A significant number of lung cancer patients develop more than one primary tumor. The tumors arise independently and are not cases of one original tumor spreading to other sites or recurring after removal. This condition, known as multiple primary lung cancer (MPLC), is often treated surgically. However, not all patients are eligible for surgery. A recent study retroactively examined the records of patients with early-stage MPLC who had been treated with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), a form of radiotherapy that uses high radiation doses over relatively few sessions, instead of surgery. Patients experienced good tumor control rates, and almost half survived for 4 years or more. SABR may be an effective treatment option for patients with inoperable MPLC.
International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer | Jul 1, 2013
Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), a type of radiotherapy that uses high doses of radiation given over a comparatively small number of sessions, is the treatment of choice for patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who cannot undergo surgery because of other medical problems. However, until now the use of SBRT for these patients was based on limited evidence. A systematic study spanning several institutes found that SBRT (sometimes also called stereotactic ablative radiotherapy or SABR) for stage I NSCLC was safe and effective. Higher radiation doses were associated with better outcomes.
Researchers have constructed a model to assess the cost-effectiveness of different treatments for stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) based on treatment costs, predicted life expectancy, and expected quality of life. Model simulations indicate that lobectomy (removal of an entire subsection of the lungs) is the most cost-effective treatment for patients whose cancer is clearly operable. For patients who are only borderline eligible for surgery due to poor health (‘marginally operable’), who often cannot withstand lobectomy, a type of radiotherapy called stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), also known as stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), was found to be more cost-effective than wedge resection (removal of a small piece of lung containing the cancer).
A recent study found stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) to be safe and effective for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment, offering better tumor control, lower toxicity, and greater convenience than conventional radiation therapy. The retrospective study focused on patients with NSCLC who could not be treated with surgery. Outcomes were especially beneficial for tumors that were smaller and had lower metabolism (measured by sugar absorption rate). SABR, also called stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), uses higher doses of radiation over a smaller number of sessions compared to conventional radiation therapy.
Results of a clinical trial that evaluated the prostate cancer vaccine Provenge have come under scrutiny. Questions arise regarding the reported 4-month survival benefit that ultimately led to FDA approval. Disputers suggest that a flaw in methods led to the survival benefit, but that the vaccine may actually cause harm.
A recent study evaluated the usefulness of surgery versus observation to treat localized prostate cancer. In the study, 731 men were followed for 10 years. Those treated with surgery did not have a significant decreased risk of death compared to those who were observed for advancing cancer.
A recent study weighed the benefits of yearly prostate cancer screening, finding that the potential disadvantages decrease the potential advantages by 23%. Harmful results of yearly prostate screening include negative prostate biopsies, radical prostatectomy, and radiation therapy.
A recent study found a relationship between the SPARCL1 gene and prostate cancer recurrence. Individuals who had lower activity of the gene had a higher risk of prostate cancer recurrence over 10 years. A test to detect SPARCL1 is being designed.
The New England Journal of Medicine | Oct 25, 2012
The utility of (prostate-specific antigen) PSA screening to inform prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment has been a topic of heated debate. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) conducted a poll that indicates a lack of consensus among clinicians regarding best prostate cancer screening practices. Many clinicians feel patients should make informed decisions regarding testing preferences.