CEA, CA 125, SCC, CYFRA 21-1 and NSE were prospectively studied in 211 patients with non-small cell lung cancer and compared with clinical parameters (age, sex, Karnofsky Index, symptoms and smoking status), histopathological parameters (stage, histology, tumor size and nodal involvement), biological parameters (LDH and albumin) and the therapy used (surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy). Tumor marker sensitivity was CYFRA 21-1: 76%, CA 125: 55%, CEA: 52%, SCC: 33% and NSE: 22%. One of the tumor markers was abnormally high in 87% of the patients with locoregional disease and in 100% of the patients with metastases. Except for NSE, all tumor markers showed a clear relationship with tumor stage and histology and therefore enabled a better histological diagnosis. Abnormal CEA serum levels were mainly found in adenocarcinomas, CA 125 in large-cell lung cancers (LCLC) and adenocarcinomas and SCC in squamous tumors. Eighty-five percent of the patients with SCC levels >2 ng/ml had squamous tumors. Likewise, CA 125 levels <60 U/ml or CEA <10 ng/ml excluded adenocarcinoma or LCLC with a probability of 82 and 91%, respectively.

No abstract

Purpose: To perform a clinical audit to assess adherence to standard clinical practice for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients undergoing radiotherapy for rectal cancer treatment in four European countries. Materials and methods: Multi-institutional, retrospective cohort study of 221 patients treated for rectal cancer in 2015 at six European cancer centres. Clinical indicators applicable to general radiotherapy processes were evaluated. All data were obtained from electronic medical records. Results: The audits were performed in the year 2017. We found substantial inter-centre variability in adherence to standard clinical practices: 1) presentation of cases at departmental clinical sessions (range, 0-100%) or multidisciplinary tumour board (50-95%); 2) pretreatment MRI (61.5-100%) and thoracoabdominal CT (15.0-100%). Large inter-centre differences were observed in the mean interval between biopsy and first visit to the radiotherapy department (range, 21.6-58.6 days) and between the first visit and start of treatment (15.1-38.8 days). Treatment interruptions ≥ 1 day occurred in 43.9% (2.5-90%) of cases overall. Treatment compensation was performed in 2.1% of cases. Treatment was completed in the prescribed time in 55.7% of cases. Conclusions: This multi-institutional clinical audit revealed that most centres adhered to standard clinical practices for most of the radiotherapy processes-related variables assessed. However, the audit revealed marked inter-centre variability for certain quality indicators, particularly inconsistent record keeping. Multiple targets for improvement and/or harmonisation were identified, confirming the value of routine clinical audits to detect potential deviations from standard clinical practice.

No abstract

This study supports the notion that the achievement of CR of RC and SLM should be the goal of oncological treatment. Both RF and LF strategies are feasible and safe, but no between-strategy differences have been found in the CRR.