Clinical outcomes in stage III non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with durvalumab after sequential or concurrent platinum-based chemoradiotherapy - single institute experience.

BACKGROUND: Chemoradiotherapy (ChT-RT) followed by 12-month durvalumab is the new standard treatment for unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Survival data for patients from everyday routine clinical practice is scarce, as well as potential impact on treatment efficacy of sequential or concomitant chemotherapy and the usage of gemcitabine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed unresectable stage III NSCLC patients who were treated with durvalumab after radical concurrent or sequential chemotherapy (ChT) from December 2017 and completed treatment until December 2020. We assessed progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity regarding baseline characteristic of patients. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients with median age of 63 years of which 70.6% were male, 56.5% in stage IIIB and 58.8% with squamous cell carcinoma, were included in the analysis. Thirty-one patients received sequential ChT only, 51 patients received induction and concurrent ChT and 3 patients received concurrent ChT only. Seventy-nine patients (92.9%) received gemcitabine and cisplatin as induction chemotherapy and switched to etoposide and cisplatin during concurrent treatment with radiotherapy (RT). Patients started durvalumab after a median of 57 days (range 12-99 days) from the end of the RT and were treated with the median of 10.8 (range 0.5-12 months) months. Forty-one patients (48.2%) completed treatment with planned 12-month therapy, 25 patients (29.4%) completed treatment early due to the toxicity and 16 patients (18.8%) due to the disease progression. Median PFS was 22.0 months, 12- and estimated 24-month PFS were 71% (95% CI: 61.2-80.8%) and 45.8% (95% CI: 32.7-58.9%). With the median follow-up time of 23 months (range 2-35 months), median OS has not been reached. Twelve- and estimated 24-month OS were 86.7% (95% CI: 79.5-93.9%) and 68.6% (95% CI: 57.2-79.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Our survival data are comparable with published research as well as with recently published real-world reports. Additionally, the regimen with gemcitabine and platinum-based chemotherapy as induction treatment was efficient and well tolerated.

The role of PET-CT in radiotherapy planning of solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: PET-CT is becoming more and more important in various aspects of oncology. Until recently it was used mainly as part of diagnostic procedures and for evaluation of treatment results. With development of personalized radiotherapy, volumetric and radiobiological characteristics of individual tumour have become integrated in the multistep radiotherapy (RT) planning process. Standard anatomical imaging used to select and delineate RT target volumes can be enriched by the information on tumour biology gained by PET-CT. In this review we explore the current and possible future role of PET-CT in radiotherapy treatment planning. After general explanation, we assess its role in radiotherapy of those solid tumours for which PET-CT is being used most. CONCLUSIONS: In the nearby future PET-CT will be an integral part of the most radiotherapy treatment planning procedures in an every-day clinical practice. Apart from a clear role in radiation planning of lung cancer, with forthcoming clinical trials, we will get more evidence of the optimal use of PET-CT in radiotherapy planning of other solid tumours.

Assessment of publication output in the field of general practice and family medicine and by general practitioners and general practice institutions.

PURPOSE: The discipline of family medicine (FM) lacks a comprehensive methodology, which can be applied as a standard for assessing overall research output in both the field of FM and by general practitioners (GPs)/general practice institutions. It was the aim of this study to develop a sensitive search strategy for assessing publication output in the field of FM independent of the author's profession or affiliation and by GPs/general practice institutions independent of their field of scientific interest. METHODS: Literature searches limited to the year 2005 were conducted in PubMed and ISI Web of Sciences (ISI WoS). In PubMed, all relevant MeSH terms were used. Search terms possibly contained in the author's affiliations have been collected. In ISI WoS, the same entry terms including their abbreviations and plural forms were applied. The final queries were validated by manual review and matching results with selected FM journals. RESULTS: A comprehensive list of combined search terms could be defined. For the field of general practice/FM more publications could be retrieved in PubMed. Almost twice as many publications by GPs/general practice institutions could be retrieved in ISI WoS, where--in contrast to PubMed--the affiliation is documented for all authors. CONCLUSIONS: To quantitatively assess publication output in the field of FM, PubMed was identified as the preferable database. To assess publication output by GPs/general practice institutions, the ISI WoS is recommended as the preferable database. Apparently, the ISI WoS is more suitable to compare the research productivity of different countries, authors or institutions.