Toxicity of concurrent radiochemotherapy for locally advanced non--small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review of the literature.

Concurrent radiochemotherapy (RCT) is the treatment of choice for patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Two meta-analyses were inconclusive in an attempt to define the optimal concurrent RCT scheme. Besides efficacy, treatment toxicity will influence the appointed treatment of choice. A systematic review of the literature was performed to record the early and late toxicities, as well as overall survival, of concurrent RCT regimens in patients with NSCLC. The databases of PubMed, Ovid, Medline, and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles on concurrent RCT published between January 1992 and December 2009. Publications of phase II and phase III trials with ≥ 50 patients per treatment arm were selected. Patient characteristics, chemotherapy regimen (mono- or polychemotherapy, high or low dose) and radiotherapy scheme, acute and late toxicity, and overall survival data were compared. Seventeen articles were selected: 12 studies with cisplatin-containing regimens and 5 studies using carboplatin. A total of 13 series with mono- or polychemotherapy schedules--as single dose or double or triple high-dose or daily cisplatin-containing (≤ 30 mg/m(2)/wk) chemotherapy were found. Acute esophagitis ≥ grade 3 was observed in up to 18% of the patients. High-dose cisplatin regimens resulted in more frequent and severe hematologic toxicity, nausea, and vomiting than did other schemes. The toxicity profile was more favorable in low-dose chemotherapy schedules. From phase II and III trials published between 1992 and 2010, it can be concluded that concurrent RCT with monochemotherapy consisting of daily cisplatin results in favorable acute and late toxicity compared with concurrent RCT with single high-dose chemotherapy, doublets, or triplets.

Enhanced provider communication and patient education regarding return to work in cancer survivors following curative treatment: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: For employed cancer survivors, returning to work and maintaining employment is an important aspect of their quality of life. We developed an intervention aimed at enhancing this by means of (a) providing the patient with an educational leaflet on return to work and (b) enhancing communication between attending and occupational physicians. The purpose of this study is to test the feasibility of this intervention and to examine the relation of patient adherence to the advice of the leaflet and return to work. METHODS: A patient series of 35 employed cancer survivors was used to evaluate the intervention. Survivors completed a baseline questionnaire prior to their treatment. Survivors and occupational physicians were interviewed by telephone eight weeks following all curative treatment. Our measure of feasibility included satisfaction of survivors with the intervention, adherence to the advice, time to return to work, satisfaction of occupational physicians with the intervention, and perceived influence on their rehabilitation efforts. RESULTS: Interviews of 26 survivors and 24 occupational physicians, revealed that those groups perceived the leaflet as useful (i.e., 7 on a 0-10 scale. Also seven out of ten suggestions in the leaflet was adhered to and half of the occupational physicians perceived the guidance they provided was helpful. However there was no effect of level of adherence on actual return to work. CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of the approach used. However level of adherence to educational leaflet was not associated with an improvement in return to work in cancer survivors.