4.3 Article

New insights into stage and prognosis in small cell lung cancer: an analysis of 968 cases

Journal

JOURNAL OF THORACIC DISEASE
Volume 9, Issue 12, Pages 5101-5111

Publisher

AME PUBL CO
DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2017.11.52

Keywords

Epidemiology; France; hospitals; general; mortality; small cell lung cancer (SCLC); stage

Funding

  1. AstraZeneca
  2. BMS
  3. Boehringer Ingelheim
  4. Chugai
  5. GlaxoSmithKline
  6. Lilly France
  7. MSD
  8. Novartis
  9. Pierre Fabre Oncologie
  10. Pfizer
  11. Pneumologie Developpement
  12. Roche
  13. Sanofi-Aventis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The French College of General Hospital Respiratory Physicians conducted two studies that consecutively included all patients followed in participating general hospitals for primary small cell (SCLC) or non-small cell (NSCLC) lung cancer diagnosed in 2000 and 2010. These studies allow descriptive statistics and outcome assessment for SCLC and NSCLC separately and comparison over a 10-year period. Methods: A standardised form was completed for each patient at inclusion. Then, vital status was collected. Results: In 2000 and 2010, 948 (15.5% female) and 968 (23.3%) SCLC patients, mainly heavy active-or former-smoker seniors, participated in these studies. One-year survival rate was 35.8% for SCLC vs. 44.8% for NSCLC in 2010 and 33.1% for SCLC in 2000. In 2010, in reference to stage 0-IIB (4.1% of SCLCs), the hazard ratio was 0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.6-1.5; P=0.76], 1.8 (95% CI: 1.1-2.8; P=0.019), and 3.4 (95% CI: 2.2-5.3; P<0.001) for stage IIIA (10.2%), IIIB (14.5%), and IV (71.2%). Positron emission tomography (PET)-scan use, which has increased in 10 years, was frequent in patients with limited disease. Conclusions: One-year survival in SCLC patients was poor in 2010 and dependent of SCLC stage. TNM classification reintroduction and new diagnostic techniques (e.g., PET-scan) should allow lung oncologists to tailor treatment based on disease stage at diagnosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available