Trends in response rate and survival in small-cell lung cancer patients between 1997 and 2017

Lattuca-Truc, Mickaël; Timsit, Jean‐François; Levra, Matteo Giaj; Ruckly, Stéphane; Villa, Julie; Dumas, Isabelle; Pinsolle, J.; Ferrer, L.; Guillem, Pascale; Moro-Sibilot, Denis; Toffart, Anne‐Claire

doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.03.028

Cited by 22 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Three uptake parameters showed an independent prognostic value for OS and/or PFS in one study each: wb-meanSUVmax (HR for OS: 3.74; HR for PFS: 2.25) [40], t-SU-Vmax(glu) (HR for PFS: 3.38) [27], and tSUVmax(liver) (HR for OS 0.194) [36]. 1 Özdemir accounted twice due to different results in subgroups, 2 Nobashi accounted twice due to different results in subgroups, 3 Choi accounted twice due to different results in subgroups.…”

Section: Baseline Suvmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Compared with other covariates included in the multivariate analysis, an additional independent or superior prognostic value of SU-Vmax to stage, age, blood lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), sex, and performance status (PS) was sporadic (Figure 3a). 1 Özdemir accounted twice due to different results in subgroups, 2 Nobashi accounted twice due to different results in subgroups, 3 Choi accounted twice due to different results in subgroups.…”

Section: Baseline Suvmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patients presenting at an advanced stage (extensive disease; ED) are treated with palliative platin-based chemotherapy. Up to 40% of patients do not achieve objective response to first-line therapy [2], but even when objective response is achieved, it is often followed by a quick and fatal relapse, and overall survival (OS) is poor [2]. The introduction of immunotherapy for first-line treatment and for treatment of relapse gives hope for an improved clinical outcome [3][4][5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Number of papers showing either superior (blue), additional (yellow), inferior (red), or no prognostic value (grey) of adjusted SUV max (a), MTV (b), and TLG (c) compared with the five most frequently used covariates 1. Özdemir accounted twice due to different results in subgroups,2 Nobashi accounted twice due to different results in subgroups,3 Choi accounted twice due to different results in subgroups.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Prognostic Value of 18F–FDG–PET Parameters in Patients with Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Current Literature

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many studies have suggested a prognostic value of one or several positron emission tomography (PET) parameters in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). However, studies are often small, and there is a considerable interstudy disagreement about which PET parameters have a prognostic value. The objective of this study was to perform a review and meta-analysis to identify the most promising PET parameter for prognostication. PubMed®, Cochrane, and Embase® were searched for papers addressing the prognostic value of any PET parameter at any treatment phase with any endpoint in patients with SCLC. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated by a random effects model for the prognostic value of the baseline maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and metabolic tumor volume (MTV). The qualitative analysis included 38 studies, of these, 19 studies were included in the meta-analyses. The pooled results showed that high baseline MTV was prognostic for overall survival (OS) (HR: 2.83 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.00–4.01) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR: 3.11 (95% CI: 1.99–4.90)). The prognostic value of SUVmax was less pronounced (OS: HR: 1.50 (95% CI: 1.17–1.91); PFS: HR: 1.24 (95% CI: 0.94–1.63)). Baseline MTV is a strong prognosticator for OS and PFS in patients with SCLC. MTV has a prognostic value superior to those of other PET parameters, but whether MTV is superior to other prognosticators of tumor burden needs further investigation.

show abstract

Section: Baseline Suvmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Baseline Suvmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prognostic Value of 18F–FDG–PET Parameters in Patients with Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Current Literature

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…SCLC is characterized as being sensitive to chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and emerging therapies for SCLC include immunotherapy and targeted therapy (3). Despite the progress in treatment, the prognosis of SCLC is usually poor, with a median survival of ∼1 year at any stage (4). Therefore, identifying novel and effective prognostic biomarkers is crucial to formulate treatment strategies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prognostic and Clinicopathological Value of Programmed Cell Death Ligand1 Expression in Patients With Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) is an immune checkpoint molecule expressed by cancer cells. Previous studies have demonstrated the prognostic role of PD-L1 expression in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC), where the results were inconsistent. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to identify the prognostic impact of PD-L1 on SCLC. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for articles published before and on March 2nd, 2020. Data of PD-L1 expression in tumor cells detected using immunohistochemistry methods were extracted for analysis. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with confidence intervals (CIs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were calculated to assess the correlations among PD-L1, overall survival (OS), and clinicopathological factors. Results: Nine studies of 921 patients published between 2015 and 2019 were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled data (HR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.46-1.80, p = 0.787) indicated that PD-L1 expression is not a significant predictor of poor OS. Moreover, the results also revealed that PD-L1 expression is not significantly associated with gender (OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.73-1.74, p = 0.601), age (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.58-2.30, p = 0.683), pN stage (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.24-1.72, p = 0.381), pT stage (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.26-5.23, p = 0.847), serum lactate dehydrogenase level (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.13-8.43, p = 0.958), or performance status (OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.24-1.95, p = 0.479). No significant publication bias was detected in this meta-analysis. Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that PD-L1 expression is not a significant prognostic factor of poor survival in SCLC. Because of significant variations, high-quality studies are needed to validate our results.

show abstract

Chemoimmunotherapy in patients with extensive‐stage small cell lung cancer and a poor performance status

Agarwal,

Liu,

Almquist

et al. 2023

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitor combined with platinum‐etoposide is the standard first‐line therapy for patients with extensive‐stage small cell lung cancer (ES‐SCLC). The phase 3 clinical trials that led to the approval of chemoimmunotherapy in ES‐SCLC excluded patients who had an Eastern Cooperative Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 2–3. Therefore, data on the efficacy of chemoimmunotherapy in patients with an ECOG PS of 2–3 are limited.MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed on patients diagnosed with ES‐SCLC who received chemoimmunotherapy (atezolizumab or durvalumab) within the Mayo Clinic Health System between January 2016 and January 2021. The objective of this study was to compare the overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), and best clinical response to therapy in patients with an ECOG PS of 0–1 vs. patients with an ECOG PS of 2–3 who received chemoimmunotherapy for newly diagnosed ES‐SCLC.ResultsIn total, 82 patients were included in the study. The mean ± standard deviation age was 68.1 ± 8.3 years. Of these, 56 patients were identified with an ECOG PS of 0–1, and 26 patients were identified with an ECOG PS of 2–3. The median PFS was similar regardless of ECOG PS (5.8 months [95% CI, 4.3–6.0 months] in the ECOG PS 0–1 group vs. 4.1 months [95% CI, 3.8–6.9 months] in the ECOG PS 2–3; p = .2994). The median OS was also similar regardless of ECOG PS (10.6 months [95% CI, 8.4–13.4 months] in the ECOG PS 0–1 group vs. 9.3 months [95% CI, 4.9–12.8 months]; p = .2718) in the ECOG PS 2‐3 group.ConclusionsThe study results demonstrated no significant difference in PFS or OS among the ECOG PS 2–3 and ECOG PS 0–1 groups. Therefore, chemoimmunotherapy should be considered for patients who have ES‐SCLC with an ECOG PS of 2–3.

show abstract

Trends in response rate and survival in small-cell lung cancer patients between 1997 and 2017

Cited by 22 publications

References 23 publications

Prognostic Value of 18F–FDG–PET Parameters in Patients with Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Current Literature

Prognostic Value of 18F–FDG–PET Parameters in Patients with Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Current Literature

Prognostic and Clinicopathological Value of Programmed Cell Death Ligand1 Expression in Patients With Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Chemoimmunotherapy in patients with extensive‐stage small cell lung cancer and a poor performance status

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About