John W.G. van Putten

BACKGROUND: Determining the stage of non-small-cell lung cancer often requires multiple preoperative tests and invasive procedures. Whole-body positron-emission tomography (PET) may simplify and improve the evaluation of patients with this tumor. METHODS: We prospectively compared the ability of a standard approach to staging (computed tomography [CT], ultrasonography, bone scanning, and, when indicated, needle biopsies) and one involving PET to detect metastases in mediastinal lymph nodes and at distant sites in 102 patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer. The presence of mediastinal metastatic disease was confirmed histopathologically. Distant metastases that were detected by PET were further evaluated by standard imaging tests and biopsies. Patients were followed postoperatively for six months by standard methods to detect occult metastases. Logistic-regression analysis was used to evaluate the ability of PET and CT to identify malignant mediastinal lymph nodes. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of PET for the detection of mediastinal metastases were 91 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 81 to 100 percent) and 86 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 78 to 94 percent), respectively. The corresponding values for CT were 75 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 60 to 90 percent) and 66 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 55 to 77 percent). When the results of PET and CT were adjusted for each other, only PET results were positively correlated with the histopathological findings in mediastinal lymph nodes (P<0.001). PET identified distant metastases that had not been found by standard methods in 11 of 102 patients. The sensitivity and specificity of PET for the detection of both mediastinal and distant metastatic disease were 95 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 88 to 100 percent) and 83 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 74 to 92 percent), respectively. The use of PET to identify the stage of the disease resulted in a different stage from the one determined by standard methods in 62 patients: the stage was lowered in 20 and raised in 42. CONCLUSIONS: PET improves the rate of detection of local and distant metastases in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of paclitaxel and carboplatin (PC) in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients resistant to cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CDE). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a phase II study with PC in SCLC patients who relapsed within 3 months after first-line treatment with CDE. Paclitaxel administration (175 mg/m2 by a 3-hour intravenous infusion) was followed by a 30-minute infusion of carboplatin (area under the curve 7; Chatelut formula) once every 3 weeks for five cycles. Dexamethasone, clemastine, and ranitidine were standard premedication before every cycle. RESULTS: Included were 35 patients (median age, 59 years; 16 with limited disease and 19 with extensive disease; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of < or = 1; median time off treatment 6 weeks) who were previously treated with CDE (n = 33), oral etoposide (n = 2), and reinduction CDE (n = 15); only one patient had received three CDE treatments of five cycles. The CDE regimen was followed by local thoracic radiotherapy in seven patients. Hematologic toxicity of grade 3 or 4, for leukopenia was 27% and 6%, for thrombocytopenia 21% and 13%, and for anemia 17% and 0%, respectively, for a total of 132 cycles. Two patients had neutropenic fever; no toxic death occurred. Nonhematologic toxicity was paresthesia CTC grade 3, diarrhea grade 4, and myalgia grade 3 in one patient each. Reversible paresthesia (CTC grade 1 and 2) in toes and fingers was reported in 69% of patients. Thirty-four patients were assessable for response: complete response in two patients, partial response in 23 patients, stable disease in eight patients, and progressive disease in one patient (response rate, 73.5%; 95% confidence interval, 59% to 88%). One patient was found to have atypical carcinoid at pathologic review and was excluded. Median time to progression was 21 weeks (range, 3 to 40 weeks). Median survival was 31 weeks (range, 6 to 112 weeks). One-year survival was 9%. CONCLUSION: Second-line PC in CDE-resistant SCLC patients yields a high response rate and seems non-cross-resistant to CDE. Toxicity was mild in these poor-prognosis patients.

PURPOSE: Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) protein expression in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) may be not only a prognostic marker but also predictive for COX-2 inhibition. We hypothesized that COX-2 expression is associated with shorter survival and that celecoxib, being a potent COX-2 inhibitor, increases tumor response and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A phase III study was performed in patients with stage IIIb/IV NSCLC who had pathologic confirmation, no prior chemotherapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2, and adequate organ function. Treatment consisted of docetaxel and carboplatin every 3 weeks for five cycles. Patients were randomly assigned to receive celecoxib 400 mg or placebo twice daily. COX-2 expression on tumor cells was detected by immunohistochemistry. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: From July 2003 to December 2007, 561 patients were randomly assigned. Toxicity was mild, and no increase in cardiovascular events was observed. Tumor response was 38% in the celecoxib arm and 30% in the placebo arm (P = .08). Median progression-free survival was 4.5 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 4.8) for the celecoxib arm and 4.0 months (95% CI, 3.6 to 4.9) for the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.1; P = .25). Median OS was 8.2 months (95% CI, 7.5 to 8.8) for both treatment arms (HR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.2; P = .32). COX-2 expression did not independently predict survival. Benefit from celecoxib, restricted to patients with low COX-2 expression, was not significant when adjusted for prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: In advanced NSCLC, celecoxib does not improve survival. In this study, COX-2 expression was not a prognostic biomarker and had no predictive value when celecoxib was added to chemotherapy.