SUVmax during 18FDG-PET scanning in small cell lung cancer: similar information as in non-small cell lung cancer?

In patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18FDG-PET)-scanning is shown to be of prognostic value. Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive tumor with poor prognosis. Limited results on the prognostic and predictive value of the maximum standard uptake values (SUVmax) obtained during 18FDG-PET scanning in SCLC are available. An observational study in 75 chemonaive patients diagnosed with SCLC who underwent a 18FDG-PET scan was performed. SUVmax values of the primary tumor were related to the overall survival (OS) and the progression free survival (PFS). Significant lower SUVmax values of the primary tumor were observed in patients with stage I-III disease compared to stage IV disease. SUVmax did not discriminate for either OS or PFS in the whole group of patients. In patients with stage IV disease and treatment with chemotherapy, OS and PFS were significantly higher in patients with a high SUVmax. (p-value 0.005 and 0.002 respectively) compared to patients with a low SUVmax value. In patients with SCLC metabolic activity determined using 18FDG-PET (SUVmax) differed between stage I-III and stage IV diseases. Compared to NSCLC, the relationship between SUVmax) and prognosis seems more complex.

[Diagnostic image (167). A coughing woman with abnormalities on her chest radiogram. Aspergilloma in a necrotic lung carcinoma]. / Diagnose in beeld (167). Een hoestende vrouw met afwijkingen op de thoraxröntgenfoto. Aspergilloom in een necrotiserend long-carcinoom.

A 40-year-old woman presented with cough and fever. Chest radiography showed a cavity, due to an aspergilloma growing in a necrotic lung carcinoma.

A randomized study of gemcitabine monotherapy versus etoposide/cisplatin in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

This randomized, multinational, multicenter study was designed to determine the response rate of gemcitabine monotherapy and cisplatin/etoposide combination therapy in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced, recurrent, and/or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (stage IIIA [if inoperable], IIIB, or IV). One group of patients received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously once a week for 3 weeks (days 1, 8, and 15) followed by a 1-week rest period. The second group received cisplatin 100 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 of each 28-day cycle in combination with etoposide 100 mg/m2, administered on days 1, 2, and 3 following the cisplatin infusion. Each patient was allowed to remain on study up to a maximum of six cycles. The planned interim analysis was based on the 117 patients in the study, 116 of whom were randomized up until November 20, 1995. The efficacy analysis was performed on the 107 patients who had data from a minimum of two cycles, whereas the safety analysis was based on data from all 116 randomized patients. In the gemcitabine arm there were 10 of 52 (19%) partial responders; in the cisplatin/etoposide arm there were four (7%) of 54 partial responders. There was a statistically significant difference in the response rates between the two arms, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.6% to 32.1% (P = .040). The median time to progressive disease was 4.2 months for gemcitabine patients and 3.7 months for cisplatin/etoposide patients. There was significantly more alopecia and nausea and vomiting in the cisplatin/etoposide arm compared with the gemcitabine arm, as well as two cases of neutropenic sepsis in the cisplatin/etoposide arm. These data indicate that single-agent gemcitabine is at least as effective as the combination of cisplatin/etoposide in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer and has an improved safety profile.

Single-agent gemcitabine versus cisplatin-etoposide: early results of a randomised phase II study in locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This randomised study was designed to determine the response rate survival and toxicity of single-agent gemcitabine and cisplatin-etoposide in chemo-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 was given as a 30 min intravenous infusion on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, and etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1 (following cisplatin), 2 and 3. Major eligibility criteria included histologically confirmed non-small-cell lung cancer, measurable disease, Zubrod PS 0-2; no prior chemotherapy, no prior radiation of the measured lesion, and no CNS metastases. RESULTS: 146 patients were enrolled, 71 patients on gemcitabine and 75 patients on cisplatin-etoposide. Patient characteristics were well matched across both arms. Sixty-six gemcitabine patients and 72 cisplatin-etoposide patients were evaluable. Partial responses were seen in 12 gemcitabine patients (18.2%; 95% CI: 9.8-30) and 11 cisplatin-etoposide patients (15.3%; 95% CI: 7.9-25.7). Early indications show no statistical differences between the two treatments with respect to time to disease progression or survival. Haematological and laboratory toxicity were moderate and manageable. However, hospitalisation because of neutropenic fever was required for 6 (8%) cisplatin-etoposide patients but not for any gemcitabine patients. Non-haematological toxicity was more pronounced with significant differences in nausea and vomiting (grade 3 and 4: 11% gemcitabine vs. 29% cisplatin-etoposide; despite the allowance for 5-HT3 antiemetics during the first cycle of cisplatin-etoposide), and alopecia (grade 3 and 4:3% gemcitabine vs. 62% cisplatin-etoposide). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomised study, single-agent gemcitabine was at least as active but better tolerated than the combination cisplatin-etoposide.