%; 4 RCTs; 1823 participants). Carboplatin caused more thrombocytopenia (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.49 to 4.04; I² = 68%; 10 RCTs; 3670 participants) and was associated with more neurotoxicity (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.23; I² = 0%, 5 RCTs; 1489 participants), although we believe this last finding is probably related to a confounding factor (higher dose of paclitaxel in the carboplatin-containing treatment arm of a large study included in the analysis). There was no statistically significant difference in renal toxicity (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.45; I² = 3%; 3 RCTs; 1272 participants); alopecia (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.68; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs; 300 participants); anaemia (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.38; I2 = 77%; 10 RCTs; 3857 participants); and neutropenia (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.63; I² = 94%; 10 RCTs; 3857 participants) between cisplatin-based chemotherapy and carboplatin-based chemotherapy regimens. Two RCTs performed a health-related quality of life analysis; however, as they used different methods of measurement we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. One RCT reported comparative health-related quality of life data between cisplatin and carboplatin-containing arms but found no significant differences in global indices of quality of life, including global health status or functional scales. In this Cochrane review, we found that the quality of evidence was high for overall survival, one-year survival rate and response rate but moderate quality evidence for the other outcomes measured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Advanced NSCL patients treated with carboplatin or cisplatin doublet with third-generation chemotherapy drugs showed equivalent overall survival, one-year survival, and response rate. Regarding adverse events, carboplatin caused more thrombocytopenia, and cisplatin caused more nausea/vomiting. Therefore, in this palliative therapeutic intent, the choice of the platin compound should take into account the expected toxicity profile, patient's comorbidities and preferences.

Exercise training undertaken by people within 12 months of lung resection for non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Decreased exercise capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are common in people following lung resection for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Exercise training has been demonstrated to confer gains in exercise capacity and HRQoL for people with a range of chronic conditions, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure, as well as in people with prostate and breast cancer. A programme of exercise training may also confer gains in these outcomes for people following lung resection for NSCLC. This systematic review updates our 2013 systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this review was to determine the effects of exercise training on exercise capacity and adverse events in people following lung resection (with or without chemotherapy) for NSCLC. The secondary aims were to determine the effects of exercise training on other outcomes such as HRQoL, force-generating capacity of peripheral muscles, pressure-generating capacity of the respiratory muscles, dyspnoea and fatigue, feelings of anxiety and depression, lung function, and mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for additional randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 2 of 12), MEDLINE (via PubMed) (2013 to February 2019), Embase (via Ovid) (2013 to February 2019), SciELO (The Scientific Electronic Library Online) (2013 to February 2019), and PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) (2013 to February 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs in which participants with NSCLC who underwent lung resection were allocated to receive either exercise training, which included aerobic exercise, resistance exercise, or a combination of both, or no exercise training.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened the studies and identified those eligible for inclusion. We used either postintervention values (with their respective standard deviation (SD)) or mean changes (with their respective SD) in the meta-analyses that reported results as mean difference (MD). In meta-analyses that reported results as standardised mean difference (SMD), we placed studies that reported postintervention values and those that reported mean changes in separate subgroups. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome by downgrading or upgrading the evidence according to GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Along with the three RCTs included in the original version of this review (2013), we identified an additional five RCTs in this update, resulting in a total of eight RCTs involving 450 participants (180 (40%) females). The risk of selection bias in the included studies was low and the risk of performance bias high. Six studies explored the effects of combined aerobic and resistance training; one explored the effects of combined aerobic and inspiratory muscle training; and one explored the effects of combined aerobic, resistance, inspiratory muscle training and balance training. On completion of the intervention period, compared to the control group, exercise capacity expressed as the peak rate of oxygen uptake (VO₂peak) and six-minute walk distance (6MWD) was greater in the intervention group (VO₂peak: MD 2.97 mL/kg/min, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93 to 4.02 mL/kg/min, 4 studies, 135 participants, moderate-certainty evidence; 6MWD: MD 57 m, 95% CI 34 to 80 m, 5 studies, 182 participants, high-certainty evidence). One adverse event (hip fracture) related to the intervention was reported in one of the included studies. The intervention group also achieved greater improvements in the physical component of general HRQoL (MD 5.0 points, 95% CI 2.3 to 7.7 points, 4 studies, 208 participants, low-certainty evidence); improved force-generating capacity of the quadriceps muscle (SMD 0.75, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.1, 4 studies, 133 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); and less dyspnoea (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.05, 3 studies, 110 participants, very low-certainty evidence). We observed uncertain effects on the mental component of general HRQoL, disease-specific HRQoL, handgrip force, fatigue, and lung function. There were insufficient data to comment on the effect of exercise training on maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures and feelings of anxiety and depression. Mortality was not reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Exercise training increased exercise capacity and quadriceps muscle force of people following lung resection for NSCLC. Our findings also suggest improvements on the physical component score of general HRQoL and decreased dyspnoea. This systematic review emphasises the importance of exercise training as part of the postoperative management of people with NSCLC.

Interventions for smoking cessation in people diagnosed with lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is one of the most common causes of death from cancer worldwide. Smoking induces and aggravates many health problems, including vascular diseases, respiratory illnesses and cancers. Tobacco smoking constitutes the most important risk factor for lung cancer. Most people with lung cancer are still active smokers at diagnosis or frequently relapse after smoking cessation. Quitting smoking is the most effective way for smokers to reduce the risk of premature death and disability. People with lung cancer may benefit from stopping smoking. Whether smoking cessation interventions are effective for people with lung cancer and whether one method of quitting is more effective than any other has not been systematically reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of smoking cessation programmes for people with lung cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (accessed via PubMed) and Embase up to 22 December 2018. We also searched the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting proceedings, the lung cancer sections of the proceedings of the ESMO Congress, the lung cancer sections of the proceedings of the European Conference of Clinical Oncology (ECCO) Congress, the World Conference on Lung Cancer proceedings, the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting from 2013, the Food and Drug Administration website, the European Medicine Agency for drug registration website, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) to 30 December 2018. We applied no restriction on language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include any randomised controlled trial (RCT) of any psychosocial or pharmacological smoking cessation intervention or combinations of both, compared with no intervention, a different psychosocial or pharmacological (or both) intervention or placebo for pharmacological interventions in people with lung cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the studies from the initial search for potential trials for inclusion. We planned to use standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We found no trials that met the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. Among the 1817 records retrieved using our search strategy, we retrieved 19 studies for further investigation. We excluded 15 trials: ten trials because we could not distinguish people with lung cancer from the other participants, or the participants were not people with lung cancer, four because they were not randomised, or RCTs. We excluded one trial because, though it was completed in 2004, no results are available. We assessed four ongoing trials for inclusion when data become available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There were no RCTs that determined the effectiveness of any type of smoking cessation programme for people with lung cancer. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether smoking cessation interventions are effective for people with lung cancer and whether one programme is more effective than any other. People with lung cancer should be encouraged to quit smoking and offered smoking cessation interventions. However, due to the lack of RCTs, the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions for people with lung cancer cannot be evaluated and concluded. This systematic review identified a need for RCTs to explore these.

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for prevention of complications after pulmonary resection in lung cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary complications are often seen during the postoperative period following lung resection for patients with lung cancer. Some situations such as intubation, a long stay in the intensive care unit, the high cost of antibiotics and mortality may be avoided with the prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is widely used in hospitals, and is thought to reduce the number of pulmonary complications and mortality after this type of surgery. Therefore, a systematic review is needed to critically assess the benefits and harms of NIPPV for patients undergoing lung resection. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of NIPPV for preventing complications in patients following pulmonary resection for lung cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and PEDro until 21 December 2018, to identify potentially eligible trials. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches. We searched the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted experts in the field for information about additional published and unpublished studies. We also searched the Register of Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com) and ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov) to identify ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials that compared NIPPV in the immediate postoperative period after pulmonary resection with no intervention or conventional respiratory therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors collected data and assessed trial risk of bias. Where possible, we pooled data from the individual studies using a fixed-effect model (quantitative synthesis), but where this was not possible we tabulated or presented the data in the main text (qualitative synthesis). Where substantial heterogeneity existed, we applied a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 190 references retrieved from the searches, 7 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) (1 identified with the new search) and 1 quasi-randomised trial fulfilled the eligibility criteria for this review, including a total of 486 patients. Five studies described quantitative measures of pulmonary complications, with pooled data showing no difference between NIPPV compared with no intervention (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.47). Three studies reported intubation rates and there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.20). Five studies reported measures of mortality on completion of the intervention period. There was no statistical difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.53). Similar results were observed in the subgroup analysis considering ventilatory mode (bi-level versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). No study evaluated the postoperative use of antibiotics. Two studies reported the length of intensive care unit stay and there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (MD -0.75; 95% CI -3.93 to 2.43). Four studies reported the length of hospital stay and there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (MD -0.12; 95% CI -6.15 to 5.90). None of the studies described any complications related to NIPPV. Of the seven included studies, four studies were considered as 'low risk of bias' in all domains, two studies were considered 'high risk of bias' for the allocation concealment domain, and one of these was also considered 'high risk of bias' for random sequence generation. One other study was considered 'high risk of bias' for including participants with more severe disease. The new study identified could not be included in the meta-analysis as its intervention differed from the other studies (use of pre and postoperative NIPPV in the same population).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrated that there was no additional benefit of using NIPPV in the postoperative period after pulmonary resection for all outcomes analysed (pulmonary complications, rate of intubation, mortality, postoperative consumption of antibiotics, length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay and adverse effects related to NIPPV). However, the quality of evidence is 'very low', 'low' and 'moderate' since there were few studies, with small sample size and low frequency of outcomes. New well-designed and well-conducted randomised trials are needed to answer the questions of this review with greater certainty.

Exercise training for advanced lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced lung cancer have a high symptom burden, which is often complicated by coexisting conditions. These issues, combined with the indirect effects of cancer treatment, can cumulatively lead patients to continued deconditioning and low exercise capacity. This is a concern as exercise capacity is considered a measure of whole body health, and is critical in a patient's ability to participate in life activities and tolerate difficult treatments. There is evidence that exercise training improves exercise capacity and other outcomes, such as muscle force and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), in cancer survivors. However, the effectiveness of exercise training on these outcomes in people with advanced lung cancer is currently unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this review was to investigate the effects of exercise training on exercise capacity in adults with advanced lung cancer. Exercise capacity was defined as the six-minute walk distance (6MWD; in meters) measured during a six-minute walk test (6MWT; i.e. how far an individual can walk in six minutes on a flat course), or the peak oxygen uptake (i.e. VO₂peak) measured during a maximal incremental cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET).The secondary aims were to determine the effects of exercise training on the force-generating capacity of peripheral muscles, disease-specific global HRQoL, physical functioning component of HRQoL, dyspnoea, fatigue, feelings of anxiety and depression, lung function, level of physical activity, adverse events, performance status, body weight and overall survival in adults with advanced lung cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, and SciELO on 7 July 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared exercise training versus no exercise training in adults with advanced lung cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the studies and selected those for inclusion. We performed meta-analyses for the following outcomes: exercise capacity, disease-specific global HRQoL, physical functioning HRQoL, dyspnoea, fatigue, feelings of anxiety and depression, and lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)). Two studies reported force-generating capacity of peripheral muscles, and we presented the results narratively. Limited data were available for level of physical activity, adverse events, performance status, body weight and overall survival.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six RCTs, involving 221 participants. The mean age of participants ranged from 59 to 70 years; the sample size ranged from 20 to 111 participants. Overall, we found that the risk of bias in the included studies was high, and the quality of evidence for all outcomes was low.Pooled data from four studies demonstrated that, on completion of the intervention period, exercise capacity (6MWD) was significantly higher in the intervention group than the control group (mean difference (MD) 63.33 m; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.70 to 122.96). On completion of the intervention period, disease-specific global HRQoL was significantly better in the intervention group compared to the control group (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.51; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.93). There was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in physical functioning HRQoL (SMD 0.11; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.58), dyspnoea (SMD -0.27; 95% CI -0.64 to 0.10), fatigue (SMD 0.03; 95% CI -0.51 to 0.58), feelings of anxiety (MD -1.21 units on Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; 95% CI -5.88 to 3.45) and depression (SMD -1.26; 95% CI -4.68 to 2.17), and FEV1 (SMD 0.43; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.97).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Exercise training may improve or avoid the decline in exercise capacity and disease-specific global HRQoL for adults with advanced lung cancer. We found no significant effects of exercise training on dyspnoea, fatigue, feelings of anxiety and depression, or lung function. The findings of this review should be viewed with caution because of the heterogeneity between studies, the small sample sizes, and the high risk of bias of included studies. Larger, high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm and expand knowledge on the effects of exercise training in this population.

Gefitinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of gefitinib for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is evolving. We undertook a systematic review to evaluate the available evidence from all randomised trials.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of gefitinib as first-line, second-line or maintenance treatment for advanced NSCLC.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase from inception to 17 February 2017. We handsearched relevant conference proceedings, clinical trial registries and references lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials assessing gefitinib, alone or in combination with other treatment, compared to placebo or other treatments in the first- or successive-line treatment of patients with NSCLC, excluding compassionate use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard Cochrane methodology. Two authors independently assessed the search results to select those with sound methodological quality. We carried out all analyses on an intention-to-treat basis. We recorded the following outcome data: overall survival, progression-free survival, toxicity, tumour response and quality of life. We also collected data for the following subgroups: Asian ethnicity and positive epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 35 eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which examined 12,089 patients.General populationGefitinib did not statistically improve overall survival when compared with placebo or chemotherapy in either first- or second-line settings. Second-line gefitinib prolonged time to treatment failure (TTF) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.90, P < 0.0001) when compared with placebo. Maintenance gefitinib improved progression-free survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.91, P = 0.007) after first-line therapy.Studies in patients of Asian ethnicity or that conducted subgroup analysesSecond-line gefitinib prolonged overall survival over placebo (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.91, P = 0.01). In the first-line setting, progression-free survival was improved with gefitinib over chemotherapy alone (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.98, P = 0.04, moderate quality of evidence). Gefitinib given in combination with a chemotherapy regimen improved progression-free survival versus either gefitinib alone or chemotherapy alone (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.96, P = 0.03; HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.77, P < 0.00001, respectively). In the second-line setting, progression-free survival was superior in patients given gefitinib over placebo or chemotherapy (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91, P = 0.009; HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.88, P = 0.002; moderate quality of evidence, respectively). Combining gefitinib with chemotherapy in the second-line setting was superior to gefitinib alone (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97, P = 0.04). As maintenance therapy, gefitinib improved progression-free survival when compared with placebo (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.54, P < 0.00001).Patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumoursStudies in patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumours showed an improvement in progression-free survival in favour of gefitinib over first-line and second-line chemotherapy (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.61, P < 0.00001; HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.47, P < 0.0001, respectively). Gefitinib as maintenance therapy following chemotherapy improved overall and progression-free survival (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.98, P = 0.05; HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41, P < 0.0001, respectively) in one phase III study when compared to placebo.Toxicities from gefitinib included skin rash, diarrhoea and liver transaminase derangements. Toxicities from chemotherapy included anaemia, neutropenia and neurotoxicity.In terms of quality of life, gefitinib improved Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) (standardised mean difference (SMD) 10.50, 95% CI 9.55 to 11.45, P < 0.000001), lung cancer subscale (SMD 3.63, 95% CI 3.08 to 4.19, P < 0.00001) and Trial Outcome Index (SMD 9.87, 95% CI 1.26 to 18.48, P < 0.00001) scores when compared with chemotherapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review shows that gefitinib, when compared with standard first- or second-line chemotherapy or maintenance therapy, probably has a beneficial effect on progression-free survival and quality of life in selected patient populations, particularly those with tumours bearing sensitising EGFR mutations.Patients with EGFR mutations lived longer when given maintenance gefitinib than those given placebo.One study conducted subgroup analysis and showed that gefitinib improved overall survival over placebo in the second-line setting in patients of Asian ethnicity. All other studies did not detect any benefit on overall survival. The data analysed in this review were very heterogenous. We were limited in the amount of data that could be pooled, largely due to variations in study design. The risk of bias in most studies was moderate, with some studies not adequately addressing potential selection, attrition and reporting bias. This heterogeneity may have an impact on the applicability of the resultsCombining gefitinib with chemotherapy appears to be superior in improving progression-free survival to either gefitinib or chemotherapy alone, however further data and phase III studies in these settings are required.Gefitinib has a favourable toxicity profile when compared with current chemotherapy regimens. Although there is no improvement in overall survival, gefitinib compares favourably with cytotoxic chemotherapy in patients with EGFR mutations with a prolongation of progression-free survival and a lesser side effect profile.

Radical multimodality therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma

BACKGROUND

Malignant pleural mesothelioma is an almost always fatal tumour, for which palliative platinum-based chemotherapy is currently the standard treatment. Multimodal therapeutic strategies incorporating surgery, radiation therapy or photodynamic therapy and chemotherapy have been recommended for selected patients but there is no consensus about their effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of radical multimodal treatment options (including radical surgery ± radical radiotherapy ± photodynamic therapy ± systemic therapy) compared to each other or to palliative treatments, for people with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

SEARCH METHODS

We reviewed data from the Cochrane Lung Cancer group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase. We also checked reference lists of primary original studies, review articles and relevant conference proceedings manually for further related articles up to 21 March 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials of multimodal therapy for people with malignant pleural mesothelioma (stages I, II or III) that measured at least one of the following endpoints: overall survival, health-related health-related quality of life, adverse events or progression-free survival. We considered studies regardless of language or publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted relevant information on participant characteristics, interventions, study outcomes, and data on the outcomes for this review, as well as information on the design and methodology of the studies. Two review authors assessed the risk of bias in the included trials using pre-defined 'Risk of bias' domains. We assessed the methodological quality using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We conducted this review in accordance with the published Cochrane protocol. Two randomised clinical trials with 104 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Both trials were at high risk of bias (for outcomes other than overall survival), and we rated the evidence as moderate quality for overall survival and low quality for all other outcomes. One trial compared combined extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) plus neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy plus postoperative high-dose hemithoracic radiotherapy with combined EPP plus platinum-based chemotherapy. The other trial compared EPP plus postoperative hemithoracic radiotherapy with standard (non-radical) therapy alone following platinum-based chemotherapy (patients in the standard therapy arm received continued oncological management according to local policy, which could include further chemotherapy or palliative radiotherapy).For the first trial, median overall survival calculated from registration was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 14.4 to 27.8) in the no-radiotherapy group and 19.3 months (95% CI 11.5 to 21.8) in the radiotherapy group. For the second trial, median overall survival was 14.4 months (95% CI 5.3 to 18.7) for patients allocated to EPP and 19.5 months (95% CI 13.4 to time not yet reached) for patients randomised to standard non-radical therapy. In the second trial, 12 serious adverse events were reported during the study period: ten in the EPP group and two in the non-radical therapy group. Overall health-related quality of life scores were not different between the two arms in either study. We could not perform a meta-analysis of the two included trials due to clinical heterogeneity. We also identified three ongoing trials evaluating the topic of our review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The overall strength of the evidence gathered in this review is low and there is a lack of available evidence to support the use of radical multimodality therapy in routine clinical practice (particularly as one trial suggests greater harm). Given the added cost of multimodality treatment and the possible increase in risk of adverse effects, the lack of evidence of their effectiveness probably means that these interventions should currently be limited to clinical trials alone.

Preoperative exercise training for patients with non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection for early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) offers the best chance of cure, but is associated with a risk of postoperative pulmonary complications (i.e. pneumonia (new infiltrate coupled with either fever (> 38º C) and purulent secretions, or fever and white cell count > 11,000), bronchopleural fistula, severe atelectasis that requires chest physiotherapy or bronchoscopy, and prolonged mechanical ventilation (> 48 hours)). It is currently unclear if preoperative exercise training, and the potential resultant improvement in exercise capacity, may also improve postoperative outcomes, such as the risk of developing postoperative pulmonary complications, the length of postoperative intercostal drainage, or the length of hospital stay.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aims of this study were to determine the effect of preoperative exercise training on postoperative outcomes, such as risk of developing a postoperative pulmonary complication, and postoperative duration of intercostal catheter use in adults scheduled to undergo lung resection for NSCLC. The secondary aims of this study were to determine the effect of preoperative exercise training on length of hospital stay, fatigue, dyspnoea, exercise capacity, lung function, and postoperative mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase Ovid, PEDro, and SciELO on the 28^th of November 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which study participants who were scheduled to undergo lung resection for NSCLC were allocated to receive either preoperative exercise training or no exercise training.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the studies and selected those for inclusion. We performed meta-analyses for the outcomes: risk of developing a postoperative pulmonary complication; postoperative duration of intercostal catheter; length of hospital stay; post-intervention exercise capacity (6-minute walk distance), and post-intervention forced vital capacity (FVC). Although three studies reported post-intervention forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), we did not perform meta-analysis on this outcome due to significant statistical heterogeneity (I² = 93%) across the studies. Data were not available for fatigue or dyspnoea. One study reported no in-hospital postoperative mortality in either the exercise or the non-exercise groups.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five RCTs involving 167 participants (mean age ranged from 54 to 72.5 years; sample size ranged from 19 to 60 participants). Overall, we found that the risk of bias in the included studies was high, and the quality of evidence for all outcomes was low. Pooled data from four studies demonstrated that preoperative exercise training reduced the risk of developing a postoperative pulmonary complication by 67% (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.61). The number of days patients in the exercise group needed an intercostal catheter was lower than in the non-exercise group (mean difference (MD) -3.33 days, 95% CI -5.35 to -1.30 days; two studies); postoperative length of hospital stay was also lower in the exercise group (MD -4.24 days, 95% CI -5.43 to -3.06 days; four studies). Pooled data from two studies demonstrated that compared to the non-exercise group, post-intervention 6-minute walk distance (MD 18.23 m, 95% CI 8.50 to 27.96 m), and post-intervention FVC (MD 2.97% predicted, 95% CI 1.78 to 4.16% predicted) were higher in the exercise group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative exercise training may reduce the risk of developing a postoperative pulmonary complication, the duration of intercostal catheter use, postoperative length of hospital stay, and improve both exercise capacity and FVC in people undergoing lung resection for NSCLC. The findings of this review should be interpreted with caution due to disparities between the studies, risk of bias, and small sample sizes. This review emphasises the need for larger RCTs.

Surgery for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Current treatment guidelines for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) recommend concomitant platinum-based chemo-radiotherapy plus prophylactic cranial irradiation, based on the premise that SCLC disseminates early, and is chemosensitive. However, although there is usually a favourable initial response, relapse is common and the cure rate for limited-stage SCLC remains relatively poor. Some recent clinical practice guidelines have recommended surgery for stage 1 (limited) SCLC followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, but this recommendation is largely based on the findings of observational studies.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether, in patients with limited-stage SCLC, surgical resection of cancer improves overall survival and treatment-related deaths compared with radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or a combination of radiotherapy and chemotherapy, or best supportive care.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed searches on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science up to 11 January 2017. We handsearched review articles, clinical trial registries, and reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with adults diagnosed with limited-stage SCLC, confirmed by cytology or histology, and radiological assessment, considered medically suitable for resection and radical radiotherapy, which randomised participants to surgery versus any other intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We imported studies identified by the search into a reference manager database. We retrieved the full-text version of relevant studies, and two review authors independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were overall survival and treatment-related deaths; and secondary outcome measures included loco-regional progression, quality of life, and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials with 330 participants. We judged the quality of the evidence as very low for all the outcomes. The quality of the data was limited by the lack of complete outcome reporting, unclear risk of bias in the methods in which the studies were conducted, and the age of the studies (> 20 years). The methods of cancer staging and types of surgical procedures, which do not reflect current practice, reduced our confidence in the estimation of the effect.Two studies compared surgery to radiation therapy, and in one study chemotherapy was administered to both arms. One study administered initial chemotherapy, then responders were randomised to surgery versus control; following, both groups underwent chest and whole brain irradiation.Due to the clinical heterogeneity of the trials, we were unable to pool results for meta-analysis.All three studies reported overall survival. One study reported a mean overall survival of 199 days in the surgical arm, compared to 300 days in the radiotherapy arm (P = 0.04). One study reported overall survival as 4% in the surgical arm, compared to 10% in the radiotherapy arm at two years. Conversely, one study reported overall survival at two years as 52% in the surgical arm, compared to 18% in the radiotherapy arm. However this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.12).One study reported early postoperative mortality as 7% for the surgical arm, compared to 0% mortality in the radiotherapy arm. One study reported the difference in mean degree of dyspnoea as -1.2 comparing surgical intervention to radiotherapy, indicating that participants undergoing radiotherapy are likely to experience more dyspnoea. This was measured using a non-validated scale.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from currently available RCTs does not support a role for surgical resection in the management of limited-stage small-cell lung cancer; however our conclusions are limited by the quality of the available evidence and the lack of contemporary data. The results of the trials included in this review may not be generalisable to patients with clinical stage 1 small-cell lung cancer carefully staged using contemporary staging methods. Although some guidelines currently recommend surgical resection in clinical stage 1 small-cell lung cancer, prospective randomised controlled trials are needed to determine if there is any benefit in terms of short- and long-term mortality and quality of life compared with chemo-radiotherapy alone.

Postoperative radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in the treatment of patients with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was not clear. A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate available evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These results were first published in Lung Cancer in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of PORT on survival and recurrence in patients with completely resected NSCLC. To investigate whether predefined patient subgroups benefit more or less from PORT.

SEARCH METHODS

We supplemented MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches (1965 to 8 July 2016) with information from trial registers, handsearching of relevant meeting proceedings and discussion with trialists and organisations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials of surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy, provided they randomised participants with NSCLC using a method that precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We carried out a quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual participants from all randomised trials. We sought data on all participants from those responsible for the trial. We obtained updated individual participant data (IPD) on survival and date of last follow-up, as well as details on treatment allocation, date of randomisation, age, sex, histological cell type, stage, nodal status and performance status. To avoid potential bias, we requested information on all randomised participants, including those excluded from investigators' original analyses. We conducted all analyses on intention-to-treat on the endpoint of survival.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 trials evaluating surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy. Individual participant data were available for 11 of these trials, and our analyses are based on 2343 participants (1511 deaths). Results show a significant adverse effect of PORT on survival, with a hazard ratio of 1.18, or an 18% relative increase in risk of death. This is equivalent to an absolute detriment of 5% at two years (95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 9%), reducing overall survival from 58% to 53%. Subgroup analyses showed no differences in effects of PORT by any participant subgroup covariate.We did not undertake analysis of the effects of PORT on quality of life and adverse events. Investigators did not routinely collect quality of life information during these trials, and it was unlikely that any benefit of PORT would offset the observed survival disadvantage. We considered risk of bias in the included trials to be low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results from 11 trials and 2343 participants show that PORT is detrimental to those with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer and should not be used in the routine treatment of such patients. Results of ongoing RCTs will clarify the effects of modern radiotherapy in patients with N2 tumours.

Chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the elderly population

BACKGROUND

Approximately 50% of patients with newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are over 70 years of age at diagnosis. Despite this fact, these patients are underrepresented in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). As a consequence, the most appropriate regimens for these patients are controversial, and the role of single-agent or combination therapy is unclear. In this setting, a critical systematic review of RCTs in this group of patients is warranted.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of different cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens for previously untreated elderly patients with advanced (stage IIIB and IV) NSCLC. To also assess the impact of cytotoxic chemotherapy on quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1966 to 31 October 2014), EMBASE (1974 to 31 October 2014), and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to 31 October 2014). In addition, we handsearched the proceedings of major conferences, reference lists from relevant resources, and the ClinicalTrial.gov database.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs that compared non-platinum single-agent therapy versus non-platinum combination therapy, or non-platinum therapy versus platinum combination therapy in patients over 70 years of age with advanced NSCLC. We allowed inclusion of RCTs specifically designed for the elderly population and those designed for elderly subgroup analyses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed search results, and a third review author resolved disagreements. We analyzed the following endpoints: overall survival (OS), one-year survival rate (1yOS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), major adverse events, and quality of life (QoL).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 51 trials in the review: non-platinum single-agent therapy versus non-platinum combination therapy (seven trials) and non-platinum combination therapy versus platinum combination therapy (44 trials). Non-platinum single-agent versus non-platinum combination therapy Low-quality evidence suggests that these treatments have similar effects on overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.17; participants = 1062; five RCTs), 1yOS (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.07; participants = 992; four RCTs), and PFS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07; participants = 942; four RCTs). Non-platinum combination therapy may better improve ORR compared with non-platinum single-agent therapy (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.26; participants = 1014; five RCTs; low-quality evidence).Differences in effects on major adverse events between treatment groups were as follows: anemia: RR 1.10, 95% 0.53 to 2.31; participants = 983; four RCTs; very low-quality evidence; neutropenia: RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.65; participants = 983; four RCTs; low-quality evidence; and thrombocytopenia: RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.89; participants = 914; three RCTs; very low-quality evidence. Only two RCTs assessed quality of life; however, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis because of the paucity of available data. Non-platinum therapy versus platinum combination therapy Platinum combination therapy probably improves OS (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.85; participants = 1705; 13 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence), 1yOS (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96; participants = 813; 13 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence), and ORR (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.85; participants = 1432; 11 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence) compared with non-platinum therapies. Platinum combination therapy may also improve PFS, although our confidence in this finding is limited because the quality of evidence was low (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93; participants = 1273; nine RCTs).Effects on major adverse events between treatment groups were as follows: anemia: RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.76; participants = 1437; 11 RCTs; low-quality evidence; thrombocytopenia: RR 3.59, 95% CI 2.22 to 5.82; participants = 1260; nine RCTs; low-quality evidence; fatigue: RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.38; participants = 1150; seven RCTs; emesis: RR 3.64, 95% CI 1.82 to 7.29; participants = 1193; eight RCTs; and peripheral neuropathy: RR 7.02, 95% CI 2.42 to 20.41; participants = 776; five RCTs; low-quality evidence. Only five RCTs assessed QoL; however, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis because of the paucity of available data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people over the age of 70 with advanced NSCLC who do not have significant co-morbidities, increased survival with platinum combination therapy needs to be balanced against higher risk of major adverse events when compared with non-platinum therapy. For people who are not suitable candidates for platinum treatment, we have found low-quality evidence suggesting that non-platinum combination and single-agent therapy regimens have similar effects on survival. We are uncertain as to the comparability of their adverse event profiles. Additional evidence on quality of life gathered from additional studies is needed to help inform decision making.

Platinum versus non-platinum chemotherapy regimens for small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a very fast growing form of cancer and is characterised by early metastasis. As a result, chemotherapy is the mainstay of treatment. A number of different platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and non-platinum-based chemotherapy regimens have been used for the treatment of SCLC, with varying results. This review was conducted to analyse the data from these studies in order to compare their effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of platinum chemotherapy regimens compared with non-platinum chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of SCLC with respect to survival, tumour response, toxicity and quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the biomedical literature databases CENTRAL (TheCochrane Library 2014, Issue 7), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from 1966 to August 2014. In addition, we handsearched reference lists from relevant resources.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials involving patients with pathologically confirmed SCLC (including both limited-stage disease and extensive-stage disease) and the use of a platinum-based chemotherapy regimen in at least one treatment arm and a non-platinum-based chemotherapy regimen in a separate arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Two authors independently assessed search results. We assessed included studies for methodological quality and recorded the following outcome data: survival, tumour response, toxicity and quality of life. We combined the results of the survival, tumour response and toxicity data in a meta-analysis. Quality-of-life data were analysed individually.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 32 studies involving 6075 patients with SCLC were included in this systematic review. The majority of studies were multi-centre randomised controlled trials conducted throughout Europe, North America and Asia with the earliest study publishing data in 1981 and the latest in 2014. The duration of studies ranged from 12 to 72 months with a median of 32 months. The median age of patients in the vast majority of studies was between 60 and 65 years of age. Eighteen studies presented data on extensive-stage disease. Nine studies presented data on limited-stage disease. Eleven studies did not present data based on the disease stage. These data were analysed separately in subgroup analyses. Sixteen (50%) studies were of good quality with a low risk of bias and the data from these studies were analysed separately in a heterogeneity analysis.There was no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in terms of survival at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. There was also no statistically significant difference in terms of overall tumour response. However, platinum-based treatment regimens did have a significantly higher rate of complete response. Platinum-based chemotherapy regimens had significantly higher rates of nausea and vomiting and thrombocytopenia toxicity. Four trials presented quality-of-life data, but, due to the different systems used to measure quality of life this data could not be combined in a meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Platinum-based chemotherapy regimens did not offer a statistically significant benefit in survival or overall tumour response compared with non-platinum-based regimens. However, platinum-based chemotherapy regimens did increase complete response rates, at the cost of higher adverse events including nausea and vomiting, anaemia and thrombocytopenia toxicity. These data suggest non-platinum chemotherapy regimens have a more advantageous risk-benefit profile. This systematic review highlights the lack of quality-of-life data in trials involving chemotherapy treatment for SCLC. With poor long-term survival associated with both treatment groups, the issue of the quality of the survival period takes on even more significance. It would be beneficial for future trials in this area to include a quality-of-life assessment.

WITHDRAWN: Steroids, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and stents for superior vena caval obstruction in carcinoma of the bronchus

Authors are unable to update this review. New authors are being sought to update it.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

WITHDRAWN: Radical radiotherapy for stage I/II non-small cell lung cancer in patients not sufficiently fit for or declining surgery (medically inoperable)

The authors are unable to update this review. A new team is being sought to update it.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected early-stage non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the effects of administering chemotherapy following surgery, or following surgery plus radiotherapy (known as adjuvant chemotherapy) in patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC),we performed two systematic reviews and meta-analyses of all randomised controlled trials using individual participant data. Results were first published in The Lancet in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To compare, in terms of overall survival, time to locoregional recurrence, time to distant recurrence and recurrence-free survival:A. Surgery versus surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapyB. Surgery plus radiotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapyin patients with histologically diagnosed early stage NSCLC.(2)To investigate whether or not predefined patient subgroups benefit more or less from cisplatin-based chemotherapy in terms of survival.

SEARCH METHODS

We supplemented MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches (1995 to December 2013) with information from trial registers, handsearching relevant meeting proceedings and by discussion with trialists and organisations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials of a) surgery versus surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy; and b) surgery plus radiotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy, provided that they randomised NSCLC patients using a method which precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We carried out a quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual participants from all randomised trials. Data from all patients were sought from those responsible for the trial. We obtained updated individual participant data (IPD) on survival, and date of last follow-up, as well as details of treatment allocated, date of randomisation, age, sex, histological cell type, stage, and performance status. To avoid potential bias, we requested information for all randomised patients, including those excluded from the investigators' original analyses. We conducted all analyses on intention-to-treat on the endpoint of survival. For trials using cisplatin-based regimens, we carried out subgroup analyses by age, sex, histological cell type, tumour stage, and performance status.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 35 trials evaluating surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone. IPD were available for 26 of these trials and our analyses are based on 8447 participants (3323 deaths) in 34 trial comparisons. There was clear evidence of a benefit of adding chemotherapy after surgery (hazard ratio (HR)= 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI)= 0.81 to 0.92, p< 0.0001), with an absolute increase in survival of 4% at five years.We identified 15 trials evaluating surgery plus radiotherapy plus chemotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy alone. IPD were available for 12 of these trials and our analyses are based on 2660 participants (1909 deaths) in 13 trial comparisons. There was also evidence of a benefit of adding chemotherapy to surgery plus radiotherapy (HR= 0.88, 95% CI= 0.81 to 0.97, p= 0.009). This represents an absolute improvement in survival of 4% at five years.For both meta-analyses, we found similar benefits for recurrence outcomes and there was little variation in effect according to the type of chemotherapy, other trial characteristics or patient subgroup.We did not undertake analysis of the effects of adjuvant chemotherapy on quality of life and adverse events. Quality of life information was not routinely collected during the trials, but where toxicity was assessed and mentioned in the publications, it was thought to be manageable. We considered the risk of bias in the included trials to be low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results from 47 trial comparisons and 11,107 patients demonstrate the clear benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for these patients, irrespective of whether chemotherapy was given in addition to surgery or surgery plus radiotherapy. This is the most up-to-date and complete systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis that has been carried out.

Palliative radiotherapy regimens for patients with thoracic symptoms from non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Palliative radiotherapy to the chest is often used in patients with lung cancer, but radiotherapy regimens are more often based on tradition than research results. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001 and previously updated in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

The two objectives of this review were:1. To assess the effects of different palliative radiotherapy regimens on improving thoracic symptoms in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who are not suitable for radical RT given with curative intent.2. To assess the effects of radiotherapy dose on overall survival in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who are not suitable for radical RT given with curative intent.

SEARCH METHODS

The electronic databases MEDLINE (1966 - Jan 2014), EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, reference lists, handsearching of journals and conference proceedings, and discussion with experts were used to identify potentially eligible trials, published and unpublished.Two authors (FM and RS) independently identified all studies that may be suitable for inclusion in the review.We updated the search up to January 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled clinical trials comparing different regimens of palliative thoracic radiotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The reviewers assessed search results independently and possible studies were highlighted and the full text obtained. Data were extracted and attempts were made to contact the original authors for missing information.The primary outcome measure was improvement in major thoracic symptoms (degree and duration). Secondary outcome measures were short and long term toxicities, effect on quality of life and overall survival.Patient reported outcomes were reported descriptively. Quantitative data such as survival and toxicity were analysed as dichotomous variables and reported using relative risks (RR).For this update of the review a meta-analysis of the survival data was carried out.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen randomised controlled trials (3576 patients) were included, with no new studies added in this update.There were important differences in the doses of radiotherapy investigated, the patient characteristics including disease stage and performance status and the outcome measures.The doses of RT investigated ranged from 10 Gy in 1 fraction (10Gy/1F) to 60 Gy/30F over six weeks, with a total of 19 different dose/ fractionation regimens.Potential biases were identified in some studies. Methods of randomisation, assessment of symptoms and statistical methods used were unclear in some papers. Withdrawal and drop-outs were accounted for in all but one study.All 13 studies that investigated symptoms reported that major thoracic symptoms improved following RT.There is no strong evidence that any regimen gives greater palliation. Higher dose regimens may give more acute toxicity and some regimens are associated with an increased risk of radiation myelitis. Variation in reporting of toxicities, in particular the absence of clear grading, means results of the meta-analysis should be treated with caution.Meta-analysis of overall survival broken down by performance status, a key variable, is included in this update. Further information was sought from all the original authors if stratified data was not included in the original publication. Three published studies contained sufficient data and seven authors were able to provide further information which represented 1992 patients (56% of all patients). The absence of data for nearly half of the patients has affected the quality of evidence.The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in 1-year overall survival between regimens with fewer radiotherapy fractions compared with regimens with more when patients were stratified by performance status. The results of the meta-analysis of 1-year overall survival for patients with good performance status (WHO performance status 0-1) showed moderately high heterogeneity and a summary result was not thought meaningful. The results of 1-year overall survival for patients with poor performance status was RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.02; moderate quality of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Radiotherapy for patients with incurable non-small cell lung cancer can improve thoracic symptoms. Care should be taken with the dose to the spinal cord to reduce the risk of radiation myelopathy. The higher dose, more fractionated palliative radiotherapy regimens do not provide better or more durable palliation and their use to prolong survival is not supported by strong evidence. More research is needed into reducing the acute toxicity of large fraction regimens and into the role of radical compared to high dose palliative radiotherapy. In the future, large trials comparing different RT regimens may be difficult to set up because of the increasing use of systemic chemotherapy. Trials looking at how best to integrate these two modalities, particularly in good PS patients, need to be carried out.

Chemotherapy with cetuximab versus chemotherapy alone for chemotherapy-naive advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

In advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the effectiveness of standard cytotoxic chemotherapy seems to have reached a 'plateau', and there is a continuous need for new treatments to further improve the prognosis. Cetuximab is a monoclonal antibody targeted at the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signalling pathway. Basically, it is designed to inhibit the growth and metastasis among other biological processes of cancer. In combination with chemotherapy, it has been evaluated as a first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC in some randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with inconsistent results.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of chemotherapy plus cetuximab, compared with chemotherapy alone, for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously untreated with chemotherapy or epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted drugs.

SEARCH METHODS

We systematically searched the Cochrane Lung Cancer Review Group's Specialized Register (from inception to 17 December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 12), MEDLINE (accessed through PubMed, 1966 to 17 December 2013), EMBASE (1980 to 17 December 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (from inception to 17 December 2013), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (from inception to 17 December 2013). We also handsearched the proceedings related to lung cancer from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society of Medical Oncology (2000 to 17 December 2013). We checked the reference lists of all eligible primary studies and review articles for additional potentially eligible studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were RCTs that compared chemotherapy plus cetuximab with the same chemotherapy alone, in advanced NSCLC, previously untreated with chemotherapy or EGFR-targeted drugs, and measured at least one of the following: overall survival, progression-free survival, one-year survival rate, objective response rate, quality of life, or serious adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We extracted the following data from each study: publication details, participant characteristics, regimens for intervention and control arms, outcome measures and effect size, and information related to the methodological quality of the study. We measured the treatment effects on dichotomous and time-to-event outcomes by risk ratio (RR) and hazard ratio (HR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), respectively. We conducted meta-analyses with Review Manager 5 using the random-effects model. We employed the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine RRs and the inverse-variance method to combine HRs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four trials, containing 2018 patients. The subjects were mostly white people (female: 26% to 56%), with a median age of 58 to 66 years. About half of them had histologically proven adenocarcinoma. Of the 2018 patients, 83% to 99% had their status measured using the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and had a score of 0 to 1 (which is usually considered as physically "fit").All four studies provided data on overall survival, progression-free survival, one-year survival rate, objective response rate, and serious adverse events, with two studies (1901 patients) investigating the effect of cetuximab on quality of life as well. The risk of bias was low for the data on overall survival and one-year survival rate, and high for the data on all other outcomes, mainly due to lack of blinding. Compared with chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus cetuximab improved overall survival (10.5 months versus 8.9 months; HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96), one-year survival rate (45% versus 40%; RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.25), and objective response rate (30% versus 23%; RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.51). The difference in progression-free survival was at the limit of the statistical significance (4.9 months versus 4.4 months; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.00). No significant difference in quality of life between the two treatment arms was reported by the two relevant studies. Patients in the cetuximab group experienced more acneiform rash (11.2% versus 0.3%; RR 37.36, 95% CI 10.66 to 130.95), hypomagnesemia (5.3% versus 0.8%; RR 6.57, 95% CI 1.13 to 38.12), infusion reaction (3.9% versus 1.1%; RR 3.50, 95% CI 1.76 to 6.94), diarrhoea (4.8% versus 2.3%; RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.48), hypokalaemia (6.3% versus 3.6%; RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.99), febrile neutropenia (10.6% versus 7.6%; RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.77), and leukopenia (58.1% versus 42.7%; RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.58) than did those in the control group. The difference in other adverse events did not reach statistical significance. According to the reports of original studies, the adverse events were generally manageable. There were no cetuximab-related deaths.The quality of the evidence is high for overall survival and one-year survival rate, but low for most secondary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The combination of chemotherapy plus cetuximab is better than chemotherapy alone as the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC in improving overall survival, while inducing higher rates of some reportedly manageable adverse events.

PET-CT for assessing mediastinal lymph node involvement in patients with suspected resectable non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

A major determinant of treatment offered to patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is their intrathoracic (mediastinal) nodal status. If the disease has not spread to the ipsilateral mediastinal nodes, subcarinal (N2) nodes, or both, and the patient is otherwise considered fit for surgery, resection is often the treatment of choice. Planning the optimal treatment is therefore critically dependent on accurate staging of the disease. PET-CT (positron emission tomography-computed tomography) is a non-invasive staging method of the mediastinum, which is increasingly available and used by lung cancer multidisciplinary teams. Although the non-invasive nature of PET-CT constitutes one of its major advantages, PET-CT may be suboptimal in detecting malignancy in normal-sized lymph nodes and in ruling out malignancy in patients with coexisting inflammatory or infectious diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of integrated PET-CT for mediastinal staging of patients with suspected or confirmed NSCLC that is potentially suitable for treatment with curative intent.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 30 April 2013: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via OvidSP (from 1946), Embase via OvidSP (from 1974), PreMEDLINE via OvidSP, OpenGrey, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and the trials register www.clinicaltrials.gov. There were no language or publication status restrictions on the search. We also contacted researchers in the field, checked reference lists, and conducted citation searches (with an end-date of 9 July 2013) of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective or retrospective cross-sectional studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of integrated PET-CT for diagnosing N2 disease in patients with suspected resectable NSCLC. The studies must have used pathology as the reference standard and reported participants as the unit of analysis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data pertaining to the study characteristics and the number of true and false positives and true and false negatives for the index test, and they independently assessed the quality of the included studies using QUADAS-2. We calculated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each study and performed two main analyses based on the criteria for test positivity employed: Activity > background or SUVmax ≥ 2.5 (SUVmax = maximum standardised uptake value), where we fitted a summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve using a hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) model for each subset of studies. We identified the average operating point on the SROC curve and computed the average sensitivities and specificities. We checked for heterogeneity and examined the robustness of the meta-analyses through sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 45 studies, and based on the criteria for PET-CT positivity, we categorised the included studies into three groups: Activity > background (18 studies, N = 2823, prevalence of N2 and N3 nodes = 679/2328), SUVmax ≥ 2.5 (12 studies, N = 1656, prevalence of N2 and N3 nodes = 465/1656), and Other/mixed (15 studies, N = 1616, prevalence of N2 to N3 nodes = 400/1616). None of the studies reported (any) adverse events. Under-reporting generally hampered the quality assessment of the studies, and in 30/45 studies, the applicability of the study populations was of high or unclear concern.The summary sensitivity and specificity estimates for the 'Activity > background PET-CT positivity criterion were 77.4% (95% CI 65.3 to 86.1) and 90.1% (95% CI 85.3 to 93.5), respectively, but the accuracy estimates of these studies in ROC space showed a wide prediction region. This indicated high between-study heterogeneity and a relatively large 95% confidence region around the summary value of sensitivity and specificity, denoting a lack of precision. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the overall estimate of sensitivity was especially susceptible to selection bias; reference standard bias; clear definition of test positivity; and to a lesser extent, index test bias and commercial funding bias, with lower combined estimates of sensitivity observed for all the low 'Risk of bias' studies compared with the full analysis.The summary sensitivity and specificity estimates for the SUVmax ≥ 2.5 PET-CT positivity criterion were 81.3% (95% CI 70.2 to 88.9) and 79.4% (95% CI 70 to 86.5), respectively.In this group, the accuracy estimates of these studies in ROC space also showed a very wide prediction region. This indicated very high between-study heterogeneity, and there was a relatively large 95% confidence region around the summary value of sensitivity and specificity, denoting a clear lack of precision. Sensitivity analyses suggested that both overall accuracy estimates were marginally sensitive to flow and timing bias and commercial funding bias, which both lead to slightly lower estimates of sensitivity and specificity.Heterogeneity analyses showed that the accuracy estimates were significantly influenced by country of study origin, percentage of participants with adenocarcinoma, (¹⁸F)-2-fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) dose, type of PET-CT scanner, and study size, but not by study design, consecutive recruitment, attenuation correction, year of publication, or tuberculosis incidence rate per 100,000 population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review has shown that accuracy of PET-CT is insufficient to allow management based on PET-CT alone. The findings therefore support National Institute for Health and Care (formally 'clinical') Excellence (NICE) guidance on this topic, where PET-CT is used to guide clinicians in the next step: either a biopsy or where negative and nodes are small, directly to surgery. The apparent difference between the two main makes of PET-CT scanner is important and may influence the treatment decision in some circumstances. The differences in PET-CT accuracy estimates between scanner makes, NSCLC subtypes, FDG dose, and country of study origin, along with the general variability of results, suggest that all large centres should actively monitor their accuracy. This is so that they can make reliable decisions based on their own results and identify the populations in which PET-CT is of most use or potentially little value.

WITHDRAWN: Second or third additional chemotherapy drug for non-small cell lung cancer in patients with advanced disease

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials have demonstrated that adding a drug to a single-agent or to a two-agent regimen increased the tumor response rate in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although its impact on survival remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical benefit of adding a drug to a single-agent or two-agent chemotherapy regimen in terms of tumor response rate, survival, and toxicity in patients with advanced NSCLC.

SEARCH METHODS

There were no language restrictions. Searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE were performed using the search terms non-small cell lung carcinoma/drug therapy, adenocarcinoma, large-cell carcinoma, squamous-cell carcinoma, lung, neoplasms, clinical trial phase III, and randomized trial. Manual searches were also performed to find conference proceedings published between January 1982 and June 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Data from all randomized controlled trials performed between 1980 and 2006 (published between January 1980 and June 2006) comparing a doublet regimen with a single-agent regimen or comparing a triplet regimen with a doublet regimen in patients with advanced NSCLC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent investigators reviewed the publications and extracted the data. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) for the objective tumor response rate, one-year survival rate, and toxicity rate were calculated using the fixed-effect model. Pooled median ratios (MRs) for median survival also were calculated using the fixed-effect model. ORs and MRs lower than unity (< 1.0) indicate a benefit of a doublet regimen compared with a single-agent regimen (or a triplet regimen compared with a doublet regimen).

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-five trials (13601 patients) were eligible. In the trials comparing a doublet regimen with a single-agent regimen, a significant increase was observed in tumor response (OR 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.47, P < 0.001) and one-year survival (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.91, P < 0.001) in favor of the doublet regimen. The median survival ratio was 0.83 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.89, P < 0.001). An increase also was observed in the tumor response rate (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.75, P < 0.001) in favor of the triplet regimen, but not for one-year survival (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.21, P = 0.88). The median survival ratio was 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.06, P = 0.97).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Adding a second drug improved tumor response and survival rate. Adding a third drug had a weaker effect on tumor response and no effect on survival.

WITHDRAWN: Elemene for the treatment of lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Elemene, isolated from the Chinese medicinal herb Rhizoma Zedoariae and be used to treat patients with lung cancer in China. Until now, the effects have not been systematically reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this review was to determine the effectiveness and safety of elemene in the treatment of patients with lung cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched according to the strategy suggested by Lung Cancer group: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2); MEDLINE (1966 to June 2006); EMBASE (1974 to June 2006); OVID (1950 to June, 2006); CBMdisc on Chinese Biomedical Literature (Issue 1 2004 Chinese Language) and CNKI (Chinese Knowledge Internet 1994 to June 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared elemene with chemotherapy agents, radiotherapy, surgery, physical therapy or other effective Chinese herb therapy, either alone or in combination, had been sought in this review, regardless of language or publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors telephoned the original trial authors of claimed randomised controlled trials and made a decision about trial inclusion and exclusion.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 20 trials which claimed to use random allocation. Sixteen study authors were contacted by telephone and we discovered that they misunderstood the randomisation procedure and the trials were identified as non-RCTs. We were unable to contact the authors of the remaining four studies and these have been allocated to the 'Studies awaiting assessment' section.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to confirm or refute the effectiveness of elemene as a treatment for lung cancer. Randomised clinical trials, on elemene for the treatment of lung cancer are needed in order to define the efficacy and acceptability of elemene for lung cancer.

Non-invasive interventions for improving well-being and quality of life in patients with lung cancer

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original review published in Issue 4, 2004 of The Cochrane Library. Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of death globally. Despite advances in treatment, the outlook for the majority of patients remains grim and most face a pessimistic future accompanied by sometimes devastating effects on emotional and psychological health. Although chemotherapy is accepted as an effective treatment for advanced lung cancer, the high prevalence of treatment-related side effects as well the symptoms of disease progression highlight the need for high-quality palliative and supportive care to minimise symptom distress and to promote quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of non-invasive interventions delivered by healthcare professionals in improving symptoms, psychological functioning and quality of life in patients with lung cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We ran a search in February 2011 to update the original completed review. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), MEDLINE (accessed through PubMed), EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, British Nursing Index and Archive (accessed through Ovid) and reference lists of relevant articles; we also contacted authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of non-invasive interventions in improving well-being and quality of life in patients diagnosed with lung cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed relevant studies for inclusion. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment of relevant studies was performed by one author and checked by a second author.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials were included, six of which were added in this update. Three trials of a nursing intervention to manage breathlessness showed benefit in terms of symptom experience, performance status and emotional functioning. Four trials assessed structured nursing programmes and found positive effects on delay in clinical deterioration, dependency and symptom distress, and improvements in emotional functioning and satisfaction with care.Three trials assessed the effect of different psychotherapeutic, psychosocial and educational interventions in patients with lung cancer. One trial assessing counselling showed benefit for some emotional components of the illness but findings were not conclusive. One trial examined the effects of coaching sensory self monitoring and reporting on pain-related variables and found that although coaching increases the amount of pain data communicated to providers by patients with lung cancer, the magnitude of the effect is small and does not lead to improved efficacy of analgesics prescribed for each patient's pain level. One trial compared telephone-based sessions of either caregiver-assisted coping skills training (CST) or education/support involving the caregiver and found that patients in both treatment conditions showed improvements in pain, depression, quality of life and self efficacy.Two trials assessed exercise programmes; one found a beneficial effect on self empowerment and the other study showed an increase in quadriceps strength but no significant changes for any measure of quality of life. One trial of nutritional interventions found positive effects for increasing energy intake, but no improvement in quality of life. Two small trials of reflexology showed some positive but short-lasting effects on anxiety and pain intensity.The main limitations of the studies included were the variability of the interventions assessed and the approaches to measuring the considered outcomes, and the lack of data reported in the trials regarding allocation of patients to treatment groups and blinding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Nurse follow-up programmes and interventions to manage breathlessness may produce beneficial effects. Counselling may help patients cope more effectively with emotional symptoms, but the evidence is not conclusive. Other psychotherapeutic, psychosocial and educational interventions can play some role in improving patients' quality of life. Exercise programmes and nutritional interventions have not shown relevant and lasting improvements of quality of life. Reflexology may have some beneficial effects in the short term.

Surgical sealant for preventing air leaks after pulmonary resections in patients with lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Postoperative air leak is a frequent complication after pulmonary resection for lung cancer. It may cause serious complications, such as empyema, or prolong the need for chest tube and hospitalization. Different types of surgical sealants have been developed to prevent or to reduce postoperative air leaks. A systematic review was therefore undertaken to evaluate the evidence on their effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of surgical sealants in preventing or reducing postoperative air leaks after pulmonary resection for lung cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE (1966 to September 2008), EMBASE (1974 to September 2008), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)(The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2008) and listed references. We hand searched conference proceedings to identify published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled clinical trials in which standard closure techniques plus a sealant were compared with the same intervention with no use of any sealant in patients undergoing elective pulmonary resection provided that a large proportion of the patients studied had undergone pulmonary resection for lung cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four reviewers independently selected the trials to be included in the review, assessed methodological quality of each trial and extracted data using a standardized form. Because of several limitations, narrative synthesis was used at this stage.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen trials, with 1642 randomized patients in total were included. In thirteen trials there were differences between treatment and control patients in reducing postoperative air leaks. This reduction proved to be significant in six trials. Three trials showed a significant reduction in time to chest drain removal in the treatment group. In two trials, the percentage of patients with persistent air leak was significantly smaller in the treatment group. Finally, three trials including 352 patients showed a statistically significant reduction in length of hospital stay.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Surgical sealants reduce postoperative air leaks and time to chest drain removal but this reduction is not always associated with a reduction in length of postoperative hospital stay. Therefore, systematic use of surgical sealants with the objective of reducing hospital stay cannot be recommended at the moment. More and larger randomized controlled clinical trials are needed.

Radiotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma

BACKGROUND

Malignant pleural mesothelioma is a relatively uncommon disease, but the incidence is increasing and is expected to peak in many developed countries in the next two decades. The management of patients with malignant mesothelioma is controversial. Very few patients are suitable for any potentially curative treatment and the effectiveness of radical therapy with surgery, radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy in curing patients or prolonging survival is uncertain. The role of radiotherapy is controversial although it has been used as part of multimodal therapy. The present review will try to clarify these uncertainties.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of radiotherapy on patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma in any stage of the disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Both electronic and handsearches were conducted. All randomised controlled clinical trials were searched in electronic databases such as: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching was aimed at the identification of evidence by reviewing journals not indexed in databases, proceedings of conferences and/or scientific meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled clinical trials using radiotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma in any stage, alone or combined with other therapies in patients of either sex and any age, were included. Studies without a control group were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

There were no studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

To date we have not found any reports of randomised comparisons of radiotherapy alone or combined for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As radiotherapy has never been compared to chemotherapy or surgery or to best supportive care (as part of combination therapy) in a prospective, randomised trial, no data exist supporting one or the other treatment as a better option for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. There is a need for multicentre controlled randomised trials assessing the role of radiotherapy in the radical treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. The studies should be limited to patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, classified by stage, cytology and type of radiotherapy. The type of radiotherapy should be defined in advance and variables of radiotherapy dose definition and delivery should be carefully controlled.