Impact of 18F-Labeled Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography Versus Conventional Staging in Patients With Locally Advanced Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) typically undergo staging tests at presentation. If staging does not detect metastases, treatment consists of curative intent combined modality therapy (neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and regional radiation). Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) may detect more asymptomatic distant metastases, but the evidence is based on uncontrolled studies. METHODS: For inclusion, patients had histological evidence of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast and TNM stage III or IIb (T3N0, but not T2N1). Consenting patients from six regional cancer centers in Ontario were randomly assigned to 18F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose PET-CT or conventional staging (bone scan, CT of the chest/abdomen and pelvis). The primary end point was upstaging to stage IV. A key secondary outcome was receiving curative intent combined modality therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02751710). RESULTS: Between December 2016 and April 2022, 184 patients were randomly assigned to whole-body PET-CT and 185 patients to conventional staging. Forty-three (23%) PET-CT patients were upstaged to stage IV compared with 21 (11%) conventional staged patients (absolute difference, 12.3% [95% CI, 3.9 to 19.9]; P = .002). Consequently, treatment was changed in 35 (81.3%) of 43 upstaged PET-CT patients and 20 (95.2%) of the 21 upstaged conventional patients. Subsequently, 149 (81%) patients in the PET-CT group received combined modality treatment versus 165 (89.2%) patients in the conventional staging group (absolute difference, 8.2% [95% CI, 0.1 to 15.4]; P = .03). CONCLUSION: In patients with LABC, PET-CT detected more distant metastases than conventional staging, and fewer PET-CT patients received combined modality therapy. Our randomized trial demonstrates the utility of the PET-CT staging strategy.

Postoperative Adjuvant Systemic Therapy in Completely Resected Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review.

The purpose of the present review was to determine whether the use of postoperative adjuvant systemic therapy in patients with completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) improves survival. Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care reviewed the evidence to update previously published recommendations for patients with completely resected NSCLC. Relevant studies were identified from a systematic MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews search of studies published from 2010 to 2016. All phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and relevant systematic reviews were included. Data on overall survival (OS), disease-free survival, adverse events, and quality of life were extracted from each of the studies. Two relevant systematic reviews, 13 RCTs, and a series of pooled analyses by Lung Adjuvant Cisplatin Evaluation-Biomarker were included in the present review. Adjuvant chemotherapy statistically significantly improved OS for resected stage II-IIIA NSCLC and is recommended. For patients with stage IB NSCLC, no significant improvement was seen in OS; however, the results from subgroup analyses indicate that it would be reasonable to consider adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with larger tumors (≥ 4 cm). The present data do not support the use of adjuvant novel therapies (ie, epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, bevacizumab, and immunotherapy) either as an addition to, or instead of, cytotoxic chemotherapy. No predictive biomarkers are available to select patients more likely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Cytotoxic chemotherapy remains the standard of care as adjuvant therapy for patients with resected stage II-IIIA NSCLC. Additional clinical trials are needed to evaluate targeted agents in molecularly defined subgroups before these agents can be recommended in the adjuvant setting.

Phase II study of vandetanib or placebo in small-cell lung cancer patients after complete or partial response to induction chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study BR.20.

PURPOSE: This double-blind randomized phase II trial examined whether vandetanib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial and epidermal growth factor receptors, could prolong progression-free survival in responding patients with small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) to combination chemotherapy (+/- thoracic or prophylactic cranial radiation) received oral vandetanib 300 mg/d or matched placebo. With 100 patients and 77 events, the study had 80% power to detect an improvement in median progression-free survival from 4 to 6.5 months (one-sided, 10%-level test). RESULTS: Between May 2003 and March 2006, 107 patients were accrued; 46 had limited disease and 61 extensive disease. There were fewer patients with a performance status of 0 (n = 11 v 20), and fewer had CR to initial therapy (n = 4 v 8) in the vandetanib arm. Vandetanib patients had more toxicity and required more dose modifications for gastrointestinal toxicity and rash. Asymptomatic Corrected QT interval (QTC) prolongation was observed in eight vandetanib patients. Median progression-free survival for vandetanib and placebo was 2.7 and 2.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 80% CI, 0.75 to 1.36; one-sided P = .51). Overall survival for vandetanib was 10.6 versus 11.9 months for placebo (HR, 1.43; 80% CI, 1.00 to 2.05; one-sided P = 0.9). In planned subgroup analyses, a significant interaction was noted (P = .01): limited-stage vandetanib patients had longer overall survival (HR, 0.45; one-sided P = .07) and extensive-stage vandetanib patients shorter survival compared with placebo (HR, 2.27; one-sided P = .996). CONCLUSION: Vandetanib failed to demonstrate efficacy as maintenance therapy for small-cell lung cancer.