Background: Almost half of all patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) present with stage iv disease. The objective of the present study was to characterize treatment patterns and survival outcomes in patients with advanced nsclc. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal population-level study in patients diagnosed with stage iv nsclc in Ontario between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2015, with follow-up to 31 March 2017 for overall survival and treatment sequence. Patients were stratified as nonsquamous or squamous histology. A sub-analysis was conducted for patients with nonsquamous histology who received targeted therapies, on the assumption that their tumours were EGFR mutation–positive (EGFRm+). Treatment patterns were determined, and survival was calculated from date of diagnosis to death or censoring. Results: Of 24,729 nsclc cases identified, stage iv disease was diagnosed in 49.2%, histology was nonsquamous in 10,103, and EGFRm+ was assumed in 508. Median patient age ranged from 69 to 72 years for the three cohorts. For patients with nonsquamous histology, palliative radiotherapy was the most frequently used first-line treatment (44.4%), followed by no treatment (26.7%) and chemotherapy (14.9%). In the EGFRm+ cohort, 75.6% received gefitinib as first- or second-line therapy, and almost half (47.4%) the 473 patients with squamous histology treated with first-line chemotherapy received cisplatin or carboplatin with gemcitabine. Median overall survival in the nonsquamous and squamous cohorts was 4.9 and 4.6 months respectively; it was 17.6 months for patients who were EGFRm+. Conclusions: Survival of patients with stage iv nsclc remains poor, with the exception of patients who are EGFRm+. Only 14.9% of patients received first-line chemotherapy; the mainstay of treatment was palliative radiotherapy.

Thirteen previously untreated patients with extensive small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) were treated with the investigational agent amonafide in a dose of 300 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) over 1 hour daily for 5 consecutive days. No responses were seen in 12 eligible patients. Myelosuppression was only occasionally seen. Other toxicities included diaphoresis, chest pain, local irritation at the injection site, arthralgias, nausea and vomiting, and neuromuscular problems. There were two early deaths, both attributable to tumor progression with resultant obstruction of a vital structure. Ten patients crossed over to alternate active therapy (etoposide [VP-16]-cisplatin) and five responded. The median survival time (MST) of the whole group of treated patients was 31 weeks. In future trials of investigational new drugs in previously untreated SCLC, we recommend that patients with the following characteristics be excluded: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 2, 3, and 4; superior vena cava (SVC) obstruction; any major paraneoplastic syndrome; serious comorbid illness; and extensive hepatic involvement by tumor. The trial design should include prompt crossover to active alternative therapy, such as VP-16 and cisplatin, for disease progression or for failure to respond after two treatment cycles. Also, the trial design should use an early stopping rule based on interest in identifying only very active agents with a minimum response rate of 30%.

Practice pattern data demonstrate regional variation and lower than expected rates of adherence to practice guideline (PG) recommendations for the treatment of stage II/IIIA resected and stage IIIA/IIIB unresected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in Ontario, Canada. This study sought to understand how clinical decisions are made for the treatment of these patients and the role of PGs.

Background: Although the health benefits of smoking cessation in newly diagnosed cancer patients are well established, systematic efforts to help cancer patients stop smoking have rarely been implemented in cancer centres. Methods: Starting in 2012, the 14 regional cancer centres overseen by Cancer Care Ontario in the province of Ontario, Canada began to screen ambulatory cancer patients for their smoking status, to provide smokers with advice on the health benefits of quitting and to offer referral to smoking cessation services. Multiple initiatives were undertaken to educate healthcare providers and patients on the health benefits of cessation. Critical to the success of the initiative was strong leadership from Cancer Care Ontario executives and regional vice presidents, advice from an advisory committee of smoking cessation experts, engagement of regional champions and support from a provincial secretariat. The quarterly review of performance metrics was an important driver of change. Results: Most cancer centres now screen in excess of 75% of ambulatory patients but rates for the acceptance of a referral to smoking cessation services remain low (less than 25%). Introduction of an opt-out referral process appears to increase referral acceptance. Economic analyses suggest that smoking cessation is cost-effective in a cancer centre environment. Conclusions: Although there are barriers to the implementation of smoking cessation in cancer centres, it is possible to change the culture to one in which smoking cessation is considered part of high-quality treatment.