Associations of Pretreatment Physical Status Parameters with Tolerance of Concurrent Chemoradiation and Survival in Patients with Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate associations between pretreatment physical status parameters and tolerance of concurrent chemoradiation (cCHRT) and survival among patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among patients with stage III NSCLC who had received cCHRT between 2006 and 2015. Multivariate independent associations were analysed between the pretreatment parameters age, Charlson comorbidity index, World Health Organization performance status (WHO performance status), body mass index (BMI), fat-free mass index (FFMI), maximal handgrip strength, forced expiratory volume in one second and carbon monoxide lung diffusion capacity on the one hand with tolerance of cCHRT (defined as a received radiation dose at least equal to the prescribed radiation dose) and survival on the other hand. RESULTS: 527 of 577 patients (91.3%) tolerated cCHRT. A WHO performance status ≥ 2 (odds ratio (OR) 0.43) and BMI < 18.5 kg/m2 (OR 0.36) were associated with poorer tolerance of cCHRT. In the total group, a WHO performance status ≥ 2 (hazard ratio (HR) 1.73), low FFMI (HR 1.23) and intolerance of cCHRT (HR 1.55) were associated with poorer survival. CONCLUSION: In patients with stage III NSCLC receiving cCHRT, poor WHO performance status and BMI < 18.5 kg/m2 were independently associated with tolerance of cCHRT. Physical status parameters and intolerance of cCHRT were independently associated with poorer survival. Besides using this information for treatment decisions, optimizing physical status in patients at risk for intolerance of cCHRT might be a next step for improving treatment outcomes.

Trends in treatment and relative survival among Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients in the Netherlands (1990-2014): Disparities between younger and older patients.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to describe trends over time regarding disparities in treatment and relative survival (RS) between younger and older patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: All patients diagnosed with pathologically verified NSCLC in 1990-2014 were included from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (n=187,315). Treatment and RS (adjusted for sex, histology and treatment) were analyzed according to age group (<70 years versus ≥70 years), stage and five-year period of diagnosis. RESULTS: Between 1990 and 2014, five-year RS increased from 17 to 22% among younger patients and from 12 to 16% among elderly. The application of surgery increased over time for elderly with stage I NSCLC, decreased for elderly with stage II, and was stable but higher for younger patients. Disparities in RS between age groups with stage I became smaller since 2000-2004, but did not change over time for stage II. For stage III and IV, both age groups showed strong increases over time in chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy from 2000 onwards, although considerably less among elderly. One-, three- and five-year RS increased more strongly over time for the younger group leading to larger disparities between age groups with stage III or IV NSCLC. CONCLUSION: More curative-intent treatment and improved RS for NSCLC were seen over time, but were less profound among elderly. Disparities herein between age groups seemed to become smaller over time for stage I NSCLC, did not change for stage II, and were widening for stage III and IV at the expense of elderly. Future prospective studies should focus on optimizing treatment selection and outcomes for elderly.

Effects of prehabilitation and rehabilitation including a home-based component on physical fitness, adherence, treatment tolerance, and recovery in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review.

This systematic review aimed to examine physical fitness, adherence, treatment tolerance, and recovery for (p)rehabilitation including a home-based component for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines were followed. Studies describing (home-based) prehabilitation or rehabilitation in patients with NSCLC were included from four databases (January 2000-April 2016, N=11). Nine of ten rehabilitation studies and one prehabilitation study (437 NSCLC patients, mean age 59-72 years) showed significantly or clinically relevant improved physical fitness. Three (27%) assessed home-based training and eight (73%) combined training at home, inhospital (intramural) and/or at the physiotherapy practice/department (extramural). Six (55%) applied supervision of home-based components, and four (36%) a personalized training program. Adherence varied strongly (9-125% for exercises, 50-100% for patients). Treatment tolerance and recovery were heterogeneously reported. Although promising results of (p)rehabilitation for improving physical fitness were found (especially in case of supervision and personalization), adequately powered studies for home-based (p)rehabilitation are needed.

Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the elderly: Patient characteristics predictive for tolerance and survival of chemoradiation in daily clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: In unselected elderly with stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC), evidence is scarce regarding motives and effects of treatment modalities. METHODS: Hospital-based multicenter retrospective study including unresectable stage III NSCLC patients aged ⩾70 and diagnosed between 2009 and 2013 (N=216). Treatment motives and tolerance (no unplanned hospitalizations and completion of treatment), and survival were derived from medical records and the Netherlands Cancer Registry. RESULTS: Patients received concurrent chemoradiation (cCHRT, 33%), sequential chemoradiation (sCHRT, 24%), radical radiotherapy (RT, 16%) or no curative treatment (27%). Comorbidity, performance status (58%) and patient refusal (15%) were the most common motives for omitting cCHRT. Treatment tolerance for cCHRT and sCHRT was worse in case of severe comorbidity (OR 6.2 (95%CI 1.6-24) and OR 6.4 (95%CI 1.8-22), respectively). One-year survival was 57%, 50%, 49% and 26% for cCHRT, sCHRT, RT and no curative treatment, respectively. Compared to cCHRT, survival was worse for no curative treatment (P=0.000), but not significantly worse for sCHRT and RT (P=0.38). CONCLUSION: Although relatively fit elderly were assigned to cCHRT, treatment tolerance was worse, especially for those with severe comorbidity. Survival seemed not significantly better as compared to sCHRT or RT. Prospective studies in this vital and understudied area are needed.