A collaboration of multidisciplinary experts on the functional evaluation of lung cancer patients has been facilitated by the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the European Society of Thoracic Surgery (ESTS), in order to draw up recommendations and provide clinicians with clear, up-to-date guidelines on fitness for surgery and chemo-radiotherapy.The subject was divided into different topics, which were then assigned to at least two experts. The authors searched the literature according to their own strategies, with no central literature review being performed. The draft reports written by the experts on each topic were reviewed, discussed and voted on by the entire expert panel. The evidence supporting each recommendation was summarised, and graded as described by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Grading Review Group. Clinical practice guidelines were generated and finalised in a functional algorithm for risk stratification of the lung resection candidates, emphasising cardiological evaluation, forced expiratory volume in 1 s, systematic carbon monoxide lung diffusion capacity and exercise testing.Contrary to lung resection, for which the scientific evidences are more robust, we were unable to recommend any specific test, cut-off value, or algorithm before chemo-radiotherapy due to the lack of data. We recommend that lung cancer patients should be managed in specialised settings by multidisciplinary teams.

To complement the existing treatment guidelines for all tumour types, ESMO organises consensus conferences to focus on specific issues in each type of tumour. The 2nd ESMO Consensus Conference on Lung Cancer was held on 11–12 May 2013 in Lugano. A total of 35 experts met to address several questions on non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in each of four areas: pathology and molecular biomarkers, first-line/second and further lines in advanced disease, early-stage disease and locally advanced disease. For each question, recommendations were made including reference to the grade of recommendation and level of evidence. This consensus paper focuses on early-stage disease.

Purpose: Information about symptomatic toxicities of anticancer treatments is not based on direct report by patients, but rather on reports by clinicians in trials. Given the potential for under-reporting, our aim was to compare reporting by patients and physicians of six toxicities (anorexia, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, and hair loss) within three randomized trials. Patients and Methods: In one trial, elderly patients with breast cancer received adjuvant chemotherapy; in two trials, patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer received first-line treatment. Toxicity was prospectively collected by investigators (graded by National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria [version 2.0] or Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 3]). At the end of each cycle, patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaires, including toxicity-related symptom items. Possible answers were “not at all,” “a little,” “quite a bit,” and “very much.” Analysis was limited to the first three cycles. For each toxicity, agreement between patients and physicians and under-reporting by physicians (ie, toxicity reported by patients but not reported by physicians) were calculated. Results: Overall, 1,090 patients (2,482 cycles) were included. Agreement between patients and physicians was low for all toxicities. Toxicity rates reported by physicians were always lower than those reported by patients. For patients who reported toxicity (any severity), under-reporting by physicians ranged from 40.7% to 74.4%. Examining only patients who reported “very much” toxicity, under-reporting by physicians ranged from 13.0% to 50.0%. Conclusion: Subjective toxicities are at high risk of under-reporting by physicians, even when prospectively collected within randomized trials. This strongly supports the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes into toxicity reporting in clinical trials.

Video-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical resections are increasingly used in Europe to manage primary lung cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome following thoracoscopic versus open lobectomy in case-matched groups of patients from the European Society of Thoracic Surgeon (ESTS) database. All patients having lobectomy as the primary procedure via thoracoscopy [video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS)-L)] or thoracotomy (TH-L) were identified in the ESTS database (January 2007 to December 2013). A propensity score was constructed using several patients' baseline characteristics. The matching using the propensity score was responsible for the minimization of selection bias. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed to compare the incidence of postoperative major complications (according to the ESTS database definitions) and mortality at hospital discharge between the matched groups. After exclusions, 28 771 patients were identified: 26 050 having thoracotomy and 2721 having thoracoscopy. Propensity score yielded two well-matched groups of 2721 patients. Numeric variables were compared by Student's t -tests and categorical variables were compared by McNemar's tests. Compared with TH-L, VATS-L was associated with a lower incidence of total complications [ n = 792 (29.1%) vs 863 (31.7%), P = 0.0357], major cardiopulmonary complications [ n = 316 (15.9%) vs 435 (19.6%), P = 0.0094], atelectasis requiring bronchoscopy [ n = 65 (2.4%) vs 150 (5.5%), P < 0.0001], initial ventilation >48 h [ n = 18 (0.7%) vs 38 (1.4%), P = 0.0075] and wound infection [ n = 6 (0.2%) vs 17 (0.6%), P = 0.0218]. There was no difference in the incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation between the two groups ( P = 0.14). Postoperative hospital stay was 2 days shorter in the VATS-L patients (mean: 7.8 vs 9.8 days; P = 0.0003). In terms of outcome at hospital discharge, there were 27 deaths in the VATS-L group (1%) versus 50 in the TH-L group (1.9%, P = 0.0201). Data from the ESTS database confirmed that lobectomy performed through VATS is associated with a lower incidence of complications compared with thoracotomy.

To complement the existing treatment guidelines for all tumour types, ESMO organises consensus conferences to focus on specific issues in each type of tumour. The 2nd ESMO Consensus Conference on Lung Cancer was held on 11–12 May 2013 in Lugano. A total of 35 experts met to address several questions on non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in each of four areas: pathology and molecular biomarkers, first-line/second and further lines of treatment in advanced disease, early-stage disease and locally advanced disease. For each question, recommendations were made including reference to the grade of recommendation and level of evidence. This consensus paper focuses on locally advanced disease.