Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Majority of newly diagnosed lung cancers are non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), of which up to half are considered locally advanced at the time of diagnosis. Patients with locally advanced stage III NSCLC consists of a heterogeneous population, making management for these patients complex. Surgery has long been the preferred local treatment for patients with resectable disease. For select patients, multi-modality therapy involving systemic and radiation therapies in addition to surgery improves treatment outcomes compared to surgery alone. For patients with unresectable disease, concurrent chemoradiation is the preferred treatment. More recently, research into different chemotherapy agents, targeted therapies, radiation fractionation schedules, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and proton therapy have shown promise to improve treatment outcomes and quality of life. The array of treatment approaches for locally advanced NSCLC is large and constantly evolving. An updated review of past and current literature for the roles of surgery, chemotherapeutic agents, radiation therapy, and targeted therapy for stage III NSCLC patients are presented.

The phosphatidylcholine-using phospholipase D (PLD) isoform PLD2 is widely expressed in mammalian cells and is activated in response to a variety of promitogenic agonists. In this study, active and inactive hemagglutinin-tagged human PLD2 (HA-PLD2) constructs were stably expressed in an EL4 cell line lacking detectable endogenous PLD1 or PLD2. The overall goal of the study was to examine the roles of PLD2 in cellular signal transduction and cell phenotype. HA-PLD2 confers PLD activity that is activated by phorbol ester, ionomycin, and okadaic acid. Proliferation and Erk activation are unchanged in cells transfected with active PLD2; proliferation rate is decreased in cells expressing inactive PLD2. Basal tyrosine phosphorylation of focal adhesion kinase (FAK) is increased in cells expressing active PLD2, as is phosphorylation of Akt; inactive PLD2 has no effect. Expression of active PLD2 is associated with increased spreading and elongation of cells on tissue culture plastic, whereas inactive PLD2 inhibits cell spreading. Inactive PLD2 also inhibits cell adhesion, migration, and serum-induced invasion. Cells expressing active PLD2 form metastases in syngeneic mice, as do the parental cells; cells expressing inactive PLD2 form fewer metastases than parental cells. In summary, active PLD2 enhances FAK phosphorylation, Akt activation, and cell invasion in EL4 lymphoma cells, whereas inactive PLD2 exerts inhibitory effects on adhesion, migration, invasion, and tumor formation. Overall, expression of active PLD2 enhances processes favorable to lymphoma cell metastasis, whereas expression of inactive PLD2 inhibits metastasis.

We review radiation therapy (RT) options available for prostate cancer, including external beam (EBRT; with conventional fractionation, hypofractionation, stereotactic body RT [SBRT]) and brachytherapy (BT), with an emphasis on the outcomes, toxicities, and contraindications for therapies. PICOS/PRISMA methods were used to identify published English-language comparative studies on PubMed (from 1980 to 2015) that included men treated on prospective studies with a primary endpoint of patient outcomes, with ⩾70 patients, and ⩾5year median follow up. Twenty-six studies met inclusion criteria; of these, 16 used EBRT, and 10 used BT. Long-term freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) rates were roughly equivalent between conventional and hypofractionated RT with intensity modulation (evidence level 1B), with 10-year FFBF rates of 45-90%, 40-60%, and 20-50% (for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively). SBRT had promising rates of BF, with shorter follow-up (5-year FFBF of >90% for low-risk patients). Similarly, BT (5-year FFBF for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients have generally been >85%, 69-97%, 63-80%, respectively) and BT+EBRT were appropriate in select patients (evidence level 1B). Differences in overall survival, distant metastasis, and cancer specific mortality (5-year rates: 82-97%, 1-14%, 0-8%, respectively) have not been detected in randomized trials of dose escalation or in studies comparing RT modalities. Studies did not use patient-reported outcomes, through Grade 3-4 toxicities were rare (<5%) among all modalities. There was limited evidence available to compare proton therapy to other modalities. The treatment decision for a man is usually based on his risk group, ability to tolerate the procedure, convenience for the patient, and the anticipated impact on quality of life. To further personalize therapy, future trials should report (1) race; (2) medical comorbidities; (3) psychiatric comorbidities; (4) insurance status; (5) education status; (6) marital status; (7) income; (8) sexual orientation; and (9) facility-related characteristics.

Men with T2DM not receiving medication and men with T2DM receiving insulin had worse outcomes and toxicities compared to other patients.

PURPOSE To assess the long-term quality of life (QoL) outcomes from a phase III trial comparing conventional (CIMRT) versus hypofractionated (HIMRT) IMRT in patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS Between 2002 and 2006, 303 men with low- to high-risk prostate cancer were randomized to 76 Gy in 38 fractions (CIMRT) versus 70.2 Gy in 26 fractions (HIMRT). QoL was compared using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and EuroQoL (EQ5D) questionnaires. The primary outcome of the quality of life analysis was a minimum clinically important difference defined as a 0.5 standard deviation change from baseline for each respective QoL parameter. Treatment effects were evaluated using logistic mixed effects regression models. RESULTS A total of 286, 299, and 218 patients had baseline EPIC, IPSS, or EQ5D data available and were included in the analysis. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment arms in terms of EPIC, IPSS, or EQ5D scores over time although there was a trend towards lower EPIC urinary incontinence scores in the HIMRT arm. More patients in the HIMRT arm had a lower EPIC urinary incontinence score relative to baseline versus patients in the CIMRT arm with long-term follow-up. On multivariable analysis, there was no association between radiation fractionation scheme and any QoL parameter. When examining other clinical factors, lymph node radiation was associated with worse EPIC hormonal scores versus patients receiving no lymph node radiation. In general, QoL outcomes were generally stable over time with the exception of EPIC hormonal and EQ5D scores. CONCLUSIONS In this randomized prospective study, there were stable QoL changes in patients receiving HIMRT or CIMRT. Our results add to the growing body of literature suggesting that HIMRT may be an acceptable treatment modality in clinically localized prostate cancer.