BackgroundTo compare the efficacy and toxicity of anti-programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD-1) and anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Materials and methodsPhase III randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were identified after systematic review of databases and conference proceedings. A random-effect model was used to determine the pooled HR for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and duration of response. The pooled OR for overall response and treatment-related side effects were calculated using the inverse-variance method. Heterogeneity was measured using the τ2 and I2 statistics.ResultsAfter the systematic review, we included four phase III RCTs (n=2737) in this meta-analysis. The use of anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 agents (atezolizumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab) was associated with better OS in comparison with docetaxel alone (HR: 0.69; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.75; p<0.00001). Similarly, the PFS and duration of response was significantly longer for patients receiving immunotherapy (HR: 0.85; 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96; p=0.007 and HR:0.32; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.43; p<0.00001, respectively) versus single agent chemotherapy. The overall response rate was also higher for patients who received any anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 therapy in comparison with docetaxel (OR: 1.77; 95% CI 1.26 to 2.50; p=0.001). Regarding treatment-related side effects grade 3 or higher, patients who received immunotherapy experienced less events than patients allocated to docetaxel (OR: 0.19; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.30; p<0.00001)ConclusionThe use of anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 therapy in patients with progressive advanced NSCLC is significantly better than the use of docetaxel in terms of OS, PFS, duration of response and overall response rate.

No abstract

reference. CDH1 expression levels were quantified by two step reverse transcription dPCR with GAPDH as an endogenous control. Results: The combined in silico and literature-search based approach gave rise to a list of 14 miRNAs possibly involved in the regulation of CDH1 expression in GC (miR-506, miR-217, miR-199a, miR-153, miR-544a, miR-34c, miR-141, miR-429, miR-101, miR-200a, miR-200b, miR-200c, miR-26b, miR-23a). Tumor and normal paired samples from 17 patients have been analyzed so far. At the end of the qPCR reactions, 8 miRNAs could be successfully quantified (miR-141, miR-429, miR-200a, miR-200b, miR-200c, miR-101, miR-26b and miR-23a); among those miR-101 (p ¼ 0.00236) and miR-26b (p ¼ 0.001623) were found to be significantly lower in tumors compared to normal tissue, while miR-200c showed borderline significance (p ¼ 0.05373). With respect to CDH1, it was similarly found to be significantly less in tumor than normal tissue (p ¼ 0.01). Meanwhile, no significant correlations were found between miRNAs and CDH1 expression levels. Conclusion: Based on our preliminary results both miR-26 and miR-101 seem to contribute to IGC carcinogenesis. To further investigate whether they act by perturbing Ecadherin-mediated signaling and cell-cell adhesion we are planning to analyze a bigger case series.

, all patients diagnosed with SCLC and NSCLC treated with chemotherapy at National Institute of Oncology at Asuncion-Paraguay were analyzed retrospectively. Demographic information, treatment modalities, tumor response, were recorded .SPSS 19 was used to analyze the data with p <0.05 as significance. Results: We studied 370 subjects, 28% received chemotherapy, 14,8% chemotherapy plus radiotherapy, 1,1% surgery plus chemotherapy. At IIIA stage NSCLC 18,2% was treated with PTX and CBDCA 1cycle and18,2% with PTX+CBDCA 4cycles (p <0.05). IIIB stage NSCLC 17,6% patients received PTX+CBDCA 4cycles and 22,1% PTX+CBDCA 6 cycles (p<0.05). At IIIA stage NSCLC received PTX + CBDCA 4 cycles.(p<0.05). SCLC has no statistical significance relation between stage and type of chemotherapy. The tumor response to first-line chemotherapy shows 47,5% has no response. 32,4% has response (p<0.05). 17,6% abandoned treatment (p <0.05).Patients who received PTX+CBDCA show a high percentage of abandoned treatment as 20% and patients receiving CDDP +VP-16 had a high abandoned treatment of 80% (p<0.05). 59.8% patients treated with chemotherapy were from countryside places and 40,2% from urban places (p>0.05), 25,6% of patients receiving chemotherapy and 29,6% were receiving chemotherapy and radiotherapy were farmers (p<0.05). 80,4% patients receiving chemotherapy were smokers (p<0.05). 45,1% patients consumed alcohol regularly (p<0.05). Only 12,7% patients had family lung cancer genetic precedence (p<0.05). 43,1% patient under chemotherapy had exposure to toxic environmental agents (p <0.05). 53,5% patient receiving chemotherapy had a stage 2 of ECOG Performance Status (p <0.05). Tumor response to chemotherapy at NSCLC show: 100% patients who received dFdC+CDDP 4cycles; 65,5% with PTX+CBDCA 4 cycles; 42,9% CDDP+VP-16 4 cycles; 65% PTX + CBDCA 6 cycles; 100% of CDDP+ VP16 6 cycles; 100% of dFdC 6 cycles (p <0.05) SCLC has no statistical significance at this analysis. At Second line chemotherapy to NSCLC 23,8% received dFdC+ CDDP 1 cycle and 14,3% PTX+CBDCA 1 cycle. Only 3 patients received third line