No abstract

Lung cancer persists throughout the world as a major cause of death. In 2014, data from the Brazilian National Cancer Institute (INCA) estimated 16.400 new cases of lung cancer among men (second most common) and 10.930 new cases among women (fourth most common). These data are consistent for all Brazilian regions and reflect the trends of cancer in the country over the last decade. Brazil is a continental country, the largest in Latin America and fifth in the world, with an estimated population of >200 million. Although the discrepancy in the national income between rich and poor has diminished in the last 2 decades, it is still huge. More than 75% of the Brazilian population do not have private health insurance and rely on the national health care system, where differences in standard of cancer care are evident. It is possible to point out differences from the recommendations of international guidelines in every step of the lung cancer care, from the diagnosis to the treatment of advanced disease. This review aims to describe and recognize these differences as a way to offer a real discussion for future modifications and action points toward delivery of better oncology care in our country.

PurposeOf newly diagnosed patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), stage III accounts for 30%. Most patients are treated with concurrent chemoradiation therapy, but the addition of consolidation chemotherapy (CC) is debatable. We examined the effect of CC in Brazilian patients with stage III NSCLC treated in routine clinical practice.MethodsWe retrospectively collected data for patients from five different Brazilian cancer institutions who had stage III NSCLC and who were treated with chemoradiation therapy followed or not by CC. Eligible patients were age 18 years or older and must have been treated with cisplatin-carboplatin plus etoposide, paclitaxel, or vinorelbine, concurrently with thoracic radiation therapy (RT). Patients treated with surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Associations between CC and clinical variables and demographics were evaluated by using Pearson’s χ2 test. Survival curves were calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared using the log-rank test. Univariable and multivariable analysis used a Cox proportional hazards model.ResultsWe collected data from 165 patients. Median age was 60 years. Most patients were male (69.1%), white (77.9%), current or former smokers (93.3%), and had stage IIIB disease (52.7%). Adenocarcinoma was the most common histology (47.9%). Weight loss of more than 5% was observed in 39.1% and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 was observed in 14.6%. The only variable associated with CC was T stage (P = .022). We observed no statistically significant difference in OS between patients treated or not with CC (P = .128). A total delivered RT dose ≥ 61 Gy was the only variable independently associated with improved survival (P = .012).ConclusionBrazilian patients with locally advanced NSCLC who were treated with standard treatment achieved OS similar to that reported in randomized trials. CC did not improve OS in patients with stage III NSCLC after concurrent chemoradiation therapy. An RT dose of less than 61 Gy had a negative effect on OS.

e20709 Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths globally. Despite the development of a number of new therapeutic options for stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), many patients (pts) still face difficulties in accessing proper treatment in adequate time, especially in developing countries. We analyzed clinical outcomes in a population with stage IV NSCLC treated at a public hospital in Southern Brazil. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we enrolled 57 pts with stage IV NSCLC treated at Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA) between 2016 and 2018. Results: Median follow-up was 20.3 months, 53% were men, mean age was 65 years, 86% had smoked, 84% had de novo metastatic disease, 96% had non-squamous histology, and 16% had EGFR mutations. At the point of therapeutic decision-making, 72% had ECOG performance status (PS) 0-2 (deemed as good), whereas 28% had PS 3-4 (poor). Among pts diagnosed at HCPA (91%), median time from symptoms to diagnosis was 23 days, and median time from diagnosis to palliative systemic therapy (PST) was 65 days. PST was delivered to 60% of pts, and the most used first-line protocol was Taxol-Carboplatin (79%). Two or more lines of PST were delivered to 23% of pts. In the subgroup of pts with sensitizing EGFR mutations, 75% received anti-EGFR therapy (Gefitinib). The main reason for upfront best supportive care (BSC) was poor PS. In the poor PS subgroup, 44% initially presented at HCPA with good PS; however, PS deterioration precluded them from starting PST. No pts with poor PS received PST. In the whole cohort, median overall survival (OS) was 7.7 months. In the Cox regression multivariate analysis, poor PS (HR 3.80, P < 0.0001, 95% CI 1.90–7.61) and second-line PST (HR 0.23, P = 0.002, 95% CI 0.09–0.58) were independent predictors of OS. Median OS was 10.3 months vs. 2.4 months in PST and BSC subgroups, respectively. Conclusions: In our cohort, which reflects the reality of a publicly insured population and thus most of Brazilian lung cancer pts, poor PS deprives nearly one-third of pts from PST and is associated with a worse prognosis. Postponement of PST may lead to a loss of opportunity for pts to being treated; therefore, it is crucial to develop strategies to improve time to PST.