Commonwealth Neuroendocrine Tumour Research Collaboration and the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Lung Neuroendocrine Tumors: An International Collaborative Endorsement and Update of the 2015 European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society Expert Consensus Guidelines.

Lung neuroendocrine tumors (LNETs) are uncommon cancers, and there is a paucity of randomized evidence to guide practice. As a result, current guidelines from different neuroendocrine tumor societies vary considerably. There is a need to update and harmonize global consensus guidelines. This article reports the best practice guidelines produced by a collaboration between the Commonwealth Neuroendocrine Tumour Research Collaboration and the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society. We performed a formal endorsement and updating process of the 2015 European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society expert consensus article on LNET. A systematic review from January 2013 to October 2017 was conducted to procure the most recent evidence. The stepwise endorsement process involved experts from all major subspecialties, patients, and advocates. Guided by discussion of the most recent evidence, each statement from the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society was either endorsed, modified, or removed. New consensus statements were added if appropriate. The search yielded 1109 new publications, of which 230 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 12 statements were endorsed, 22 statements were modified or updated, one was removed, and two were added. Critical answered questions for each topic in LNET were identified. Through the consensus process, guidelines for the management of patients with local and metastatic neuroendocrine tumors have been updated to include both recent evidence and practice changes relating to technological and definitional advances. The guidelines provide clear, evidence-based statements aimed at harmonizing the global approach to patients with LNETs, on the basis of the principles of person-centered and LNET-specific care. The importance of LNET-directed research and person-centered care throughout the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up journey is emphasized along with directions for future collaborative research.

Selumetinib in patients receiving standard pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic KRAS wildtype or unknown non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: A randomized, multicenter, phase II study. Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) IND.219.

INTRODUCTION: Activation of the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway may confer resistance to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY142886), a MEK1/2 inhibitor combined with chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC was evaluated in two schedules to evaluate efficacy and toxicity. METHODS: IND.219 was a three-arm study of first line pemetrexed/platinum chemotherapy with two schedules of selumetinib (Arm A: intermittent given on days 2-19; Arm B: continuous given on days 1-21) versus chemotherapy alone (Arm C). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); secondary objectives were tolerability, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS). The trial was stopped at the planned interim analysis. RESULTS: Arms A/B/C enrolled 20/21/21 patients, ORR was 35% (95% CI 15-59% median duration 3.8 months), 62% (95% CI 38-82%; median duration 6.3 months), 24% (95% CI 8-47%; median duration 11.6 months) respectively. The PFS (months Arm A, B, C) was 7.5, 6.7, 4.0 respectively (hazard ratio (HR) PFS Arm A over Arm C: 0.76 [95% CI, 0.38-1.51, 2-sided p = 0.42]; Arm B over Arm C 0.75 [95% CI 0.37-1.54, p = 0.43]. Skin and gastrointestinal adverse events were more common with the addition of selumetinib. A high incidence of venous thromboembolism was seen in all arms. CONCLUSIONS: Selumetinib combined with chemotherapy was associated with a higher response rate. Continuous selumetinib appeared to be superior to an intermittent schedule. PFS was prolonged with the addition of selumetinib, however this was not statistically significant.

Temporal characterization of serum metabolite signatures in lung cancer patients undergoing treatment.

Lung cancer causes more deaths in men and women than any other cancer related disease. Currently, few effective strategies exist to predict how patients will respond to treatment. We evaluated the serum metabolomic profiles of 25 lung cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy ± radiation to evaluate the feasibility of metabolites as temporal biomarkers of clinical outcomes. Serial serum specimens collected prospectively from lung cancer patients were analyzed using both nuclear magnetic resonance (1H-NMR) spectroscopy and gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Multivariate statistical analysis consisted of unsupervised principal component analysis or orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis with significance assessed using a cross-validated ANOVA. The metabolite profiles were reflective of the temporal distinction between patient samples before during and after receiving therapy (1H-NMR, p < 0.001: and GC-MS p < 0.01). Disease progression and survival were strongly correlative with the GC-MS metabolite data whereas stage and cancer type were associated with 1H-NMR data. Metabolites such as hydroxylamine, tridecan-1-ol, octadecan-1-ol, were indicative of survival (GC-MS p < 0.05) and metabolites such as tagatose, hydroxylamine, glucopyranose, and threonine that were reflective of progression (GC-MS p < 0.05). Metabolite profiles have the potential to act as prognostic markers of clinical outcomes for lung cancer patients. Serial 1H-NMR measurements appear to detect metabolites diagnostic of tumor pathology, while GC-MS provided data better related to prognostic clinical outcomes, possibility due to physiochemical bias related to specific biochemical pathways. These results warrant further study in a larger cohort and with various treatment options.

Surveys of Cancer Patients and Cancer Health Care Providers Regarding Complementary Therapy Use, Communication, and Information Needs.

BACKGROUND: Complementary therapies (CTs) are increasingly utilized by cancer patients. Nonetheless, patients report insufficient support from health care practitioners (HCPs) and there is a general lack of patient-practitioner communication about CT use. Best care practices suggest that HCPs should address the needs of patients, including CT use. This study examined current practices of patients and HCPs as well as their interactions relating to CTs. METHODS: A total of 481 cancer outpatients and 100 HCPs completed questionnaires. Patient questions addressed CT use and information needs; HCP questions addressed knowledge, opinions and beliefs about complementary and alternative medicine. Patient-practitioner communication around CT was also examined. RESULTS: 47% of patients reported using CTs since diagnosis. Many commenced CT use to improve quality of life (65%) based on recommendations from family or friends. Patients acknowledged the need for trusted sources of information and would attend a hospital-based education program (72%). HCPs reported limited training about CTs but most (90%) expressed interested in receiving more training. The majority of HCPs (>80%) reported limited knowledge about the role of CTs in cancer care or evidence to support CT use. Questions about communication and interactions revealed that 80% of patients reported not having had an HCP speak to them about CTs. However, 63% of HCPs reported addressing CT use. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrate a need for improved CT education and training for patients and HCPs. increasing HCP knowledge and clinical skills will ensure patients' information needs about CTs are acknowledged and attended to, thereby providing safer and comprehensive cancer care.

Variations in intensity of end-of-life cancer therapy by cancer type at a Canadian tertiary cancer centre between 2003 and 2010.

BACKGROUND: Aggressive medical management of cancer patients at the end of life (EOL) is an indicator of health services quality. We evaluated the variations in EOL cancer therapy utilization and in acute care hospital deaths across different types of cancer within the setting of a regionalized cancer program. METHODS: Intravenous chemotherapy and radiotherapy use within the last 14 and 30 days of life was identified through the Alberta Cancer Registry and then verified by chart review for cancer decedents residing within 50 km of the Tom Baker Cancer Centre between 2003 and 2010. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine variations in outcomes of interest by cancer, adjusting for age and other factors in prespecified models. RESULTS: Of the 9863 decedents included in the study, 3.0 and 6.3 % received chemotherapy within the final 14 and 30 days of life, respectively. In multivariable model, breast, hematological, and gynecological cancers were at least 2.5 times more likely than other cancers to undergo EOL chemotherapy. Radiotherapy was given to 4.6 % of decedents within 14 days of death, but only 66 % (359/542 courses) were completed as prescribed. Acute care admission within 14 days of death was seen in 44 % of decedents and 34 % died in the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: In our regional cancer program, the intensity of cancer therapies near the end of life varied considerably across different cancer types. Such variations may be unwarranted. A substantial proportion of cancer deaths occurred in the acute care setting. Greater efforts to integrate palliative care in outpatient cancer services are needed.