A collaboration of multidisciplinary experts on the functional evaluation of lung cancer patients has been facilitated by the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the European Society of Thoracic Surgery (ESTS), in order to draw up recommendations and provide clinicians with clear, up-to-date guidelines on fitness for surgery and chemo-radiotherapy.The subject was divided into different topics, which were then assigned to at least two experts. The authors searched the literature according to their own strategies, with no central literature review being performed. The draft reports written by the experts on each topic were reviewed, discussed and voted on by the entire expert panel. The evidence supporting each recommendation was summarised, and graded as described by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Grading Review Group. Clinical practice guidelines were generated and finalised in a functional algorithm for risk stratification of the lung resection candidates, emphasising cardiological evaluation, forced expiratory volume in 1 s, systematic carbon monoxide lung diffusion capacity and exercise testing.Contrary to lung resection, for which the scientific evidences are more robust, we were unable to recommend any specific test, cut-off value, or algorithm before chemo-radiotherapy due to the lack of data. We recommend that lung cancer patients should be managed in specialised settings by multidisciplinary teams.

No abstract

To complement the existing treatment guidelines for all tumour types, ESMO organises consensus conferences to focus on specific issues in each type of tumour. The 2nd ESMO Consensus Conference on Lung Cancer was held on 11-12 May 2013 in Lugano. A total of 35 experts met to address several questions on non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in each of four areas: pathology and molecular biomarkers, first-line/second and further lines of treatment in advanced disease, early-stage disease and locally advanced disease. For each question, recommendations were made including reference to the grade of recommendation and level of evidence. This consensus paper focuses on locally advanced disease.

No abstract

Purpose Information about symptomatic toxicities of anticancer treatments is not based on direct report by patients, but rather on reports by clinicians in trials. Given the potential for under-reporting, our aim was to compare reporting by patients and physicians of six toxicities (anorexia, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, and hair loss) within three randomized trials. Patients and Methods In one trial, elderly patients with breast cancer received adjuvant chemotherapy; in two trials, patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer received first-line treatment. Toxicity was prospectively collected by investigators (graded by National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria [version 2.0] or Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 3]). At the end of each cycle, patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaires, including toxicity-related symptom items. Possible answers were “not at all,” “a little,” “quite a bit,” and “very much.” Analysis was limited to the first three cycles. For each toxicity, agreement between patients and physicians and under-reporting by physicians (ie, toxicity reported by patients but not reported by physicians) were calculated. Results Overall, 1,090 patients (2,482 cycles) were included. Agreement between patients and physicians was low for all toxicities. Toxicity rates reported by physicians were always lower than those reported by patients. For patients who reported toxicity (any severity), under-reporting by physicians ranged from 40.7% to 74.4%. Examining only patients who reported “very much” toxicity, under-reporting by physicians ranged from 13.0% to 50.0%. Conclusion Subjective toxicities are at high risk of under-reporting by physicians, even when prospectively collected within randomized trials. This strongly supports the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes into toxicity reporting in clinical trials.

PurposeWe investigated the correlation between the number of examined lymph nodes (ELNs) and correct staging and long-term survival in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by using large databases and determined the minimal threshold for the ELN count.MethodsData from a Chinese multi-institutional registry and the US SEER database on stage I to IIIA resected NSCLC (2001 to 2008) were analyzed for the relationship between the ELN count and stage migration and overall survival (OS) by using multivariable models. The series of the mean positive LNs, odds ratios (ORs), and hazard ratios (HRs) were fitted with a LOWESS smoother, and the structural break points were determined by Chow test. The selected cut point was validated with the SEER 2009 cohort.ResultsAlthough the distribution of ELN count differed between the Chinese registry (n = 5,706) and the SEER database (n = 38,806; median, 15 versus seven, respectively), both cohorts exhibited significantly proportional increases from N0 to N1 and N2 disease (SEER OR, 1.038; China OR, 1.012; both P < .001) and serial improvements in OS (N0 disease: SEER HR, 0.986; China HR, 0.981; both P < .001; N1 and N2 disease: SEER HR, 0.989; China HR, 0.984; both P < .001) as the ELN count increased after controlling for confounders. Cut point analysis showed a threshold ELN count of 16 in patients with declared node-negative disease, which were examined in the derivation cohorts (SEER 2001 to 2008 HR, 0.830; China HR, 0.738) and validated in the SEER 2009 cohort (HR, 0.837).ConclusionA greater number of ELNs is associated with more-accurate node staging and better long-term survival of resected NSCLC. We recommend 16 ELNs as the cut point for evaluating the quality of LN examination or prognostic stratification postoperatively for patients with declared node-negative disease.

To complement the existing treatment guidelines for all tumour types, ESMO organises consensus conferences to focus on specific issues in each type of tumour. The Second ESMO Consensus Conference on Lung Cancer was held on 11-12 May 2013 in Lugano. A total of 35 experts met to address several questions on management of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in each of four areas: pathology and molecular biomarkers, early stage disease, locally advanced disease and advanced (metastatic) disease. For each question, recommendations were made including reference to the grade of recommendation and level of evidence. This consensus paper focuses on recommendations for pathology and molecular biomarkers in relation to the diagnosis of lung cancer, primarily non-small-cell carcinomas.

Uniportal VATS appears to be tolerable, safe and efficient in treating spontaneous pneumothorax in our series. Moreover, post-operative pain and paraesthesia incidence was lower than three-port VATS. Prospective randomised trials are important to evaluate this technique.