|
Advertisement |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Originally published as JCO Early Release 10.1200/JCO.2004.09.053 on December 22 2003 © 2004 American Society of Clinical Oncology.
American Society of Clinical Oncology Treatment of Unresectable Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Guideline: Update 2003From the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA Address reprint requests to American Society of Clinical Oncology, Cancer Policy and Clinical Affairs, 1900 Duke St, Suite 200, Alexandria, VA 22314; e-mail: guidelines{at}asco.org
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) previously published evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of unresectable non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [1]. ASCO guidelines are updated periodically by the responsible Expert Panel (Appendix) [2]. For the 2003 update, a methodology similar to that applied in the original ASCO practice guidelines for treatment of unresectable NSCLC was used. Pertinent information published from 1996 through March 2003 was reviewed. The MEDLINE database (1996 through October 2002; National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD) was searched to identify relevant information from the published literature for this update. A series of searches was conducted using the medical subject headings, "carcinoma, non–small-cell lung," "diagnostic imaging," "neoplasm staging," "mediastinoscopy," "bone neoplasms," "brain neoplasms," "liver neoplasms," "adrenal gland neoplasms," "non–small-cell lung cancer," "radionuclide imaging," "bisphosphonates," "radiotherapy," "smoking," "chemoprevention," and the text words "chemotherapy," "bone scan," "PET," and "zoledronic acid." These terms were combined with the study design–related subject headings or text words "meta-analysis" and "randomized controlled trial." Search results were limited to human studies and English-language articles. The Cochrane Library was searched in October 2002 using the phrase "lung cancer." Directed searches based on the bibliographies of primary articles were also performed. Randomized trials published in the literature since October 2002, as well as data presented at ASCO Annual Meetings, were added to the evidence for these guidelines at the discretion of members of the Expert Panel. The entire update committee met once to discuss strategy and assign responsibilities for the update. A writing committee subsequently met to further review the literature searches, collate different sections of the update, and refine the manuscript. A draft update was circulated to the full Expert Panel for review and approval. The final document was also reviewed by ASCO's Health Services Research Committee and the ASCO Board of Directors. Each recommendation from the 1997 guideline is listed below, and is followed by an updated (2003) recommendation, if applicable. "No change" is indicated if a particular recommendation has not been revised. A summary of the evidence follows thereafter. In order to preserve the framework of the 1997 guideline, information and recommendations regarding major topics, such as fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), have been divided and distributed to the appropriate section of the text. ASCO considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary. The ultimate determination regarding their application is to be made by the physician in light of each patient's individual circumstances. In addition, these guidelines describe evaluations and administration of therapies in clinical practice; they cannot be assumed to apply to interventions performed in the context of clinical trials, given that such clinical studies are designed to test innovative management strategies in a disease for which better treatment is sorely needed. However, by reviewing and synthesizing the latest literature, this practice guideline serves to identify questions for further research and the settings in which investigational therapy should be considered.
DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION OF PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED LUNG CANCER Staging Locoregional Disease 1997 Recommendations: 1. A chest x-ray and chest computed tomography (CT) scan with infusion of contrast material are recommended to stage locoregional disease. The CT scan should extend inferiorly to include the liver and adrenal glands.
2. For patients with clinically operable NSCLC, biopsy is recommended of mediastinal lymph nodes found on chest CT scan 2003 Recommendations: 1. A chest x-ray and chest CT scan with infusion of contrast material are recommended to stage locoregional disease. The CT scan should extend inferiorly to include the liver and adrenal glands. Assuming there is no evidence of distant metastatic disease on CT scan, FDG-PET scanning complements CT scan and is recommended. 2. For patients with clinically operable NSCLC, biopsy is recommended of mediastinal lymph nodes found on chest CT scan to be greater than 1.0 cm in shortest transverse axis, or positive on FDG-PET scanning. Negative FDG-PET scanning does not preclude biopsy of radiographically enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes. Evidence Summary Despite advances in noninvasive methods of staging locoregional disease, including FDG-PET scan, mediastinoscopy remains important for the accurate detection of cancer in mediastinal lymph nodes. There have been numerous, nonrandomized studies of FDG-PET to evaluate mediastinal lymph nodes using surgery (mediastinoscopy and/or thoracotomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection) as the gold standard of comparison [3-32]. These studies vary in quality and design, but the predominant theme is that the accuracy of FDG-PET alone is consistently superior to CT scanning alone, with an excellent negative predictive value (NPV; reported range, 87% to 100%) [21-32]. Granted, the patient populations varied among studies; however, a common trend found the positive predictive value (PPV) of FDG-PET to be lower than the NPV, with PPVs less than 80% reported in several studies [23,26,27,32]. A prospective trial studied the impact of FDG-PET on the staging of 102 patients with NSCLC, and found that the sensitivity, specificity, NPV, and PPV of FDG-PET alone for detection of mediastinal metastases were 91%, 86%, 95%, and 74%, respectively, as compared with CT scan alone, which had a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 66% [32]. False-negative results from FDG-PET were seen in small tumors, or when FDG-PET was unable to distinguish the primary lesion from contiguous lymphadenopathy. False-positive results were often caused by the presence of benign inflammatory disease. These results have been corroborated by other studies [33,34].
Data published since the 1997 guideline confirm the inadequacy of CT scan alone in staging the mediastinum [35,36]. One retrospective study of 235 patients who underwent mediastinoscopy despite normal-sized mediastinal lymph nodes on CT ( When added to CT scan, the additional information provided by FDG-PET alters patient management. A randomized, prospective study in Europe assigned 188 patients to either conventional work-up (including contrast-enhanced CT scan), or conventional work-up plus FDG-PET. Those who had FDG-PET had a significant reduction in the number of unnecessary thoracotomies (relative reduction, 51%; 95% CI, 32% to 80%; P = .003) [39]. Other smaller, nonrandomized studies have found similar results [25,40,41]. FDG-PET may also prove useful in planning radiation treatment for patients with localized disease by minimizing treatment volumes, and/or identifying regional lymph nodes which might otherwise not be included in the treatment field [42-44]. A nonrandomized, prospective study of 153 patients with unresectable NSCLC who were candidates for radical radiation therapy after conventional staging found that FDG-PET detected unsuspected metastasis in 20%, strongly influenced choice of treatment strategy, frequently impacted radiotherapy planning, and was a powerful predictor of survival [45]. In reviewing the rapidly evolving data for locoregional staging of NSCLC, the Panel agrees that FDG-PET provides information which impacts on both staging and management. The Panel still regards mediastinoscopy as necessary for the detection of cancer in mediastinal lymph nodes when the results of the CT scan and FDG-PET do not corroborate each other. Similarly, the Panel was uncomfortable excluding mediastinoscopy in patients with positive CT and positive FDG-PET in the mediastinum, in the absence of a medical contraindication to the procedure or the availability of more easily accessible biopsy tissue that would define management. The reported PPVs of FDG-PET alone are lower than the NPVs, a concern not entirely addressed by the addition of information from CT, as benign inflammatory conditions have been reported even with bulky, FDG-PET–positive mediastinal disease [23,26,27,32]. Thus, the utility of FDG-PET is to corroborate a negative CT scan or to redirect a biopsy by identifying an otherwise undetected site of metastasis. If the results of FDG-PET will not affect management, such as when distant metastatic disease is demonstrated on CT scan, the Panel does not recommend obtaining FDG-PET. Decision analyses demonstrate that FDG-PET may reduce the overall costs of medical care by identifying patients with falsely negative CT scans in the mediastinum, or otherwise undetected sites of metastases [46-48]. However, these studies concluded that the money saved by forgoing mediastinoscopy in FDG-PET–positive mediastinal lesions was not justified due to the unacceptably high number of false-positive results [46-48]. While many new techniques for mediastinal lymph node sampling are being studied, none have acquired sufficient evidence to supplant mediastinoscopy. Transbronchial needle biopsy of mediastinal nodes is currently being utilized at some centers [49]. This technique, along with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration, seem to be lower-risk procedures that can give cytologic evidence of malignant mediastinal disease in place of mediastinoscopy [50-55]. A retrospective review of 194 patients undergoing transbronchoscopic needle aspiration concluded that this technique could replace more invasive procedures, with overall sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of 71% and 73%, respectively [56]. Transbronchial needle biopsy and mediastinoscopy are often complementary, in that some nodes cannot be sampled with mediastinoscopy (ie, subcarinal nodes). Cytologic evidence of benign cells is of limited diagnostic value. Still, early positive results using transbronchial biopsy or endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration can limit cost, or provide easier preoperative evaluation of contralateral mediastinal nodes [57-60]. Another potential tool to assist in locoregional staging is video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). VATS has proven useful for assessment of the pleura and mediastinum, biopsy of peripheral lesions, and biopsy of suspicious contralateral lesions [61]. Prospective, nonrandomized studies have demonstrated the added benefit of VATS compared with CT staging alone in patients with histologically confirmed NSCLC and negative mediastinoscopy [62]. It should be noted that the International System for Staging of Lung Cancer has been revised since the last guideline was published, based on information from a clinical database of more than 5,000 patients [63]. Patients with T3N0 tumors are now categorized as stage IIB instead of stage III. This takes into account the slightly superior prognosis of these patients and the fact that many patients with invasion of the parietal pleura or chest wall due to pleural-based or superior sulcus tumors (T3), but with negative lymph nodes (N0), are often treated with surgery, sometimes combined with radiotherapy, and with results similar to those of patients with resected stage II disease [63-65]. Furthermore, the presence of satellite tumor(s) in the ipsilateral lung, in a distant, nonprimary tumor lobe, is now categorized as M1 disease, consistent with the poorer prognosis of this patient population [63]. Staging Distant Metastatic Disease 1997 Recommendations: 1. Bone: A bone scan should be performed only in patients who complain of (A) bone pain, or (B) chest pain, or who have (C) an elevated serum calcium level or (D) an elevated serum alkaline phosphatase level. 2. Brain: Head CT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain imaging with and without infusion of contrast material should be obtained only in patients who have signs or symptoms of CNS disease. 3. Adrenal: The finding of an isolated adrenal mass on ultrasonographic or CT scan requires biopsy to rule out metastatic disease if the patient is otherwise considered to be potentially resectable. 4. Liver: The finding of an isolated liver mass on ultrasonographic or CT scan requires biopsy to rule out metastatic disease if the patient is otherwise considered to be potentially respectable. 2003 Recommendations: 1. General: For the staging of distant metastatic disease, an FDG-PET scan is recommended when there is no evidence of distant metastatic disease on CT scan of the chest. 2. Bone: A bone scan is optional in patients who have evidence of bone metastases on FDG-PET scanning, unless there are suspicious symptoms in regions not imaged by FDG-PET. In patients with a surgically resectable primary lung lesion, bone lesions discovered on bone scan or FDG-PET require histologic confirmation, or corroboration by additional radiologic testing (x-ray, CT, and/or MRI). 3. Brain: Head CT or MRI brain imaging with and without infusion of contrast material is recommended in patients who have signs or symptoms of CNS disease, as well as asymptomatic patients with stage III disease who are being considered for aggressive local therapy (chest surgery or radiation). 4. Adrenal: The finding of an isolated adrenal mass on ultrasonography, CT scan, or FDG-PET scan requires biopsy to rule out metastatic disease if the patient is otherwise considered to be potentially resectable. 5. Liver: The finding of an isolated liver mass on ultrasonography, CT scan, or FDG-PET scan requires biopsy to rule out metastatic disease if the patient is otherwise considered to be potentially resectable. Evidence Summary Despite the existence of practice guidelines, there is still great variability in practice patterns for extrathoracic imaging of patients with NSCLC. Available data indicate that asymptomatic patients frequently undergo bone scans, CT, or MRI of the brain, and abdominal CT scans, even though the rate of discovery of distant metastases is more than three times higher among patients with clinical or laboratory signs of disease before imaging [66]. The rising use of FDG-PET during the last 5 years has made contemporary staging of patients with metastatic disease even more diverse. FDG-PET scans performed to evaluate locoregional disease commonly extend through the pelvis, and thereby screen for distant sites of metastasis [67-70]. This changes the paradigm whereby symptoms, physical or laboratory findings, or perceived risk of distant metastasis prompt an active decision to evaluate for distant disease spread, as the additional information from FDG-PET scan is often unsolicited. There is a lack of randomized, controlled studies to evaluate FDG-PET, and other radiologic techniques as well, in the staging of distant metastatic disease. However, similar to the case in staging locoregional disease, numerous nonrandomized, prospective and retrospective studies have demonstrated that FDG-PET seems to offer diagnostic advantages over conventional imaging in staging distant metastatic disease, and the more accurate staging has an impact on choice of therapy and outcome. In the previously mentioned, nonrandomized prospective study of 102 patients with resectable NSCLC, FDG-PET correctly identified metastases in extracranial sites in 11 patients in whom the usual methods of staging had found none. The sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET for detecting distant metastases were 82% and 93%, respectively [32]. In a retrospective study of 157 patients selected for radical radiotherapy to the chest, those patients selected after staging with FDG-PET had significantly lower 1-year cancer mortality (17%) than those selected using conventional imaging (32%) [71]. Other nonrandomized, prospective and retrospective studies of FDG-PET have demonstrated its usefulness in differentiating benign versus malignant pulmonary nodules, as well as in distinguishing benign from malignant pleural effusions [72-75]. The utility of FDG-PET may vary depending on the site being evaluated, and the availability of other testing modalities. Bone: A nonrandomized, prospective study comparing FDG-PET with bone scan in 53 patients with lung cancer found that PET was superior to bone scan in detecting bone metastases, producing no false-negatives, which is in contrast to six false-negatives produced by bone scan [76]. A nonrandomized, retrospective study of 110 consecutive patients who underwent both FDG-PET and bone scan found FDG-PET to have superior accuracy in detecting bone metastases (96% v 66%) suggesting that whole-body FDG-PET may be a useful substitute for bone scanning in detecting bone metastases [77]. It should be noted that standard FDG-PET scans often do not extend below the pelvis, thereby neglecting detection of bone metastases in the long bones of the lower extremities. Brain: Because the metabolic tracer used in FDG-PET scanning accumulates in the brain and urinary tract, FDG-PET is not reliable for detection of metastases in these sites [15]. The 1997 guidelines recommend contrast-enhanced head CT or MRI only in patients with abnormal neurologic signs or symptoms. Nevertheless, brain imaging is commonly performed in asymptomatic patients, especially those being considered for aggressive local therapy such as surgery or radiation. Although early detection of brain metastases has never been shown to improve survival, it may avoid morbidity by allowing earlier treatment of the brain, or by precluding unnecessary chest surgery or radiation. Asymptomatic brain metastases occur more frequently in patients with more advanced stages of disease, with rates as high as 30% at 2 years in stage II-III patients. Higher stage and nonsquamous histology have been identified as risk factors for brain metastases [78,79]. In asymptomatic patients, gadolinium-enhanced MRI of the brain seems to be superior to CT for the detection of occult brain metastases. A recent study randomized 332 patients with potentially operable NSCLC, but without neurological symptoms, to brain CT or MRI imaging in order to detect occult brain metastasis before lung surgery. MRI showed a trend toward a higher preoperative detection rate than CT (P = .069), with an overall detection rate of approximately 7% from pretreatment to 12 months after surgery. Patients with stage I or II disease had a detection rate of 4% (8 of 200), while for individuals with stage III disease, the rate was 11.4% (15 of 132). The mean maximal diameter of the brain metastases was significantly smaller in the MRI group [80]. Whether the improved detection rate of MRI translates into improved outcome remains unknown. Not all patients are able to tolerate MRI, and for these patients, contrast-enhanced CT scan is a reasonable substitute. Adrenal: Biopsy remains the gold standard to evaluate abnormal adrenal lesions identified on CT. One retrospective study of 443 patients, in which 32 were found to have an abnormal adrenal mass on CT, concluded that CT-guided biopsy was necessary in the evaluation of suspicious adrenal masses due to the poor positive predictive values of unenhanced CT and standard MRI [81]. FDG-PET may offer a noninvasive way of distinguishing benign from malignant adrenal masses observed on CT scan. Two small, nonrandomized studies, one of which was prospective, have demonstrated a 100% sensitivity, and an 80% to 90% specificity of FDG-PET in identifying adrenal metastases, using CT-guided biopsy or clinical follow-up as the gold standard [82,83]. Noncontrast CT scanning may also be used to evaluate adrenal masses, with benign adrenal lesions tending to be lower in density—10 Hounsfield units (HU) or less [84]. Chemical shift MRI (CSMRI), also known as in-phase and opposed-phase gradient echo imaging, has also been used to evaluate suspicious but equivocal adrenal lesions seen on CT scan, or found incidentally on FDG-PET scanning. A prospective study of 42 patients undergoing biopsy of suspicious adrenal lesions found CSMRI to be 96% sensitive for adrenal adenoma, and 100% specific [85]. A decision analysis model has been used to study the most cost-effective way to evaluate an adrenal mass in patients with NSCLC [86]. Sequences which moved straight to needle biopsy after only one negative radiologic test were not cost-effective in this analysis, with unenhanced CT, CSMRI, and CT-guided biopsy being the diagnostic options. FDG-PET was not included as a diagnostic option [86]. Further validation of such an approach is required before incorporation into practice is recommended. Liver: Biopsy remains the gold standard to evaluate abnormal liver lesions identified on CT. Use of gadolinium–contrast enhancement and CSMRI is also being used to distinguish benign versus malignant liver lesions, and technological advancements may make MRI more reliable in this regard in the future [87-89].
TREATMENT
2003 Recommendations:
Evidence Summary Combined-Modality Therapy for Stage III Disease (Without Malignant Pleural/Pericardial Effusion): The benefit of adding chemotherapy to radiation therapy for stage III disease is well-established, and since 1997 has been corroborated by two additional prospective phase III trials [90-92]. The largest of the prospective trials was sponsored by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), ECOG, and the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG), and allocated 490 patients to receive 2 months of cisplatin + vinblastine chemotherapy followed by 60 Gy of radiation at 2 Gy per fraction; or one of two radiation-alone arms. Overall survival was statistically superior for the patients receiving chemotherapy and radiation versus the other two arms of the study (13.2 months v 12 months, v 11.4 months, respectively; P = .04) [91]. However, the survival benefit of combined modality treatment in this trial was substantially less than that seen in the original Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) trial [93]. Patterns of first failure showed less distant metastasis for patients who received chemotherapy compared with the radiotherapy-alone arms [94]. The results of a Cochrane review were also consistent with a survival benefit for the addition of chemotherapy in this setting [95]. Administration of chemotherapy concurrently with radiation therapy theoretically improves local control by sensitizing the tumor to radiation, while simultaneously treating systemic disease, albeit at the expense of greater local toxicity. Two large phase III studies suggest improvement in both local control and survival with concurrent chemoradiotherapy as compared with sequential chemotherapy followed by radiation for patients with stage III NSCLC. RTOG 94-10 randomized 611 patients to three arms: sequential cisplatin + vinblastine followed by thoracic radiation to a total dose of 60 Gy delivered in daily fractions; concurrent cisplatin + vinblastine with radiation to a total dose of 60 Gy delivered in daily fractions; or cisplatin + etoposide concurrent with radiation to a total dose of 69.6 Gy delivered in twice-a-day fractions. Although rates of nonhematologic toxicity were higher on the concurrent arms, median survival time trended toward superiority in the concomitant chemotherapy plus daily radiation arm compared with the sequential arm (17 months v 14.6 months; P = .08), while the concomitant chemotherapy plus twice-daily radiation arm demonstrated intermediate survival compared with the other study arms [96]. A phase III study from Japan randomized 320 patients to receive either concurrent or sequential chemoradiotherapy. The concurrent arm received cisplatin, vindesine, and mitomycin throughout 5 weeks, with concurrent radiation consisting of two, 28-Gy courses (2 Gy per fraction for 14 days, 5 days per week) separated by a 10-day rest period. The sequential arm received the same chemotherapy, but radiation was initiated after completing chemotherapy, and consisted of 56 Gy (2 Gy per fraction and 5 fractions per week for a total of 28 fractions) [97]. The concurrent arm demonstrated statistically significant superiority in response rate (84% v 66%, P = .0002) and median survival time 16.5 v 13.3, P = .040), but suffered greater myelosuppression. Other chemotherapy regimens have been tested with concomitant radiation, and proven safe in phase II testing, including carboplatin + paclitaxel, gemcitabine + cisplatin, cisplatin + paclitaxel, and cisplatin + vinorelbine [98-100].These chemoradiotherapy regimens await phase III testing. One source of debate is whether the addition of induction or consolidation chemotherapy adds anything to concomitant chemoradiotherapy, with numerous intergroup trials underway [100,101]. CALGB has completed a randomized phase II study of two cycles of induction chemotherapy followed by two additional cycles of the same drugs with concomitant radiotherapy. The three treatment arms included four cycles of cisplatin (80 mg/m2) combined with either gemcitabine, paclitaxel, or vinorelbine. Radiotherapy was completed during the last two cycles to a total of 66 Gy. Response rates were similar, and median survival for all patients was 17 months with no clearly superior arm evident in this randomized phase II trial [102]. The CALGB is currently conducting a phase III trial comparing induction chemotherapy plus concomitant chemoradiotherapy versus concomitant chemoradiotherapy alone, using carboplatin + paclitaxel in both arms. One prospective, randomized trial compared sequential cisplatin + vinblastine chemotherapy followed by radiation, versus sequential cisplatin + vinblastine plus concomitant carboplatin and radiation in 283 patients with inoperable stage III NSCLC, and was unable to demonstrate benefit with the addition of concomitant carboplatin after cisplatin-based induction [103]. A randomized trial directly comparing concomitant chemoradiotherapy with radiotherapy alone has yet to be performed, and will probably not be pursued due to the superiority of concurrent chemoradiotherapy compared with historical data of single-modality therapy, and no worse than comparable results between concurrent and sequential chemoradiotherapy in randomized trials, the latter of which has been demonstrated to be superior to radiation alone. The optimal duration of chemotherapy for patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC being treated with combined-modality therapy remains a matter of debate. The 1997 guideline recommended between two and eight cycles of chemotherapy based on the number of cycles utilized among cisplatin-based combined-modality studies included in the Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group meta-analysis, and the lack of benefit seen in studies when chemotherapy was continued until progression of disease. No prospective, randomized trials have addressed this question since the 1997 guideline was published. Treatment protocols tested in recent years have used between two and four cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy combined with radiation, with results as detailed above. Trials which measure the additional benefit, if any, of induction or consolidation chemotherapy are currently underway. In the absence of compelling data, the Panel consensus was to change the recommendation for duration of initial chemotherapy to between two and four cycles of platinum-based therapy, with an upper limit of four cycles. The role of surgery following induction chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for patients with initially unresectable cancer is being explored. In phase II testing, the use of concomitant chemoradiotherapy has led to improved resectability and overall survival compared with historical controls in patients with T3 to T4 NSCLC tumors of the superior sulcus [104]. Accumulated data from surgical series suggest that induction chemotherapy does not result in increased risk of anastomotic complications in bronchoplastic or angioplastic surgical procedures, and is unlikely to limit the type of surgery which can be performed [105]. Two prospective, randomized trials support the inclusion of induction chemotherapy for patients with stage IIIA disease. One trial randomized patients with N2 disease to three cycles of preoperative mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin chemotherapy versus surgery alone (n = 60) [106]. A second trial randomized similar patients to six cycles of perioperative cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and cisplatin (three cycles before and three cycles after surgery) (n = 60) [107,108]. Both trials documented statistically significant improvements in overall survival with the use of induction chemotherapy, versus surgery alone. Another randomized trial studied induction chemotherapy with mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin, versus no chemotherapy, in 355 patients with disease ranging from stage IB to IIIA. All patients with T3 or N2 disease at thoracotomy went on to receive adjuvant radiation. This trial failed to show a significant benefit of induction chemotherapy for the subgroup of patients with stage IIIA disease [109]. Ongoing trials will determine whether patients with locally advanced tumors are better served with induction chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection, or chemoradiotherapy alone [110]. Chemotherapy for Stage IV Disease (or IIIB With Pleural/Pericardial Effusion): Given the large number of prospective, randomized controlled trials of chemotherapy for metastatic NSCLC that have been published in the last 5 years, there is much better evidence to support changes to the guidelines for treatment than there are for diagnostics. Numerous phase III trials have confirmed the superiority of systemic chemotherapy over best supportive care for patients with metastatic NSCLC who have good performance status (ECOG/Zubrod 0 to 1), and a Cochrane review also demonstrated a survival benefit [95,111-114]. Similarly, phase III trials have been used to test the best chemotherapy drugs, combinations of drugs, and schedules. The prior recommendation to use a platinum-based combination for the treatment of patients with metastatic NSCLC was based on the historical single-agent activity of cisplatin against NSCLC, as well as the results of meta-analyses suggesting a unique benefit of platinum-based chemotherapy over other DNA alkylating agents [115]. Several new chemotherapy agents, including paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and irinotecan, have demonstrated single-agent activity, with arguably less toxicity than cisplatin. These drugs have been incorporated into combination regimens with carboplatin and cisplatin, and studied in several randomized phase III trials. Much of the data suggest that the newer regimens provide higher response rates and longer survival times than single agent cisplatin, or first-generation cisplatin-based regimens [116-126]. No particular two-drug, platinum-based combination has been identified as superior in terms of efficacy, nor have three-drug combinations proven superior despite increased toxicity [127-131]. A recent phase III trial compared four platinum-based doublets in patients with metastatic NSCLC—cisplatin + paclitaxel, carboplatin + paclitaxel, cisplatin + docetaxel, and cisplatin + gemcitabine—and documented statistically equivalent response rates ranging from 17% to 22% with median survivals of approximately 8 months [132]. Cost analyses of chemotherapy continue to support the cost-effectiveness of combination and single-agent chemotherapy for patients with metastatic disease compared with best supportive care [133-135]. Given the relative equivalence in efficacy and toxicity of the platinum-based doublets, economic analyses have been performed in an attempt to identify the most cost-effective chemotherapy regimens [136,137]. Data from prospective, randomized phase III trials have been published in abstract form demonstrating that combining one of the new chemotherapy agents (paclitaxel or gemcitabine) with carboplatin is superior in terms of response rate and survival to using the new chemotherapy agent alone [138,139]. One small phase III trial (n = 169) showed equivalence in response rate and survival between single-agent gemcitabine and cisplatin + vindesine combination, with lower toxicity in the single-agent arm [140]. While data on single-agent chemotherapy versus platinum doublets continues to evolve, there are phase III trials which suggest that non–platinum-containing doublets may be equivalent to platinum doublets in terms of efficacy. In the last three years, there have been numerous phase III trials of nonplatinum combinations. A randomized trial with 441 patients compared the nonplatinum combination of docetaxel + gemcitabine with docetaxel + cisplatin at standard doses [141]. Response rates in the two treatment arms were similar (35% v 33%, respectively), with no differences seen in response duration, time to progression, or survival (median survival times, 10 v 9.5 months, respectively). However, patients treated with the docetaxel + gemcitabine regimen had less nonhematologic toxicity, such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Similarly, a phase III comparison (n = 509) of gemcitabine + paclitaxel versus carboplatin + paclitaxel showed no difference in survival (10.4 v 9.8 months), with comparable toxicity [142]. Still, the nonplatinum combinations carry higher toxicity than single-agent chemotherapy, and may not be appropriate for patients with poor performance status (ECOG/Zubrod 2). Single-agent vinorelbine, docetaxel, and paclitaxel have each demonstrated excellent tolerability and improved survival in phase III comparisons versus best supportive care. Docetaxel as a single agent resulted in superior survival versus best supportive care (two-year survival of 12% v 0%), as well as a quality of life benefit [143]. A randomized, phase III trial compared single-agent paclitaxel versus best supportive care and showed significant improvement in survival (6.8 v 4.8 months) and functional activity score, with good tolerance [144]. Therefore, one could argue that single-agent chemotherapy would be sufficient for patients with performance status (PS) 2. There have been no randomized trials which compare combination chemotherapy versus single-agent chemotherapy in patients with PS 2. Subgroup analyses from some randomized trials suggest that patients with PS 2 have a significantly higher rate of toxicity, and lower rate of response and survival than patients with PS 0 to 1 [132,145-147]. In contrast, a subgroup analysis from a recent randomized trial has shown that PS 2 patients have significantly superior survival when they receive combination carboplatin + paclitaxel compared with single agent paclitaxel (4.7 v 2.4 months, respectively, P < .05) [138]. It is important to distinguish performance status from age. Age is not an independent predictor of survival or response in randomized controlled trials of chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC. Subgroup analyses from randomized trials have documented the benefits of combination chemotherapy in all patients with good performance status, regardless of their age [148,149]. However, older patients have higher rates of comorbid illness and may be more susceptible to the toxic side effects of chemotherapy. Given that the median age of patients with advanced NSCLC is 68 and rising, some clinical trials have decided to focus on the elderly population by limiting enrollment to patients who are 70 years of age or older. In an elderly population, single agent vinorelbine has been shown to be well-tolerated, and improves survival versus best supportive care in phase III testing [150,151]. Subgroup analysis of elderly patients (70 years of age or older) in one randomized trial suggested superiority of combination carboplatin + paclitaxel over single-agent paclitaxel (8.0 v 5.8 months, respectively) but this result did not reach statistical significance [138]. Early randomized data also suggested the superiority of combination chemotherapy (vinorelbine + gemcitabine) over single-agent vinorelbine in terms of response rate, survival, and quality of life in patients over the age of 70 [152]. However, a larger, 3-arm trial with nearly 700 patients over the age of 70 —identified after the completion of our original literature search —concluded that the combination of vinorelbine + gemcitabine did not provide a survival benefit over single-agent vinorelbine, or single-agent gemcitabine, and that the two-drug combination was more toxic than single-agent therapy in this elderly population [153]. Approximately 20% of the elderly patients enrolled in this study were PS 2, and subgroup analysis based on PS in this elderly population was not reported [153]. Based on the available evidence, the Expert Panel recommends combination chemotherapy for patients with good performance status (ECOG/Zubrod 0 to 1). Nonplatinum containing combinations may be used as alternatives to platinum-based combination regimens in the first line. For elderly patients, or patients with PS 2, available data support the use of single-agent chemotherapy. The optimal duration of chemotherapy remains a matter of debate. Prolonged chemotherapy can lead to cumulative toxicity, with no proven advantage in efficacy. In a recent phase III study, Socinski et al randomized 230 patients to receive carboplatin + paclitaxel delivered every 3 weeks for 4 cycles only, versus identical doses delivered every 3 weeks until progression [154]. At progression, all patients received weekly paclitaxel. No significant differences in response or survival were detected between the two treatment arms; however, continuous, uninterrupted therapy was not possible in the majority of patients, and an increase in grade 3 to 4 neuropathy accompanied prolonged therapy. Another phase III trial from the United Kingdom randomized 308 patients to receive either 3 or 6 cycles of a combination of mitomycin, vinblastine, and cisplatin [155]. There were slight differences in response rate (31% v 38%, respectively), and survival (6 months v 7 months, respectively) between the 3- and 6-cycle groups, which did not reach statistical significance. Both of these trials demonstrated that the majority of patients failed to have a major response, or became intolerant of chemotherapy, by the third or fourth cycle. Survival and response rates were similar between short duration and long duration groups, and additional chemotherapy resulted in cumulative toxicity. Neither trial addressed the more specific question of whether patients who are responding to chemotherapy, and tolerating chemotherapy well, benefit from treatment beyond three to four cycles. Also, the potential benefit of switching stable or responding patients to an alternative chemotherapy, perhaps with a different side effect profile to avoid cumulative toxicity after 3 to 4 cycles, has not been well-studied. The available data suggest that, for most patients, the benefits accrued beyond three to four cycles of chemotherapy will be modest at best, and may be offset by added toxicity in this palliative setting. As such, stopping chemotherapy after three to four cycles in patients who are not responding to chemotherapy is quite defensible. Furthermore, in light of new evidence that supports the use of second-line chemotherapy at the time of recurrence, the Panel consensus was to change the prior recommendation, and advocate no more than six cycles of initial chemotherapy, even in patients who have responded to treatment. Second-Line Chemotherapy for Stage IV (or IIIB With Pleural/Pericardial Effusion) Recent trials now indicate that several new chemotherapy agents may be useful for the treatment of NSCLC refractory to, or recurrent following platinum-based chemotherapy. Promising results of phase II trials of docetaxel in previously treated patients prompted two phase III trials which have established docetaxel as the first chemotherapeutic agent with proven benefit for patients with recurrent, or refractory disease following initial chemotherapy. The TAX 320 trial randomized 373 patients with disease progression following platinum chemotherapy to receive either docetaxel (arm 1 = 100 mg/m2, arm 2 = 75 mg/m2), versus a control arm treated with vinorelbine or ifosfamide (V/I) at standard doses (arm 3) [156]. Patients were stratified by performance status and best response to previous platinum therapy. Patients who had received prior paclitaxel therapy were included in this trial, and composed approximately 40% of patients in each arm. Response rates to docetaxel were low (11% on arm 1 and 7% on arm 2) yet significantly higher than the response rate with V/I, which was only 1%. Overall survival was not significantly different among the groups (approximately 6 months). Only when survival analysis was censored at the time of administration of additional poststudy chemotherapy, a posthoc analysis with its related limitations, were significant differences in 1-year survival rates detected favoring docetaxel-treated patients (32% v 10%, P < .01). Overall, patients treated on either docetaxel arm enjoyed a quality of life benefit as measured by the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) questionnaire [157]. In another phase III trial, Shepherd et al randomized 204 patients, similarly stratified by performance status and best response to prior platinum–based chemotherapy, to receive either salvage docetaxel (100 mg/m2) or best supportive care [158]. Patients who had received prior paclitaxel therapy were excluded. An interim analysis identified a significant increase in toxicity in the treatment arm, requiring dose reduction to 75 mg/m2 in the second half of the trial. At final analysis, the objective response rate of patients with measurable disease was 7%, similar to that observed in the TAX 320 trial. Treated patients experienced a significant improvement in median survival (7 v 5 months), as well as quality of life measured by the LCSS questionnaire [159]. The Cochrane review on this topic only included the Shepherd et al study, excluding the Fossella et al trial since no comparison to best supportive care or placebo alone was included [160]. The Cochrane group concluded that second-line docetaxel could be offered to good performance status patients who should be appraised of the modest survival benefit and potential toxicities, but that there were no data to support this approach in patients with poor performance status. Although the response rate to docetaxel in this patient population is low, the expert panel felt the observed benefit in 1-year survival and apparent quality-of-life improvement for treated patients justify its consideration for platinum-refractory disease. The phase III dose was 75 mg/m2, infused over 1 hour, every 3 weeks. Phase II trials of docetaxel in this setting using weekly schedules have shown similar results [161]. Phase II data for gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and irinotecan as second-line agents in the treatment of advanced NSCLC have not merited phase III testing [162-165]. Similarly, combinations of gemcitabine + docetaxel, or gemcitabine + vinorelbine, have been studied in phase II with promising results, but have yet to be compared, either with each other, or with single-agent docetaxel in phase III randomized trials [166-171]. Gefitinib (ZD1839), an orally active inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase, has been the subject of two phase II studies in previously treated patients, one conducted in the United States, and a second in Japan/Europe [172,173]. In the US trial, patients were entered after demonstrating intolerance or disease progression following at least two prior chemotherapy regimens, including both a platinum agent, and docetaxel. One hundred forty-two patients received gefinitib at a dose of either 250 mg daily, or 500 mg daily. The overall response rate was approximately 10%, and the 500 mg dose did not appear to yield a higher response rate. The most common side effects were mild to moderate diarrhea and acneiform skin rash, worse in the 500-mg arm of the trial. The study in Japan/Europe was of similar size (N = 210) and design (randomization to either a 250-mg or 500-mg oral daily dose), but differed slightly in that a little more than half of the patients enrolled had received only one prior platinum-containing chemotherapy. The overall response rate was approximately 19% in this study, with no differences noted between low-dose/high-dose arms, or second-/third-line patients. Similar to the US study, the 250-mg dose was better tolerated in this study. Cases of interstitial lung disease have been reported in approximately 1% of patients receiving gefitinib, which is consistent with the overall rate of pneumonitis in patients with advanced NSCLC on supportive care only. On May 5, 2003, based on the results of the phase II trial in the United States, the US Food and Drug Administration approved single-agent gefitinib (250-mg oral tablet, daily) for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after failure of both platinum-based and docetaxel chemotherapies. The approval was dependent on assurances by the drug's manufacturer to conduct randomized, controlled clinical trials of gefitinib, with end points to demonstrate clinical benefit, such as improved survival or symptom improvement. The package insert for gefitinib includes a warning to discontinue therapy in the event of acute onset or worsening of pulmonary symptoms, including dyspnea or cough. Preliminary results of randomized trials combining gefitinib with standard chemotherapy in previously untreated patients have not demonstrated benefit, and the role of gefitinib in combination with other chemotherapy drugs remains investigational [174,175]. While the phase II data for gefitinib are promising, it is clear that gefitinib is similar to other chemotherapies used as salvage therapy, namely it benefits only the minority of patients. While the US Food and Drug Administration indication allows gefitinib to be used for any patient with NSCLC intolerant or resistant to both platinum-based and docetaxel chemotherapy, preliminary data suggest that the population best suited for treatment with gefitinib remains to be defined. In the phase II trials of gefitinib, the majority of responders were women with adenocarcinoma [172,173]. There are currently little or no data to support the use of gefitinib in, for example, male patients with squamous cell histology. Prognostic Factors The main prognostic factors in patients with lung cancer remain tumor stage and performance status. Degree of weight loss, sex (women fare better), serum concentration of lactate dehydrogenase, and the presence of bone and liver metastases are also of importance [176,177]. Other factors are being explored to complement these factors in predicting response to therapy and assessing prognosis. FDG-PET scanning before or after definitive therapy is currently under investigation [178-180]. Molecular markers for disease prognosis are becoming available, though the data remain insufficient to recommend incorporation of any molecular markers into standard practice [181-189]. Within the last 2 years, the first studies of DNA microarray analysis of early-stage NSCLC have been published [190,191]. The impact of this new technology on the diagnosis and treatment of patients with advanced disease has yet to be defined. Ancillary Medications ASCO has published several evidence-based guidelines for the use of ancillary medications for patients receiving chemotherapy for various forms of cancer. Topics have included reviews of the use of bisphosphonates for the treatment of breast cancer and multiple myeloma, recommendations for antiemetic therapy in a spectrum of settings, as well as chemoprotectant agents, and hematopoietic growth factors including granulocyte stimulating factors and erythropoietin [192-200]. The literature search for this guideline revealed a lack of prospective, randomized trials of these agents specific to lung cancer therapy. Given the availability of related guidelines, further discussion of ancillary medications specific to lung cancer therapy is beyond the scope of this update. Radiotherapy 1997 Recommendations: 1. Radiation for Locally Advanced Unresectable NSCLC: Radiation therapy should be included as part of treatment for selected patients with unresectable locally advanced NSCLC. 2. Patient Selection: Candidates for definitive thoracic radiotherapy with curative intent should have performance status 0, 1, or possibly 2, adequate pulmonary function, and disease confined to the thorax. Patients with malignant pleural effusions and those with distant metastatic disease are not appropriate candidates for definitive thoracic radiotherapy. 3. Dose and Fractionation: Definitive-dose thoracic radiotherapy should be no less than the biologic equivalent of 60 Gy, in 1.8-Gy to 2.0-Gy fractions. 4. Local- and Distant-Site Palliative Effects of External-Beam Radiation: Local symptoms from primary or metastatic NSCLC can be relieved by a variety of doses and fractionations of external-beam radiotherapy. In appropriately selected patients, hypofractionated palliative radiotherapy (of one to five fractions instead of 10) may provide symptomatic relief with acceptable toxicity in a more time-efficient and less costly manner. 2003 Recommendations: 1. Radiation for Locally Advanced Unresectable NSCLC: No change. 2. Patient Selection: No change. 3. Dose and Fractionation: No change. 4. Local- and Distant-Site Palliative Effects of External-Beam Radiation: No change. Evidence Summary Definitive Treatment for stage III Disease (Without Malignant Pleural/Pericardial Effusion): Altered fractionation radiation programs with definitive intent have been receiving increased attention since the original guidelines were published. A European, prospective randomized trial investigated the CHART regimen (continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy) and found a survival advantage and lack of additional morbidity compared with standard radiotherapy alone [201-203]. CHART delivers radiotherapy three times daily for 12 consecutive days. The generalizability of this data is questionable in that more than 33% of the patients had early-stage disease (stages I-II), another 38% had stage IIIA, and most had squamous-cell histology [201]. Trials are ongoing to add chemotherapy to CHART, as well as adjustment of the schedule to provide weekends off for patients and caregivers [204] (eg, noncontinuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiation, known as HART, delivers radiation three times a day for 12 days out of 15 [205]). Other investigators have also evaluated the tolerance and efficacy of innovative radiation fractionation schedules combined with chemotherapy with encouraging results [206,207]. The precise roles and contributions of each modality are still being defined. Technological improvements in radiation therapy delivery, such as three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy/intensity-modulated radiation therapy, may allow the delivery of higher doses of radiation while still permitting the use of concurrent chemotherapy [92,208-210]. Palliative Treatment for Stage III-IV Disease: While radiation therapy is useful in treating local symptoms, phase III data suggest that prophylactic radiation, before symptoms occur, is not helpful. Falk et al randomized 230 asymptomatic patients, who were not candidates for curative treatment, to receive immediate palliative radiation to the chest, or therapy delayed until the onset of symptoms. The median time to start was 15 days in the immediate treatment group, and 125 days in the delayed treatment group. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of symptom control, quality of life, or survival; however, adverse events were more common in the immediate treatment group [211]. Other randomized studies have evaluated a variety of different dose and fractionation schedules in the palliative setting [212-216], a frequent focus being the relief of chest symptoms. Hypofractionated radiation schedules offer potential effective and efficient palliation. However, there may be a trade-off in survival compared with that obtained with radiation schedules employing a larger number of lower-dose fractions, with a higher reported cumulative dose [212,213]. For example, a phase III randomized study in Canada compared 10-Gy single-fraction radiation with 20-Gy in five fractions for the palliation of thoracic symptoms from lung cancer in 230 patients with advanced disease unsuitable for curative treatment. There was no difference between the two arms in the primary end point, which was palliation of thoracic symptoms at 1 month after radiation evaluated by a patient-completed daily diary card, nor in treatment-related toxicity. However, patients who received five fractions survived, on average, 2 months longer than patients who received one fraction [212]. In a randomized study from the United Kingdom, 17 Gy delivered in two fractions 1 week apart, in patients with localized but inoperable NSCLC, lead to more rapid symptom palliation and less treatment-related dysphagia than 39 Gy administered in 13 fractions, 5 days per week. But reported survival was superior with the latter radiation schedule [213]. Other investigators have failed to demonstrate a difference in median survival between treatment groups [214,216]. A Cochrane review evaluating the role of palliative radiotherapy to the chest felt that a meta-analysis of identified trials could not be attempted because of considerable heterogeneity among the trials [217]. The reviewers found that higher dose regimens were associated with a modest survival benefit at the expense of greater acute toxicity, but evidence was lacking that any particular schedule lead to better palliation. The role of brachytherapy, photodynamic therapy, and the laser in the treatment and palliation of advanced NSCLC is evolving, and has been tested only in nonrandomized comparisons to more conventional therapy. All three modalities have been found to produce effective palliation of symptomatic endobronchial disease, with palliation of cough, hemoptysis and dyspnea, even in critically ill patients [218-222]. One study compared photodynamic therapy (PDT) and Nd-YAG (neodymium-yttrium aluminum garnet) laser resection in patients with NSCLC and airway obstruction, and found equivalent efficacy and toxicity profiles [223]. Brain metastases develop in approximately one-third of patients with NSCLC. External beam radiation is the treatment of choice for brain metastases, which are not amenable to surgical resection. Historically, whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) has been the standard treatment, and provides palliation of symptoms and improved survival compared with untreated historical controls [224]. A phase III comparison of early, versus delayed WBRT in 176 patients with NSCLC metastatic to the brain receiving cisplatin and vinorelbine chemotherapy, concluded that the timing of WBRT with chemotherapy did not influence survival [225]. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is an alternative to surgical resection. It is being used as primary therapy followed by surveillance, or WBRT. It can also be used in patients who have already received WBRT to treat recurrent solitary or oligo (n = 2 to 4) metastases. While no randomized comparisons of SRS versus surgery or WBRT are available, case series of patients with solitary and oligo brain metastases from NSCLC undergoing SRS followed by WBRT have demonstrated comparable survival and rates of local control compared with historical data of surgical resection plus WBRT [226]. Consistent findings in these retrospective studies include reliable local control by SRS ( > 80%), as well as poor prognosis in patients with low performance status or active disease outside of the brain at the time of SRS [227-231]. Prospective, randomized trials are needed to compare SRS with surgical resection, and assess the role of SRS with and without WBRT, in order to control for problems unique to SRS, such as radionecrosis [232-234]. Surgery 1997 Recommendation: 1. Role of resection for distant metastases: In patients with controlled disease outside of the brain who have an isolated cerebral metastasis in a resectable area, resection followed by WBRT is superior to WBRT alone. 2003 Recommendations: 1. Role of resection for distant metastases: A. In patients with controlled disease outside of the brain who have an isolated cerebral metastasis in a resectable area, resection followed by WBRT is superior to WBRT alone. B. While feasible in selected patients, there is insufficient evidence to support routine resection of solitary adrenal metastases. Evidence Summary The results of large case series continue to support the resection of limited brain metastases. A retrospective look at 220 patients who underwent surgical treatment for brain metastases from NSCLC showed a median survival of 24 months, with a 21% five-year survival proportion. The majority of the patients in this series had metachronous disease, with only 28 (13%) of patients operated on for synchronous brain disease [235]. Patients without intrathoracic lymph node involvement fared better. A series of 103 patients operated on for between one and three synchronous brain metastases, followed by resection of the lung primary, showed a five-year survival proportion of 11% [236]. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that patients with adenocarcinoma fared better, with a trend toward a better prognosis for patients with small pulmonary tumors and absence of intrathoracic nodal metastases [236]. Only small, nonrandomized case series support resection of solitary adrenal metastases, with long-term survival reported in selected patients following unilateral adrenalectomy [237-242]. Minimally invasive, laparoscopic approaches to adrenalectomy have become more common for the surgical treatment of benign adrenal disease, and may be useful in patients with advanced NSCLC to minimize the morbidity of adrenalectomy [243,244].
SURVEILLANCE AND FOLLOW-UP CARE FOR PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED LUNG CANCER 2. Chest Radiographs: For patients treated with curative intent, there is no clear role for routine studies in asymptomatic patients and for those in whom no interventions are planned. A yearly chest x-ray to evaluate for potentially curable second primary cancers may be reasonable. 3. Other Diagnostic Studies: There is no role for routine studies in most asymptomatic patients and those patients not undergoing therapeutic interventions. CT scan of the chest/abdomen; CT scan/MRI of the brain; bone scan; bronchoscopy; CBC; and routine chemistries, including liver function tests, should only be performed as indicated by the patient's symptoms. 2003 Recommendations 1. History and Physical Examination: No change. 2. Chest Radiographs: For patients treated with curative intent, there is no clear role for routine studies in asymptomatic patients and for those in whom no interventions are planned. 3. Other Diagnostic Studies: There is no role for routine studies in most asymptomatic patients and those patients not undergoing therapeutic interventions. CT scan of the chest/abdomen; CT scan/MRI of the brain; FDG-PET scan; bone scan; bronchoscopy; CBC; and routine chemistries, including liver function tests, should only be performed as indicated by the patient's symptoms. 3A. Low-dose helical chest CT is more sensitive than chest x-ray for the identification of second primary cancers, but at this time remains investigational as part of the routine follow-up of patients with a history of unresectable NSCLC. Evidence Summary There have been no randomized, controlled trials of lung cancer follow-up completed since the ASCO guidelines were last published, but studies using less rigorous designs are available. Large, retrospective series have questioned the benefits of aggressive surveillance [245-247]. One prospective study of 192 patients in which postoperative surveillance included chest radiographs every 3 months and bronchoscopy and CT scans every 6 months found that recurrence developed in 136/192 (71%), and was asymptomatic in 36/192 (26%) [248]. In asymptomatic patients, the recurrence was detected by CT scan in 10 of 35 (28% of recurrences, but 5% of total), and by bronchoscopy in 10. Fifteen (43% of recurrences, 8% of 192 total) had a thoracic recurrence that could be treated with curative intent. From the date of recurrence, the 3-year survival was 13% in all patients and 31% in those patients whose recurrence was detected while asymptomatic. The authors concluded that this intensive follow-up was feasible, and may have improved survival. Given the likelihood of lead and detection time bias, and the small overall number who might benefit, a large randomized controlled trial would be necessary to answer this question. Similarly, there is no prospective, randomized, or controlled evidence that early treatment of asymptomatic brain metastases—even with the use of newer techniques such as stereotactic radiosurgery—improves survival and/or palliation of symptoms. Therefore, more aggressive strategies of CNS surveillance cannot be advocated at this time. The reliability of FDG-PET for following the response of disease after chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, or for early detection of recurrence, is also under investigation [249-254]. Screening for Second Primary Cancers: Long-term survival in patients with unresectable non–small-cell lung cancer is infrequent. However, patients who achieve long-term survival have a high risk of second primary lung cancer (1% to 2% per year) [255,256]. Screening is performed to detect disease at a stage when cure or control is possible. Although survival from the time of diagnosis of the disease is commonly reported in screening trials, this measure may be affected by lead-time, length-time, and overdiagnosis biases [257]. An effect on lung cancer mortality rather than survival is necessary to validate potential screening methods.
Data regarding the utility of low-dose, helical CT are evolving, with the first large scale prospective, randomized studies currently underway. Beginning in 1993, the Early Lung Cancer Action Project (ELCAP) screened 1,000 high-risk patients ( Two nonrandomized studies from Japan that used chest radiography and low-dose CT for screening have also confirmed that CT scanning is more sensitive than conventional chest radiography for the detection of lung nodules, and that some of these nodules proved to be lung cancer [261,262]. Once again, it was found that CT detected more cases of lung cancer, and at an earlier stage. It remains to be seen whether there will be a stage shift with CT scanning (ie, if the prevalence of advanced disease will decrease in the screened-positive population). Several additional studies of CT-based screening are currently underway, including randomized trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, and the American College of Radiology Imaging Network [257,263]. Despite aggressive attempts to identify small, early-stage tumors for resection, one study has found that tumor size is not an independent predictor of survival [264]. Another study found no statistically significant relation between the stage distribution and the size of the primary lesion [265]. Laser-induced fluorescence emission (LIFE) techniques detect the autofluorescence of dysplastic tissue, and are being studied to improve detection of malignancy over white-light bronchoscopy (WLB) [266,267]. A randomized study of this technique in 55 patients found that LIFE was significantly more sensitive than WLB for detecting moderate to severe dysplasia (69% v 22%, P < .001), especially certain forms of dysplasia such as angiogenic squamous dysplasia. However, LIFE was slightly less specific than WLB (70% v 78%, P = .45) [268]. A nonrandomized study comparing 53 patients receiving standard WLB, versus 39 patients who had LIFE + WLB, concluded that biopsies from sites with normal and abnormal LIFE imaging were equivalent, and that individuals examined by LIFE imaging had no improvement in the detection of dysplasia or metaplasia compared with WLB [269]. Other methods of early diagnosis are being pursued—including analysis of sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, bronchial biopsy specimens, and even serum specimens—using techniques such as immunohistochemistry, gene mutation analyses, telomerase activity, microsatellite instability, and abnormal DNA methylation [266,270-275]. None of these analyses has been tested in a large trial as the sole detection technique, and the sensitivity and specificity of these tests remain to be elucidated.
LIFESTYLE CHANGES TO PREVENT RECURRENT LUNG CANCER 2. Chemopreventive Agents: The use of antioxidants and/or chemopreventive agents for NSCLC is investigational, and their clinical use off-study is not recommended. 2003 Recommendations 1. Smoking Cessation: Smoking cessation, never initiating smoking, and avoidance of occupational and environmental exposure to carcinogenic substances are recommended as effective interventions to reduce the risk of second primary NSCLC in curatively treated patients. Of these interventions, the first two have the largest public health impact. In patients with distant metastatic NSCLC, the outlook is poor, and smoking cessation has little effect on overall prognosis but may improve respiratory symptoms. 2. Chemopreventive Agents: No change. Evidence Summary Occupational and environmental exposure to carcinogenic substances (eg, radon, asbestos) may increase the risk of lung cancer, but this risk is small compared with that associated with tobacco use [276-280]. Our understanding of the molecular mechanisms by which tobacco smoke causes lung cancer continues to grow [281-285]. Heavy smokers have been reported to have greater frequency of aneuploid tumors than light or nonsmokers, but no statistical association has been shown between survival and lifetime total cigarette consumption [286]. Eckhardt et al evaluated the smoking histories and outcomes of patients in four clinical trials. Patients with no or remote smoking history had an increased probability of a partial response to chemotherapy compared with those with recent smoking history. There was also an advantage in time to progression and longer survival in those ceasing to smoke. Multivariate analysis confirmed smoking as an independent variable. This may be related to cigarette-smoking implication in mutation of p53 tumor suppression gene and the k-ras proto-oncogene, and may lead to less sensitivity to chemotherapy [287,288]. A recent study of markers of lung epithelial proliferation by bronchoscopic biopsy and Ki-67 immunostaining in former and current smokers found that active smoking increased epithelial proliferation, and that increased proliferation was still detectable for more than 20 years, even in the absence of squamous metaplasia [289]. A retrospective study examined the 6-month tobacco abstinence rate among lung cancer patients treated clinically for nicotine dependence. The intervention involved consultation with a nicotine dependence counselor, followed by individualized treatment including provision of behavioral and social strategies, stress management techniques, and pharmacologic therapy. The results suggested that the majority of lung cancer patients were motivated to stop smoking, and were more likely to succeed in quitting than matched controls who did not have lung cancer, however the rate of abstinence at 6 months was only 22% even among patients with lung cancer [290]. There have been no positive chemoprevention trials since the publication of the last guideline. A four-arm, prospective randomized study from the Netherlands enrolled over 1,000 patients with treated, early-stage NSCLC (as well as 1,500 patients with head and neck cancer). The treatment arms included two years of adjuvant treatment with oral vitamin A (retinyl palmitate), N-acetylcysteine, both, or neither. No benefits in terms of survival, event-free survival, or incidence of second primary tumor were observed for any tumor type [291]. The patients were primarily former smokers (93%), with a substantial number of active smokers (25%). A randomized trial of over 1100 patients with resected, stage I NSCLC compared 3 years of oral, adjuvant treatment with isotretinoin with placebo. There were no statistically significant differences between the placebo, and isotretinoin arms with respect to the time to second primary tumors, recurrence, or mortality [292]. Subset analyses suggested that isotretinoin was harmful in current smokers, and beneficial in never smokers. A small (n = 160) case-control study has suggested that aspirin use is useful in preventing lung cancer in women [293].
The following authors or their immediate family members have indicated a financial interest. No conflict exists for drugs or devices used in a study if they are not being evaluated as part of the investigation. Acted as a consultant within the last 2 years: Andrew T. Turrisi, Aventis, AstraZeneca.
The Expert Panel wishes to express its gratitude to Drs Paul A. Bunn, George P. Browman, Christopher Desch, and James Hayman for their thoughtful reviews of earlier versions of this guideline, and to Jennifer Padberg for her editorial assistance.
Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found at the end of this article.
1. American Society of Clinical Oncology: Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 15:2996-3018, 1997[Abstract] 2. Smith TJ, Somerfield MR: The ASCO experience with evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Oncology (Huntington) 11:223-227, 1997 3. Sazon DA, Santiago SM, Soo Hoo GW, et al: Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in the detection and staging of lung cancer. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 153:417-421, 1996[Abstract] 4. Bury T, Paulus P, Dowlati A, et al: Staging of the mediastinum: Value of positron emission tomography imaging in non-small cell lung cancer. Eur Respir J 9:2560-2564, 1996[Abstract] 5. Bury T, Dowlati A, Paulus P, et al: Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer by whole-body fluorine-18 deoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med 23:204-246, 1996[CrossRef][Medline] 6. Sasaki M, Ichiya Y, Kuwabara Y, et al: The usefulness of FDG positron emission tomography for the detection of mediastinal lymph node metastases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: A comparative study with X-ray computed tomography. Eur J Nucl Med 23:741-747, 1996[CrossRef][Medline] 7. Bury T, Paulus P, Dowlati A, et al: Evaluation of pleural diseases with FDG-PET imaging: Preliminary report. Thorax 52:187-189, 1997[Abstract] 8. Guhlmann A, Storck M, Kotzerke J, et al: Lymph node staging in non-small cell lung cancer: Evaluation by [18F]FDG positron emission tomography (PET). Thorax 52:438-441, 1997[Abstract] 9. Vansteenkiste JF, Stroobants SG, De Leyn PR, et al: Lymph node staging in non-small-cell lung cancer with FDG-PET scan: A prospective study on 690 lymph node stations from 68 patients. J Clin Oncol 16:2142-2149, 1998[Abstract] 10. Kutlu CA, Pastorino U, Maisey M, et al: Selective use of PET scan in the preoperative staging of NSCLC. Lung Cancer 21:177-184, 1998[CrossRef][Medline]
11. Kernstine KH, Stanford W, Mullan BF, et al: PET, CT, and MRI with Combidex for mediastinal staging in non-small cell lung carcinoma. Ann Thorac Surg 68:1022-1028, 1999
12. Dwamena BA, Sonnad SS, Angobaldo JO, et al: Metastases from non-small cell lung cancer: Mediastinal staging in the 1990s–meta-analytic comparison of PET and CT. Radiology 213:530-536, 1999 13. Berlangieri SU, Scott AM, Knight SR, et al: F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the non-invasive staging of non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 16:25-30, 1999 (suppl 1) 14. Albes JM, Lietzenmayer R, Schott U, et al: Improvement of non-small-cell lung cancer staging by means of positron emission tomography. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 47:42-47, 1999[Medline]
15. Marom EM, McAdams HP, Erasmus JJ, et al: Staging non-small cell lung cancer with whole-body PET. Radiology 212:803-809, 1999 (comment)
16. Farrell MA, McAdams HP, Herndon JE, et al: Non-small cell lung cancer: FDG PET for nodal staging in patients with stage I disease. Radiology 215:886-890, 2000 17. Fischer BM, Mortensen J, Hojgaard L: Positron emission tomography in the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer: A systematic, quantitative review. Lancet Oncology 2:659-666, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]
18. Hicks RJ, Kalff V, MacManus MP, et al: (18)F-FDG PET provides high-impact and powerful prognostic stratification in staging newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 42:1596-1604, 2001
19. Gupta NC, Tamim WJ, Graeber GG, et al: Mediastinal lymph node sampling following positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose imaging in lung cancer staging. Chest 120:521-527, 2001
20. Kernstine KH, McLaughlin KA, Menda Y, et al: Can FDG-PET reduce the need for mediastinoscopy in potentially resectable nonsmall cell lung cancer? Ann Thorac Surg 73:394-402, 2002
21. Saunders CA, Dussek JE, O'Doherty MJ, et al: Evaluation of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose whole body positron emission tomography imaging in the staging of lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 67:790-797, 1999
22. Valk PE, Pounds TR, Hopkins DM, et al: Staging non-small cell lung cancer by whole-body positron emission tomographic imaging. Ann Thorac Surg 60:1573-1582, 1995 23. Vansteenkiste JF, Stroobants SG, Dupont PJ, et al: FDG-PET scan in potentially operable non-small cell lung cancer: Do anatometabolic PET-CT fusion images improve the localisation of regional lymph node metastases? The Leuven Lung Cancer Group. Eur J Nucl Med 25:1495-1501, 1998[CrossRef][Medline]
24. Vansteenkiste JF, Stroobants SG, De Leyn PR, et al: Mediastinal lymph node staging with FDG-PET scan in patients with potentially operable non-small cell lung cancer: A prospective analysis of 50 cases. Leuven Lung Cancer Group. Chest 112:1480-1486, 1997 25. Weng E, Tran L, Rege S, et al: Accuracy and clinical impact of mediastinal lymph node staging with FDG-PET imaging in potentially resectable lung cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 23:47-52, 2000[CrossRef][Medline] 26. von Haag DW, Follette DM, Roberts PF, et al: Advantages of positron emission tomography over computed tomography in mediastinal staging of non-small cell lung cancer. J Surg Res 103:160-164, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]
27. Poncelet AJ, Lonneux M, Coche E, et al: PET-FDG scan enhances but does not replace preoperative surgical staging in non-small cell lung carcinoma. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 20:468-475, 2001
28. Gupta NC, Graeber GM, Bishop HA: Comparative efficacy of positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose in evaluation of small (<1 cm), intermediate (1 to 3 cm), and large (>3 cm) lymph node lesions. Chest 117:773-778, 2000
29. Steinert HC, Hauser M, Allemann F, et al: Non-small cell lung cancer: Nodal staging with FDG PET versus CT with correlative lymph node mapping and sampling. Radiology 202:441-446, 1997
30. Scott WJ, Gobar LS, Terry JD, et al: Mediastinal lymph node staging of non-small-cell lung cancer: A prospective comparison of computed tomography and positron emission tomography. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 111:642-648, 1996
31. Patz EF Jr, Lowe VJ, Goodman PC, et al: Thoracic nodal staging with PET imaging with 18FDG in patients with bronchogenic carcinoma. Chest 108:1617-1621, 1995
32. Pieterman RM, van Putten JW, Meuzelaar JJ, et al: Preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with positron-emission tomography. N Engl J Med 343:254-261, 2000
33. Roberts PF, Follette DM, von Haag D, et al: Factors associated with false-positive staging of lung cancer by positron emission tomography. Ann Thorac Surg 70:1154-1160, 2000 34. Liewald F, Grosse S, Storck M, et al: How useful is positron emission tomography for lymphnode staging in non-small-cell lung cancer? Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 48:93-96, 2000[CrossRef][Medline] 35. Gdeedo A, Van Schil P, Corthouts B, et al: Prospective evaluation of computed tomography and mediastinoscopy in mediastinal lymph node staging. Eur Respir J 10:1547-1551, 1997[Abstract] 36. Gdeedo A, Van Schil P, Corthouts B, et al: Comparison of imaging TNM [(i)TNM] and pathological TNM [pTNM] in staging of bronchogenic carcinoma. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 12:224-227, 1997[Abstract] 37. De Leyn P, Vansteenkiste J, Cuypers P, et al: Role of cervical mediastinoscopy in staging of non-small cell lung cancer without enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes on CT scan. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 12:706-712, 1997[Abstract] 38. Magnani P, Carretta A, Rizzo G, et al: FDG/PET and spiral CT image fusion for medistinal lymph node assessment of non-small cell lung cancer patients. J Cardiovasc Surg 40:741-748, 1999[Medline] 39. van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, et al: Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: The PLUS multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 359:1388-1393, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]
40. Kalff V, Hicks RJ, MacManus MP, et al: Clinical impact of (18)F fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: A prospective study. J Clin Oncol 19:111-118, 2001 41. Changlai SP, Tsai SC, Chou MC, et al: Whole body 18F-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography to restage non-small cell lung cancer. Oncol Rep 8:337-339, 2001[Medline] 42. Vanuytsel LJ, Vansteenkiste JF, Stroobants SG, et al: The impact of (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) lymph node staging on the radiation treatment volumes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 55:317-324, 2000[CrossRef][Medline] 43. Caldwell CB, Mah K, Ung YC, et al: Observer variation in contouring gross tumor volume in patients with poorly defined non-small-cell lung tumors on CT: The impact of 18FDG-hybrid PET fusion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51:923-931, 2001[CrossRef][Medline] 44. Giraud P, Grahek D, Montravers F, et al: CT and (18)F-deoxyglucose (FDG) image fusion for optimization of conformal radiotherapy of lung cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 49:1249-1257, 2001[CrossRef][Medline] 45. MacManus MP, Hicks RJ, Ball DL, et al: F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography staging in radical radiotherapy candidates with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: Powerful correlation with survival and high impact on treatment. Cancer 92:886-895, 2001[CrossRef][Medline] 46. Dietlein M, Weber K, Gandjour A, et al: Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET for the management of potentially operable non-small cell lung cancer: Priority for a PET-based strategy after nodal-negative CT results. Eur J Nucl Med 27:1598-1609, 2000[CrossRef][Medline]
47. Scott WJ, Shepherd J, Gambhir SS: Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET for staging non-small cell lung cancer: A decision analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 66:1876-1885, 1998
48. Gambhir SS, Hoh CK, Phelps ME, et al: Decision tree sensitivity analysis for cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET in the staging and management of non-small-cell lung carcinoma. J Nucl Med 37:1428-1436, 1996 49. Vansteenkiste J, Lacquet LM, Demedts M, et al: Transcarinal needle aspiration biopsy in the staging of lung cancer. Eur Respir J 7:265-268, 1994[Abstract] 50. Steiner RM, Liu JB, Goldberg BB, et al: The value of ultrasound-guided fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Clin Chest Med 16:519-534, 1995[Medline]
51. Utz JP, Patel AM, Edell ES: The role of transcarinal needle aspiration in the staging of bronchogenic carcinoma. Chest 104:1012-1016, 1993 52. Laudanski J, Kozlowski M, Niklinski J, et al: The preoperative study of mediastinal lymph nodes metastasis in lung cancer by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and helical computed tomography (CT). Lung Cancer 34:123-126, 2001 (suppl 2)[CrossRef]
53. Wallace MB, Silvestri GA, Sahai AV, et al: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for staging patients with carcinoma of the lung. Ann Thorac Surg 72:1861-1867, 2001
54. Wiersema MJ, Vazquez-Sequeiros E, Wiersema LM: Evaluation of mediastinal lymphadenopathy with endoscopic US-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Radiology 219:252-257, 2001 55. Potepan P, Meroni E, Spagnoli I, et al: Non-small-cell lung cancer: Detection of mediastinal lymph node metastases by endoscopic ultrasound and CT. Eur Radiol 6:19-24, 1996[CrossRef][Medline]
56. Patelli M, Agli LL, Poletti V, et al: Role of fiberscopic transbronchial needle aspiration in the staging of N2 disease due to non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 73:407-411, 2002
57. Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Edell ES, et al: Cost-minimization analysis of alternative diagnostic approaches in a modeled patient with non-small cell lung cancer and subcarinal lymphadenopathy. Mayo Clin Proc 77:155-164, 2002
58. Gress FG, Savides TJ, Sandler A, et al: Endoscopic ultrasonography, fine-needle aspiration biopsy guided by endoscopic ultrasonography, and computed tomography in the preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer: A comparison study. Ann Intern Med 127:604-612, 1997
59. Harrow EM, Abi-Saleh W, Blum J, et al: The utility of transbronchial needle aspiration in the staging of bronchogenic carcinoma. American Journal of Respiratory & Crit Care Med 161:601-607, 2000 60. Aabakken L, Silvestri GA, Hawes R, et al: Cost-efficacy of endoscopic ultrasonography with fine-needle aspiration vs. mediastinotomy in patients with lung cancer and suspected mediastinal adenopathy. Endoscopy 31:707-711, 1999[CrossRef][Medline] 61. Mentzer SJ, Swanson SJ, DeCamp MM, et al: Mediastinoscopy, thoracoscopy, and video-assisted thoracic surgery in the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer. Chest 112:239-241, 1997[CrossRef]
62. Roberts JR, Blum MG, Arildsen R, et al: Prospective comparison of radiologic, thoracoscopic, and pathologic staging in patients with early non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 68:1154-1158, 1999
63. Mountain CF: Revisions in the International System for Staging Lung Cancer. Chest 111:1710-1717, 1997
64. Rusch VW, Parekh KR, Leon L, et al: Factors determining outcome after surgical resection of T3 and T4 lung cancers of the superior sulcus. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 119:1147-1153, 2000 65. Komaki R, Roth JA, Walsh GL, et al: Outcome predictors for 143 patients with superior sulcus tumors treated by multidisciplinary approach at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48:347-354, 2000[Medline] 66. Wong J, Haramati LB, Rozenshtein A, et al: Non-small-cell lung cancer: Practice patterns of extrathoracic imaging. Acad Radiol 6:211-215, 1999[CrossRef][Medline] 67. MacManus MP, Hicks RJ, Matthews JP, et al: High rate of detection of unsuspected distant metastases by pet in apparent stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: Implications for radical radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 50:287-293, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]
68. Vesselle H, Pugsley JM, Vallieres E, et al: The impact of fluorodeoxyglucose F 18 positron-emission tomography on the surgical staging of non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 124:511-519, 2002 69. Albes JM, Dohmen BM, Schott U, et al: Value of positron emission tomography for lung cancer staging. Eur J Surg Oncol 28:55-62, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]
70. Weder W, Schmid RA, Bruchhaus H, et al: Detection of extrathoracic metastases by positron emission tomography in lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 66:886-893, 1998 71. MacManus MP, Wong K, Hicks RJ, et al: Early mortality after radical radiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer: Comparison of PET-staged and conventionally staged cohorts treated at a large tertiary referral center. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52:351-361, 2002[CrossRef][Medline] 72. Lowe VJ, Fletcher JW, Gobar L, et al: Prospective investigation of positron emission tomography in lung nodules. J Clin Oncol 16:1075-1084, 1998[Abstract] 73. Roman MR, Rossleigh MA, Angelides S, et al: Staging and managing lung tumors using F-18 FDG coincidence detection. Clin Nucl Med 26:383-388, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]
74. Dewan NA, Shehan CJ, Reeb SD, et al: Likelihood of malignancy in a solitary pulmonary nodule: Comparison of Bayesian analysis and results of FDG-PET scan. Chest 112:416-422, 1997
75. Erasmus JJ, McAdams HP, Rossi SE, et al: FDG PET of pleural effusions in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:245-249, 2000
76. Schirrmeister H, Glatting G, Hetzel J, et al: Prospective evaluation of the clinical value of planar bone scans, SPECT, and (18)F-labeled NaF PET in newly diagnosed lung cancer. J Nucl Med 42:1800-1804, 2001 77. Bury T, Barreto A, Daenen F, et al: Fluorine-18 deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for the detection of bone metastases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 25:1244-1247, 1998[CrossRef][Medline]
78. Earnest Ft, Ryu JH, Miller GM, et al: Suspected non-small cell lung cancer: Incidence of occult brain and skeletal metastases and effectiveness of imaging for detection—Pilot study. Radiology 211:137-145, 1999
79. Robnett TJ, Machtay M, Stevenson JP, et al: Factors affecting the risk of brain metastases after definitive chemoradiation for locally advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 19:1344-1349, 2001
80. Yokoi K, Kamiya N, Matsuguma H, et al: Detection of brain metastasis in potentially operable non-small cell lung cancer: A comparison of CT and MRI. Chest 115:714-719, 1999 81. Porte HL, Ernst OJ, Delebecq T, et al: Is computed tomography guided biopsy still necessary for the diagnosis of adrenal masses in patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 15:597-601, 1999
82. Erasmus JJ, Patz EF Jr, McAdams HP, et al: Evaluation of adrenal masses in patients with bronchogenic carcinoma using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Am J Roentgenol 168:1357-1360, 1997
83. Yun M, Kim W, Alnafisi N, et al: 18F-FDG PET in characterizing adrenal lesions detected on CT or MRI. J Nucl Med 42:1795-1799, 2001
84. Macari M, Rofsky NM, Naidich DP, et al: Non-small cell lung carcinoma: Usefulness of unenhanced helical CT of the adrenal glands in an unmonitored environment. Radiology 209:807-812, 1998
85. Schwartz LH, Ginsberg MS, Burt ME, et al: MRI as an alternative to CT-guided biopsy of adrenal masses in patients with lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 65:193-197, 1998
86. Remer EM, Obuchowski N, Ellis JD, et al: Adrenal mass evaluation in patients with lung carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Roentgenol 174:1033-1039, 2000 87. Papanikolaou N, Moulopoulos LA, Gouliamos A, et al: Comparison of dual spin echo echo planar imaging (SE_EPI), turbo spin echo with fat suppression and conventional dual spin echo sequences for T(2)-weighted MR imaging of focal liver lesions. Magn Reson Imaging 18:715-719, 2000[CrossRef][Medline]
88. Ichikawa T, Haradome H, Hachiya J, et al: Characterization of hepatic lesions by perfusion-weighted MR imaging with an echoplanar sequence. Am J Roentgenol 170:1029-1034, 1998 89. Nakayama M, Yamashita Y, Mitsuzaki K, et al: Improved tissue characterization of focal liver lesions with ferumoxide-enhanced T1 and T2-weighted MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 11:647-654, 2000[CrossRef][Medline] 90. Kim TY, Yang SH, Lee SH, et al: A phase III randomized trial of combined chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 25:238-243, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]
91. Sause W, Kolesar P, Taylor SI, et al: Final results of phase III trial in regionally advanced unresectable non-small cell lung cancer: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, and Southwest Oncology Group. Chest 117:358-364, 2000 92. Sim S, Rosenzweig KE, Schindelheim R, et al: Induction chemotherapy plus three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy in the definitive treatment of locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51:660-665, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]
93. Dillman RO, Herndon J, Seagren SL, et al: Improved survival in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: Seven-year follow-up of cancer and leukemia group B (CALGB) 8433 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 88:1210-1215, 1996 94. Komaki R, Scott CB, Sause WT, et al: Induction cisplatin/vinblastine and irradiation vs. irradiation in unresectable squamous cell lung cancer: Failure patterns by cell type in RTOG 88-08/ECOG 4588—Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 39:537-544, 1997[CrossRef][Medline] 95. Anonymous: Chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer: Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: CD002139, 2000 96. Curran WJ Jr, Scott C, Langer C, et al: Phase III comparison of sequential vs concurrent chemoradiation for patients with unresected stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Initial report of radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) 9410. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:484, 2000 (abstr 1891)
97. Furuse K, Fukuoka M, Kawahara M, et al: Phase III study of concurrent versus sequential thoracic radiotherapy in combination with mitomycin, vindesine, and cisplatin in unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 17:2692-2699, 1999 98. Belani CP: Incorporation of paclitaxel and carboplatin in combined-modality therapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol 26:44-54, 1999 99. Masters GA, Haraf DJ, Hoffman PC, et al: Phase I study of vinorelbine, cisplatin, and concomitant thoracic radiation in the treatment of advanced chest malignancies. J Clin Oncol 16:2157-2163, 1998[Abstract]
100. Vokes EE: Induction chemotherapy followed by concomitant chemoradiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer. Oncologist 6:Suppl 125-27, 2001 101. Gaspar LE: Optimizing chemoradiation therapy approaches to unresectable stage III non–small cell lung cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 13:110-115, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]
102. Vokes EE, Herndon JE II, Crawford J, et al: Randomized phase II study of cisplatin with gemcitabine or paclitaxel or vinorelbine as induction chemotherapy followed by concomitant chemoradiotherapy for stage IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer: Cancer and leukemia group B study 9431. J Clin Oncol 20:4191-4198, 2002
103. Clamon G, Herndon J, Cooper R, et al: Radiosensitization with carboplatin for patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase III trial of the Cancer and Leukemia Group B and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 17:4-11, 1999
104. Rusch VW, Giroux DJ, Kraut MJ, et al: Induction chemoradiation and surgical resection for non-small cell lung carcinomas of the superior sulcus: Initial results of Southwest Oncology Group Trial 9416 (Intergroup Trial 0160). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 121:472-483, 2001 105. Veronesi G, Solli PG, Leo F, et al: Low morbidity of bronchoplastic procedures after chemotherapy for lung cancer. Lung Cancer 36:91-97, 2002[CrossRef][Medline] 106. Rosell R, Gomez-Codina J, Camps C, et al: Preresectional chemotherapy in stage IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer: A 7-year assessment of a randomized controlled trial. Lung Cancer 26:7-14, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]
107. Roth JA, Fossella F, Komaki R, et al: A randomized trial comparing perioperative chemotherapy and surgery with surgery alone in resectable stage IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 86:673-680, 1994 108. Roth JA, Atkinson EN, Fossella F, et al: Long-term follow-up of patients enrolled in a randomized trial comparing perioperative chemotherapy and surgery with surgery alone in resectable stage IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 21:1-6, 1998[CrossRef][Medline]
109. Depierre A, Milleron B, Moro-Sibilot D, et al: Preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery compared with primary surgery in resectable stage I (except T1N0), II, and IIIa non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 20:247-253, 2002 110. Meko J, Rusch VW: Neoadjuvant therapy and surgical resection for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol 10:324-332, 2000[CrossRef][Medline]
111. Cullen MH, Billingham LJ, Woodroffe CM, et al: Mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer: Effects on survival and quality of life. J Clin Oncol 17:3188-3194, 1999 112. Thongprasert S, Sanguanmitra P, Juthapan W, et al: Relationship between quality of life and clinical outcomes in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC plus chemotherapy. Lung Cancer 24:17-24, 1999[CrossRef][Medline] 113. Helsing M, Bergman B, Thaning L, et al: Quality of life and survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer receiving supportive care plus chemotherapy with carboplatin and etoposide or supportive care only: A multicentre randomised phase III trial—Joint Lung Cancer Study Group. Eur J Cancer 34:1036-1044, 1998 114. Stephens RJ, Fairlamb D, Gower N, et al: The Big Lung Trial (BLT): determining the value of cisplatin-based chemotherapy for all patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)—Preliminary results in the supportive care setting. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 21:291, 2002 (abstr 1161)
115. Anonymous: Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomised clinical trials—Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group. BMJ 311:899-909, 1995 116. Le Chevalier T, Brisgand D, Douillard JY, et al: Randomized study of vinorelbine and cisplatin versus vindesine and cisplatin versus vinorelbine alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Results of a European multicenter trial including 612 patients. J Clin Oncol 12:360-367, 1994[Abstract]
117. Le Chevalier T, Brisgand D, Soria JC, et al: Long term analysis of survival in the European randomized trial comparing vinorelbine/cisplatin to vindesine/cisplatin and vinorelbine alone in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Oncologist 6:8-11, 2001 (suppl 1) 118. Wozniak AJ, Crowley JJ, Balcerzak SP, et al: Randomized trial comparing cisplatin with cisplatin plus vinorelbine in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 16:2459-2465, 1998[Abstract]
119. Cardenal F, Lopez-Cabrerizo MP, Anton A, et al: Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine-cisplatin versus etoposide-cisplatin in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 17:12-18, 1999
120. Bonomi P, Kim K, Fairclough D, et al: Comparison of survival and quality of life in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with two dose levels of paclitaxel combined with cisplatin versus etoposide with cisplatin: Results of an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial. J Clin Oncol 18:623-631, 2000 121. Giaccone G, Splinter TA, Debruyne C, et al: Randomized study of paclitaxel-cisplatin versus cisplatin-teniposide in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol 16:2133-2141, 1998[Abstract]
122. Sandler AB, Nemunaitis J, Denham C, et al: Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:122-130, 2000
123. von Pawel J, von Roemeling R, Gatzemeier U, et al: Tirapazamine plus cisplatin versus cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A report of the international CATAPULT I study group—Cisplatin and Tirapazamine in Subjects with Advanced Previously Untreated Non-Small-Cell Lung Tumors. J Clin Oncol 18:1351-1359, 2000
124. Gatzemeier U, von Pawel J, Gottfried M, et al: Phase III comparative study of high-dose cisplatin versus a combination of paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:3390-3399, 2000
125. Kelly K, Crowley J, Bunn PA Jr, et al: Randomized phase III trial of paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin in the treatment of patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: A Southwest Oncology Group trial. J Clin Oncol 19:3210-3218, 2001 126. ten Bokkel Huinink WW, Bergman B, Chemaissani A, et al: Single-agent gemcitabine: An active and better tolerated alternative to standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy in locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 26:85-94, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]
127. Crino L, Scagliotti GV, Ricci S, et al: Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A randomized phase III study of the Italian Lung Cancer Project. J Clin Oncol 17:3522-3530, 1999 128. Greco FA, Gray JR Jr, Thompson DS, et al: Prospective randomized study of four novel chemotherapy regimens in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: A Minnie Pearl cancer research network trial. Cancer 95:1279-1285, 2002[CrossRef][Medline] 129. Sculier JP, Lafitte JJ, Paesmans M, et al: Phase III randomized trial comparing moderate-dose cisplatin to combined cisplatin and carboplatin in addition to mitomycin and ifosfamide in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 83:1128-1135, 2000[CrossRef][Medline] 130. Masutani M, Akusawa H, Kadota A, et al: A phase III randomized trial of cisplatin plus vindesine versus cisplatin plus vindesine plus mitomycin C versus cisplatin plus vindesine plus ifosfamide for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Respirology 1:49-54, 1996[Medline] 131. Comella P, Frasci G, De Cataldis G, et al: Cisplatin/carboplatin + etoposide + vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A multicentre randomised trial. Gruppo Oncologico Campano. Br J Cancer 74:1805-1811, 1996[Medline]
132. Schiller JH, Harrington D, Belani CP, et al: Comparison of four chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 346:92-98, 2002 133. Lees M, Aristides M, Maniadakis N, et al: Economic evaluation of gemcitabine alone and in combination with cisplatin in the treatment of nonsmall cell lung cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 20:325-337, 2002[CrossRef][Medline] 134. Annemans L, Giaccone G, Vergnenegre A: The cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel (Taxol) + cisplatin is similar to that of teniposide + cisplatin in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A multicountry analysis. Anticancer Drugs 10:605-615, 1999[Medline] 135. Earle CC, Evans WK: Cost-effectivenes of paclitaxel plus cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 80:815-820, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]
136. Ramsey SD, Moinpour CM, Lovato LC, et al: Economic analysis of vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:291-297, 2002 137. Ramsey SD: Incorporating economic analysis into clinical practice guidelines: A guide for users. ACP J Club 137:11-13, 2002[Medline] 138. Lilenbaum RC, Herndon J, List M, et al: Single agent (SA) versus combination chemotherapy (CC) in avanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a CALGB randomized trial of efficacy, quality of life (QOL), and cost-effectiveness. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 21:1, 2002 (abstr 2) 139. Sederholm C: Gemcitabine (G) compared with gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GC) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a phase III study by the Swedish Lung Cancer Study Group (SLCSG). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 21:291a, 2002 (abstr 1162)
140. Vansteenkiste JF, Vandebroek JE, Nackaerts KL, et al: Clinical-benefit response in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A multicentre prospective randomised phase III study of single agent gemcitabine versus cisplatin-vindesine. Ann Oncol 12:1221-1230, 2001 141. Georgoulias V, Papadakis E, Alexopoulos A, et al: Platinum-based and non-platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 357:1478-1484, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]
142. Kosmidis P, Mylonakis N, Nicolaides C, et al: Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus gemcitabine plus paclitaxel in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 20:3578-3585, 2002 143. Roszkowski K, Pluzanska A, Krzakowski M, et al: A multicenter, randomized, phase III study of docetaxel plus best supportive care versus best supportive care in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic or non-resectable localized non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Lung Cancer 27:145-157, 2000[CrossRef][Medline]
144. Ranson M, Davidson N, Nicolson M, et al: Randomized trial of paclitaxel plus supportive care versus supportive care for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1074-1080, 2000
145. Billingham LJ, Cullen MH: The benefits of chemotherapy in patient subgroups with unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 12:1671-1675, 2001
146. Soria JC, Brisgand D, Le Chevalier T: Do all patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer benefit from cisplatin-based combination therapy? Ann Oncol 12:1667-1670, 2001 147. Sweeney CJ, Zhu J, Sandler AB, et al: Outcome of patients with a performance status of 2 in Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study E1594: a Phase II trial in patients with metastatic nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. Cancer 92:2639-2647, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]
148. Langer CJ, Manola J, Bernardo P, et al: Cisplatin-based therapy for elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Implications of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 5592, a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:173-181, 2002
149. Bunn PA Jr, Lilenbaum R: Chemotherapy for elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:341-343, 2003
150. Anonymous: Effects of vinorelbine on quality of life and survival of elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: The Elderly Lung Cancer Vinorelbine Italian Study Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 91:66-72, 1999
151. Gridelli C: The ELVIS trial: A phase III study of single-agent vinorelbine as first-line treatment in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Elderly Lung Cancer Vinorelbine Italian Study. Oncologist 6:Suppl 14-7, 2001
152. Frasci G, Lorusso V, Panza N, et al: Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine versus vinorelbine alone in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:2529-2536, 2000
153. Gridelli C, Perrone F, Gallo C, et al: Chemotherapy for elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: The Multicenter Italian Lung Cancer in the Elderly Study (MILES) phase III randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:362-372, 2003
154. Socinski MA, Schell MJ, Peterman A, et al: Phase III trial comparing a defined duration of therapy versus continuous therapy followed by second-line therapy in advanced-stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 20:1335-1343, 2002
155. Smith IE, O'Brien ME, Talbot DC, et al: Duration of chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A randomized trial of three versus six courses of mitomycin, vinblastine, and cisplatin. J Clin Oncol 19:1336-1343, 2001
156. Fossella FV, DeVore R, Kerr RN, et al: Randomized phase III trial of docetaxel versus vinorelbine or ifosfamide in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens: The TAX 320 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 18:2354-2362, 2000 157. Miller V, Fossella F, DeVore R, et al: Docetaxel (D) benefits lung cancer symptoms and quality of life (QoL) in a randomized phase III study of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients previously treated with platinum-based therapy. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18:491, 1999 (abstr 1895)
158. Shepherd FA, Dancey J, Ramlau R, et al: Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus best supportive care in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 18:2095-2103, 2000 159. Dancey J, Shepherd F, Ramlau R, et al: Quality of life (QOL) assessment in a randomized study of taxotere (TAX) versus best supportive care (BSC) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients (pts) previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18:491, 1999 (abstr 1896) 160. Bonfill X, Serra C, Sacristan M, et al: Second-line chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer. [update of Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(4):CD002804; PMID: 11687161]. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: CD002804, 2002 161. Hainsworth JD, Burris HA III, Litchy S, et al: Weekly docetaxel in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: A Minnie Pearl Cancer Res Network Phase II Trial. Cancer 89:328-333, 2000[CrossRef][Medline]
162. Crino L, Mosconi AM, Scagliotti G, et al: Gemcitabine as second-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 17:2081-2085, 1999 163. Sculier JP, Lafitte JJ, Berghmans T, et al: A phase II trial testing gemcitabine as second-line chemotherapy for non small cell lung cancer: The European Lung Cancer Working Party. Lung Cancer 29:67-73, 2000[Medline] 164. Socinski MA, Steagall A, Gillenwater H: Second-line chemotherapy with 96-hour infusional paclitaxel in refractory non-small cell lung cancer: Report of a phase II trial. Cancer Invest 17:181-188, 1999[Medline]
165. Hainsworth JD, Thompson DS, Greco FA: Paclitaxel by 1-hour infusion: An active drug in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 13:1609-1614, 1995
166. Spiridonidis CH, Laufman LR, Carman L, et al: Second-line chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer with monthly docetaxel and weekly gemcitabine: A phase II trial. Ann Oncol 12:89-94, 2001 167. Kakolyris S, Papadakis E, Tsiafaki X, et al: Docetaxel in combination with gemcitabine plus rhG-CSF support as second-line treatment in non-small cell lung cancer: A multicenter phase II study. Lung Cancer 32:179-187, 2001 168. Pectasides D, Kalofonos HP, Samantas E, et al: An out-patient second-line chemotherapy with gemcitabine and vinorelbine in patients with non-small cell lung cancer previously treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy. A phase II study of the Hellenic Co-operative Oncology Group. Anticancer Res 21:3005-3010, 2001[Medline] 169. Hainsworth JD, Burris HA III, Billings FT III, et al: Weekly docetaxel with either gemcitabine or vinorelbine as second-line treatment in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: Phase II trials of the Minnie Pearl Cancer Res Network. Cancer 92:2391-2398, 2001[CrossRef][Medline] 170. Kosmas C, Tsavaris N, Vadiaka M, et al: Gemcitabine and docetaxel as second-line chemotherapy for patients with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma who fail prior paclitaxel plus platinum-based regimens. Cancer 92:2902-2910, 2001[CrossRef][Medline] 171. Kosmas C, Tsavaris N, Panopoulos C, et al: Gemcitabine and vinorelbine as second-line therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer after prior treatment with taxane+platinum-based regimens. Eur J Cancer 37:972-978, 2001
172. Fukuoka M, Yano S, Giaccone G, et al: Multi-institutional randomized phase II trial of Gefitinib for reviously treated patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 21:2237-2246, 2003 173. Kris MG, Natale RB, Herbst RS, et al: A phase II trial of ZD 1839 (Iressa) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who had failed platinum-and docetaxed-based regiment (IDEAL2). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 21:292a, 2002 (abstr 1166) 174. Giaccone G, Johnson DH, Manegold C, et al: A phase III clinical trial of ZD1839 (Iressa)in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in chemotherapy-native patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (INTACT 1). European Society for Medical Oncology Congress, October 18-22, Nice, France, 2002 (abstr 4) 175. Johnson DH, Herbst R, Giaccone G, et al: ZD1839 (Iressa) in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in chemotherapy-native patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): results from a phase III clinical trial (INTACT 2). European Socity for Medical Oncology Congress, October 18-22, Nice, France, 2002 (abstr 468) 176. Hilsenbeck SG, Raub WA Jr, Sridhar KS: Prognostic factors in lung cancer based on multivariate analysis. Am J Clin Oncol 16:301-309, 1993[Medline] 177. Ries LA: Influence of extent of disease, histology, and demographic factors on lung cancer survival in the SEER population-based data. Semin Surg Oncol 10:21-30, 1994[Medline]
178. Patz EF Jr, Connolly J, Herndon J: Prognostic value of thoracic FDG PET imaging after treatment for non-small cell lung cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:769-774, 2000
179. Higashi K, Ueda Y, Arisaka Y, et al: 18F-FDG uptake as a biologic prognostic factor for recurrence in patients with surgically resected non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 43:39-45, 2002
180. Dunagan D, Chin R Jr, McCain T, et al: Staging by positron emission tomography predicts survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Chest 119:333-339, 2001
181. Lee YC, Chang YL, Luh SP, et al: Significance of P53 and Rb protein expression in surgically treated non-small cell lung cancers. Ann Thorac Surg 68:343-348, 1999 182. Keum JS, Kong G, Yang SC, et al: Cyclin D1 overexpression is an indicator of poor prognosis in resectable non-small cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 81:127-132, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]
183. Khuri FR, Lotan R, Kemp BL, et al: Retinoic acid receptor-beta as a prognostic indicator in stage I non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:2798-2804, 2000
184. Herbst RS, Yano S, Kuniyasu H, et al: Differential expression of E-cadherin and type IV collagenase genes predicts outcome in patients with stage I non-small cell lung carcinoma. Clinical Cancer Res 6:790-797, 2000
185. Zhou X, Kemp BL, Khuri FR, et al: Prognostic implication of microsatellite alteration profiles in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Clinical Cancer Res 6:559-565, 2000 186. Decaussin M, Sartelet H, Robert C, et al: Expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its two receptors (VEGF-R1-Flt1 and VEGF-R2-Flk1/KDR) in non-small cell lung carcinomas (NSCLCs): Correlation with angiogenesis and survival. J Pathol 188:369-377, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]
187. Catzavelos C, Tsao MS, DeBoer G, et al: Reduced expression of the cell cycle inhibitor p27Kip1 in non-small cell lung carcinoma: A prognostic factor independent of Ras. Cancer Res 59:684-688, 1999
188. Marchetti A, Bertacca G, Buttitta F, et al: Telomerase activity as a prognostic indicator in stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Clinical Cancer Res 5:2077-2081, 1999 189. Pantel K, Izbicki J, Passlick B, et al: Frequency and prognostic significance of isolated tumour cells in bone marrow of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer without overt metastases. Lancet 347:649-653, 1996[CrossRef][Medline]
190. Bhattacharjee A, Richards WG, Staunton J, et al: Classification of human lung carcinomas by mRNA expression profiling reveals distinct adenocarcinoma subclasses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:13790-13795, 2001
191. Garber ME, Troyanskaya OG, Schluens K, et al: Diversity of gene expression in adenocarcinoma of the lung. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:13784-13789, 2001
192. Berenson JR, Hillner BE, Kyle RA, et al: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines: The role of bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 20:3719-3736, 2002
193. Schuchter LM, Hensley ML, Meropol NJ, et al: 2002 update of recommendations for the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy protectants: Clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 20:2895-2903, 2002
194. Hillner BE, Ingle JN, Berenson JR, et al: American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the role of bisphosphonates in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Bisphosphonates Expert Panel. J Clin Oncol 18:1378-1391, 2000
195. Bennett CL, Weeks JA, Somerfield MR, et al: Use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors: Comparison of the 1994 and 1997 American Society of Clinical Oncology surveys regarding ASCO clinical practice guidelines—Health Services Research Committee of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 17:3676-3681, 1999 196. Bennett CL, Smith TJ, Weeks JC, et al: Use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors: The American Society of Clinical Oncology survey—The Health Services Research Committee of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 14:2511-2520, 1996[Abstract]
197. Anonymous: American Society of Clinical Oncology. Recommendations for the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors: Evidence-based, clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Oncol 12:2471-2508, 1994
198. Gralla RJ, Osoba D, Kris MG, et al: Recommendations for the use of antiemetics: Evidence-based, clinical practice guidelines. American Society of Clinical Oncology. [erratum appears in J Clin Oncol 17:3860, 1999]. J Clin Oncol 17:2971-2994, 1999
199. Rizzo JD, Lichtin AE, Woolf SH, et al: Use of epoetin in patients with cancer: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology. J Clin Oncol 20:4083-4107, 2002 200. Seidenfeld J, Piper M, Aronson N: Systematic review of controlled trials on erythropoietin to support evidence-based guidelines. Oncology (Huntington) 16:171-188, 2002 201. Saunders M, Dische S, Barrett A, et al: Continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (CHART) versus conventional radiotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer: A randomised multicentre trial. CHART Steering Committee. Lancet 350:161-165, 1997[CrossRef][Medline] 202. Saunders M, Dische S, Barrett A, et al: Continuous, hyperfractionated, accelerated radiotherapy (CHART) versus conventional radiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: Mature data from the randomised multicentre trial. CHART Steering committee. Radiother Oncol 52:137-148, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]
203. Bailey AJ, Parmar MK, Stephens RJ: Patient-reported short-term and long-term physical and psychologic symptoms: Results of the continuous hyperfractionated accelerated [correction of acclerated] radiotherapy (CHART) randomized trial in non-small-cell lung cancer—CHART Steering Committee. J Clin Oncol 16:3082-3093, 1998 204. Saunders MI, Rojas A, Lyn BE, et al: Experience with dose escalation using CHARTWEL (continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy weekend less) in non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 78:1323-1328, 1998[Medline] 205. Mehta MP, Tannehill SP, Adak S, et al: Phase II trial of hyperfractionated accelerated radiation therapy for nonresectable non-small-cell lung cancer: Results of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 4593. J Clin Oncol 16:3518-3523, 1998[Abstract] 206. Bonner JA, McGinnis WL, Stella PJ, et al: The possible advantage of hyperfractionated thoracic radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: Results of a North Central Cancer Treatment Group Phase III Study. Cancer 82:1037-1048, 1998[CrossRef][Medline]
207. Jeremic B, Shibamoto Y, Acimovic L, et al: Hyperfractionated radiation therapy with or without concurrent low-dose daily carboplatin/etoposide for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: A randomized study. J Clin Oncol 14:1065-1070, 1996 208. Rosenzweig KE, Sim SE, Mychalczak B, et al: Elective nodal irradiation in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 50:681-685, 2001[CrossRef][Medline] 209. Socinski MA, Rosenman JG, Halle J, et al: Dose-escalating conformal thoracic radiation therapy with induction and concurrent carboplatin/paclitaxel in unresectable stage IIIA/B nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: A modified phase I/II trial. Cancer 92:1213-1223, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]
210. Socinski MA, Marks LB, Garst J, et al: Carboplatin/paclitaxel or carboplatin/vinorelbine followed by accelerated hyperfractionated conformal radiation therapy: A preliminary report of a phase I dose escalation trial from the Carolina Conformal Therapy Consortium. Oncologist 6:Suppl 120-24, 2001 211. Falk SJ, Girling DJ, White RJ, et al: Immediate versus delayed palliative thoracic radiotherapy in patients with unresectable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer and minimal thoracic symptoms: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ 325:465, 2002 212. Bezjak A, Dixon P, Brundage M, et al: Randomized phase III trial of single versus fractionated thoracic radiation in the palliation of patients with lung cancer (NCIC CTG SC 15). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 54:719-728, 2002[CrossRef][Medline] 213. Macbeth FR, Bolger JJ, Hopwood P, et al: Randomized trial of palliative two-fraction versus more intensive 13-fraction radiotherapy for patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer and good performance status: Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 8:167-175, 1996 214. Reinfuss M, Glinski B, Kowalska T, et al: Radiotherapy for stage III, inoperable asymptomatic non-small-cell lung cancer: Final results of a prospective randomized study (240 patients). Cancer Radiother 3:475-479, 1999[Medline] 215. Rees GJ, Devrell CE, Barley VL, et al: Palliative radiotherapy for lung cancer: Two versus five fractions. Clinical Oncology (Royal College of Radiologists) 9:90-95, 1997 216. Nestle U, Nieder C, Walter K, et al: A palliative accelerated irradiation regimen for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer vs. conventionally fractionated 60 GY: Results of a randomized equivalence study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48:95-103, 2000[CrossRef][Medline] 217. Macbeth F, Toy E, Coles B, et al: Palliative radiotherapy regimens for non-small cell lung cancer (Cochrane Review). 2002 218. Speiser B, Spratling L: Intermediate dose rate remote afterloading brachytherapy for intraluminal control of bronchogenic carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 18:1443-1448, 1990[Medline] 219. Sutedja TG, Venmans BJ, Smit EF, et al: Fluorescence bronchoscopy for early detection of lung cancer: A clinical perspective. Lung Cancer 34:157-168, 2001[CrossRef][Medline] 220. Simoff MJ: Endobronchial management of advanced lung cancer. Cancer Control 8:337-343, 2001[Medline]
221. Shah SK, Ost D: Photodynamic therapy: A case series demonstrating its role in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Chest 118:1419-1423, 2000 222. Ost D: Photodynamic therapy in lung cancer. Oncology (Huntington) 14:379-386, 2000
223. Diaz-Jimenez JP, Martinez-Ballarin JE, Llunell A, et al: Efficacy and safety of photodynamic therapy versus Nd-YAG laser resection in NSCLC with airway obstruction. Eur Respir J 14:800-805, 1999 224. Kelly K, Bunn PA Jr: Is it time to reevaluate our approach to the treatment of brain metastases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer? Lung Cancer 20:85-91, 1998[CrossRef][Medline]
225. Robinet G, Thomas P, Breton JL, et al: Results of a phase III study of early versus delayed whole brain radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin and vinorelbine combination in inoperable brain metastasis of non-small-cell lung cancer: Groupe Francais de Pneumo-Cancerologie (GFPC) Protocol 95-1. Ann Oncol 12:59-67, 2001 226. Auchter RM, Lamond JP, Alexander E, et al: A multiinstitutional outcome and prognostic factor analysis of radiosurgery for resectable single brain metastasis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 35:27-35, 1996[CrossRef][Medline] 227. Sheehan JP, Sun MH, Kondziolka D, et al: Radiosurgery for non-small cell lung carcinoma metastatic to the brain: Long-term outcomes and prognostic factors influencing patient survival time and local tumor control. J Neurosurg 97:1276-1281, 2002[Medline] 228. Kim YS, Kondziolka D, Flickinger JC, et al: Stereotactic radiosurgery for patients with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma metastatic to the brain. Cancer 80:2075-2083, 1997[CrossRef][Medline] 229. Hoffman R, Sneed PK, McDermott MW, et al: Radiosurgery for brain metastases from primary lung carcinoma. Cancer Journal 7:121-131, 2001[Medline]
230. Moazami N, Rice TW, Rybicki LA, et al: Stage III non-small cell lung cancer and metachronous brain metastases. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 124:113-122, 2002 231. Zabel A, Milker-Zabel S, Thilmann C, et al: Treatment of brain metastases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by stereotactic linac-based radiosurgery: Prognostic factors. Lung Cancer 37:87-94, 2002[CrossRef][Medline] 232. Shaw E, Scott C, Souhami L, et al: Single dose radiosurgical treatment of recurrent previously irradiated primary brain tumors and brain metastases: Final report of RTOG protocol 90-05. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 47:291-298, 2000[CrossRef][Medline] 233. Linzer D, Ling SM, Villalobos H, et al: Gamma knife radiosurgery for large volume brain tumors: An analysis of acute and chronic toxicity. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 70:11-18, 1998 (suppl 1) 234. Chao ST, Suh JH, Raja S, et al: The sensitivity and specificity of FDG PET in distinguishing recurrent brain tumor from radionecrosis in patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery. Int J Cancer 96:191-197, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]
235. Billing PS, Miller DL, Allen MS, et al: Surgical treatment of primary lung cancer with synchronous brain metastases. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 122:548-553, 2001
236. Bonnette P, Puyo P, Gabriel C, et al: Surgical management of non-small cell lung cancer with synchronous brain metastases. Chest 119:1469-1475, 2001
237. Porte HL, Roumilhac D, Graziana JP, et al: Adrenalectomy for a solitary adrenal metastasis from lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 65:331-335, 1998
238. Luketich JD, Burt ME: Does resection of adrenal metastases from non-small cell lung cancer improve survival? Ann Thorac Surg 62:1614-1616, 1996 239. Abdel-Raheem MM, Potti A, Becker WK, et al: Late adrenal metastasis in operable non-small-cell lung carcinoma. Am J Clin Oncol 25:81-83, 2002[CrossRef][Medline] 240. Ambrogi V, Tonini G, Mineo TC: Prolonged survival after extracranial metastasectomy from synchronous resectable lung cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 8:663-666, 2001[CrossRef][Medline] 241. Yoshino I, Yohena T, Kitajima M, et al: Survival of non-small cell lung cancer patients with postoperative recurrence at distant organs. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 7:204-209, 2001[Medline]
242. Porte H, Siat J, Guibert B, et al: Resection of adrenal metastases from non-small cell lung cancer: A multicenter study. Ann Thorac Surg 71:981-985, 2001 243. Heniford BT, Arca MJ, Walsh RM, et al: Laparoscopic adrenalectomy for cancer. Semin Surg Oncol 16:293-306, 1999[CrossRef][Medline] 244. Sung GT, Gill IS: Laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Semin Laparosc Surg 7:211-222, 2000[CrossRef][Medline]
245. Gilbert S, Reid KR, Lam MY, et al: Who should follow up lung cancer patients after operation? Ann Thorac Surg 69:1696-1700, 2000
246. Walsh GL, O'Connor M, Willis KM, et al: Is follow-up of lung cancer patients after resection medically indicated and cost-effective? Ann Thorac Surg 60:1563-1572, 1995
247. Younes RN, Gross JL, Deheinzelin D: Follow-up in lung cancer: How often and for what purpose? Chest 115:1494-1499, 1999
248. Westeel V, Choma D, Clement F, et al: Relevance of an intensive postoperative follow-up after surgery for non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 70:1185-1190, 2000 249. Ryu JS, Choi NC, Fischman AJ, et al: FDG-PET in staging and restaging non-small cell lung cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: Correlation with histopathology. Lung Cancer 35:179-187, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]
250. Akhurst T, Downey RJ, Ginsberg MS, et al: An initial experience with FDG-PET in the imaging of residual disease after induction therapy for lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 73:259-266, 2002 251. Bury T, Corhay JL, Duysinx B, et al: Value of FDG-PET in detecting residual or recurrent nonsmall cell lung cancer. Eur Respir J 14:1376-1380, 1999[Abstract]
252. Vansteenkiste JF, Stroobants SG, De Leyn PR, et al: Potential use of FDG-PET scan after induction chemotherapy in surgically staged IIIa-N2 non-small-cell lung cancer: A prospective pilot study—The Leuven Lung Cancer Group. Ann Oncol 9:1193-1198, 1998
253. Hicks RJ, Kalff V, MacManus MP, et al: The utility of (18)F-FDG PET for suspected recurrent non-small cell lung cancer after potentially curative therapy: Impact on management and prognostic stratification. J Nucl Med 42:1605-1613, 2001
254. Lee J, Aronchick JM, Alavi A: Accuracy of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for the evaluation of malignancy in patients presenting with new lung abnormalities: A retrospective review. Chest 120:1791-1797, 2001 255. Johnson BE, Cortazar P, Chute JP: Second lung cancers in patients successfully treated for lung cancer. Semin Oncol 24:492-499, 1997[Medline]
256. Johnson BE: Second lung cancers in patients after treatment for an initial lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 90:1335-1345, 1998
257. Patz EF Jr, Goodman PC, Bepler G: Screening for lung cancer. N Engl J Med 343:1627-1633, 2000 258. Henschke CI, McCauley DI, Yankelevitz DF, et al: Early Lung Cancer Action Project: Overall design and findings from baseline screening. Lancet 354:99-105, 1999[CrossRef][Medline] 259. Henschke CI: Early lung cancer action project: Overall design and findings from baseline screening. Cancer 89:2474-2482, 2000[CrossRef][Medline] 260. Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Smith JP, et al: Screening for lung cancer: The early lung cancer action approach. Lung Cancer 35:143-148, 2002[CrossRef][Medline] 261. Sone S, Takashima S, Li F, et al: Mass screening for lung cancer with mobile spiral computed tomography scanner. Lancet 351:1242-1245, 1998[CrossRef][Medline]
262. Kaneko M, Eguchi K, Ohmatsu H, et al: Peripheral lung cancer: Screening and detection with low-dose spiral CT versus radiography. Radiology 201:798-802, 1996
263. Hillman BJ, Gatsonis C, Sullivan DC: American College of Radiology Imaging Network: New national cooperative group for conducting clinical trials of medical imaging technologies. Radiology 213:641-645, 1999
264. Patz EF Jr, Rossi S, Harpole DH Jr, et al: Correlation of tumor size and survival in patients with stage IA non-small cell lung cancer. Chest 117:1568-1571, 2000 265. Heyneman LE, Herndon JE, Goodman PC, et al: Stage distribution in patients with a small (< or = 3 cm) primary nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: Implication for lung carcinoma screening. Cancer 92:3051-3055, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]
266. Lam S, Kennedy T, Unger M, et al: Localization of bronchial intraepithelial neoplastic lesions by fluorescence bronchoscopy. Chest 113:696-702, 1998 267. Vermylen P, Pierard P, Roufosse C, et al: Detection of bronchial preneoplastic lesions and early lung cancer with fluorescence bronchoscopy: A study about its ambulatory feasibility under local anaesthesis. Lung Cancer 25:161-168, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]
268. Hirsch FR, Prindiville SA, Miller YE, et al: Fluorescence versus white-light bronchoscopy for detection of preneoplastic lesions: A randomized study. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:1385-1391, 2001
269. Kurie JM, Lee JS, Morice RC, et al: Autofluorescence bronchoscopy in the detection of squamous metaplasia and dysplasia in current and former smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst 90:991-995, 1998 270. Scott FM, Modali R, Lehman TA, et al: High frequency of K-ras codon 12 mutations in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid of patients at high risk for second primary lung cancer. Clinical Cancer Res 3:479-482, 1997[Abstract]
271. Tockman MS, Mulshine JL, Piantadosi S, et al: Prospective detection of preclinical lung cancer: Results from two studies of heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein A2/B1 overexpression. Clinical Cancer Res 3:2237-2246, 1997 272. Crowell RE, Gilliland FD, Temes RT, et al: Detection of trisomy 7 in nonmalignant bronchial epithelium from lung cancer patients and individuals at risk for lung cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 5:631-637, 1996[Abstract] 273. Rasidakis A, Orphanidou D, Kalomenidis J, et al: Expression of mdm-2 protein in neoplastic, preneoplastic, and normal bronchial mucosa specimens: Comparative study with p53 expression. Hybridoma 17:339-345, 1998[Medline] 274. Ikeda N, MacAulay C, Lam S, et al: Malignancy associated changes in bronchial epithelial cells and clinical application as a biomarker. Lung Cancer 19:161-166, 1998[CrossRef][Medline]
275. Esteller M, Sanchez-Cespedes M, Rosell R, et al: Detection of aberrant promoter hypermethylation of tumor suppressor genes in serum DNA from non-small cell lung cancer patients. [erratum appears in Cancer Res 1999 Aug 1;59(15):3853]. Cancer Res 59:67-70, 1999 276. Haus BM, Razavi H, Kuschner WG: Occupational and environmental causes of bronchogenic carcinoma. Curr Opin Pulm Med 7:220-225, 2001[CrossRef][Medline] 277. Albin M, Magnani C, Krstev S, et al: Asbestos and cancer: An overview of current trends in Europe. Environ Health Perspect 107:Suppl 2289-298, 1999
278. Darby S, Hill D, Doll R: Radon: A likely carcinogen at all exposures. Ann Oncol 12:1341-1351, 2001 279. Neuberger JS, Gesell TF: Residential radon exposure and lung cancer: Risk in nonsmokers. Health Phys 83:1-18, 2002[Medline] 280. Alavanja MC: Biologic damage resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke and from radon: Implication for preventive interventions. Oncogene 21:7365-7375, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]
281. Hecht SS: Tobacco smoke carcinogens and lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 91:1194-1210, 1999 282. Schuller HM: Mechanisms of smoking-related lung and pancreatic adenocarcinoma development. Nature Reviews. Cancer 2:455-463, 2002[CrossRef][Medline] 283. Osada H, Takahashi T: Genetic alterations of multiple tumor suppressors and oncogenes in the carcinogenesis and progression of lung cancer. Oncogene 21:7421-7434, 2002[CrossRef][Medline] 284. Shields PG: Molecular epidemiology of smoking and lung cancer. Oncogene 21:6870-6876, 2002[CrossRef][Medline] 285. Pfeifer GP, Denissenko MF, Olivier M, et al: Tobacco smoke carcinogens, DNA damage and p53 mutations in smoking-associated cancers. Oncogene 21:7435-7451, 2002[CrossRef][Medline] 286. Holli K, Visakorpi T, Hakama M: Smoking and survival from lung cancer. Acta Oncol 38:989-992, 1999[CrossRef][Medline] 287. Eckhardt SG, Pulte DE, Hilsenbeck SG: Response to chemotherapy in smoking and non-smoking patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 14:357, 1995 (astract) 288. Ahrendt SA, Decker PA, Alawi EA, et al: Cigarette smoking is strongly associated with mutation of the K-ras gene in patients with primary adenocarcinoma of the lung. Cancer 92:1525-1530, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]
289. Lee JJ, Liu D, Lee JS, et al: Long-term impact of smoking on lung epithelial proliferation in current and former smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:1081-1088, 2001
290. Sanderson Cox L, Patten CA, Ebbert JO, et al: Tobacco use outcomes among patients with lung cancer treated for nicotine dependence. J Clin Oncol 20:3461-3469, 2002
291. van Zandwijk N, Dalesio O, Pastorino U, et al: EUROSCAN, a randomized trial of vitamin A and N-acetylcysteine in patients with head and neck cancer or lung cancer: For the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck and Lung Cancer Cooperative Groups. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:977-986, 2000
292. Lippman SM, Lee JJ, Karp DD, et al: Randomized phase III intergroup trial of isotretinoin to prevent second primary tumors in stage I non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:605-618, 2001 293. Akhmedkhanov A, Toniolo P, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, et al: Aspirin and lung cancer in women. Br J Cancer 87:49-53, 2002[CrossRef][Medline] Submitted September 8, 2003; accepted November 4, 2003.
Related Correspondence
Related Reply
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Copyright © 2004 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
|
TOP
INTRODUCTION
PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1.0 cm in shortest transverse axis. 
1.5 cm) found that malignant lymph nodes were still present in 20% of patients, with higher rates of mediastinal disease associated with larger primary tumors [
