BACKGROUND. The study was conducted with the aim of reviewing the clinical features, therapy, and natural course of patients with extrapulmonary small‐cell carcinoma (EPSCC) and small‐cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) to better define current concepts regarding EPSCCs. METHODS. The medical records of patients with proven diagnosis of small‐cell carcinoma (SmCC) between January 1999 and May 2006 were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 65 SmCC cases were included in the study (11 [17%] cases of EPSCC and 54 [83%] cases of SCLC). RESULTS. Progression‐free survival of all patients with EPSCC and patients with extensive EPSCC disease was 7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58–13.42) and 7 months (95% CI, 4.71–13.29), respectively. Overall survival of all patients with EPSCC and patients with extensive EPSSC disease was 32 months (95% CI, 18.74–45.26) and 28 months (95% CI, 12.24–43.76), respectively. Progression‐free survival and overall survival for all patients with SCLC were 5 months (95% CI, 2.26–7.74) and 10 months (95% CI, 5.95–14.05), respectively. Progression‐free survival and overall survival for patients with extensive disease were 3 months (95% CI, 4.71–13.29) and 5 months (95% CI, 3.33–6.67), respectively. Overall survival was significantly better in all patients with EPSCC and in patients with extensive EPSCC disease compared with all patients with SCLC and patients with extensive SCLC disease (P = .014, P = .004, respectively). Early death and brain metastasis were observed in a higher number of patients with SCLC compared with EPSCC; however, these results were not statistically significant (P = .33 and P = .076, respectively). Smoking history was significantly less in the EPSCC group (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS. EPSCC is usually treated similarly to SCLC. However, this study suggests some differences such as etiology, clinic course, survival, frequency of brain metastases, and early death between these entities. These possible differences may influence the choice of therapeutic approach. Cancer 2007. © 2007 American Cancer Society.

Comparison between two treatment modalities appears to result in statistically similar response rates and adverse event profile. A randomized phase III trial is required to confirm the safety and efficacy of weekly cisplatin therapy in patients with poor PS and/or older age at diagnosis.

• Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is a concern for oncological patients undergoing CT. • CIN occurs more often when CT is performed <45 days after chemotherapy. • Hypertension and treatment with bevacizumab appear to be additional risk factors.

No abstract

BackgroundWe aimed to evaluate retrospectively the correlation of loco-regional relapse (LRR) rate, distant metastasis (DM) rate, disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in a group of breast cancer (BC) patients who are at intermediate risk for LRR (T1-2 tumor and 1-3 positive axillary nodes) treated with or without postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) following modified radical mastectomy (MRM).MethodsNinety patients, with T1-T2 tumor, and 1-3 positive nodes who had undergone MRM received adjuvant systemic therapy with (n = 66) or without (n = 24) PMRT. Patient-related characteristics (age, menopausal status, pathological stage/tumor size, tumor location, histology, estrogen/progesterone receptor status, histological grade, nuclear grade, extracapsular extension, lymphatic, vascular and perineural invasion and ratio of involved nodes/dissected nodes) and treatment-related factors (PMRT, chemotherapy and hormonal therapy) were evaluated in terms of LRR and DM rate. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier DFS and OS rates were analysed.ResultsDifferences between RT and no-RT groups were statistically significant for all comparisons in favor of RT group except OS: LRR rate (3%vs 17%, p = 0.038), DM rate (12% vs 42%, p = 0.004), 5 year DFS (82.4% vs 52.4%, p = 0.034), 5 year OS (90,2% vs 61,9%, p = 0.087). In multivariate analysis DM and lymphatic invasion were independent poor prognostic factors for OS.ConclusionPMRT for T1-2, N1-3 positive BC patients has to be reconsidered according to the prognostic factors and the decision has to be made individually with the consideration of long-term morbidity and with the patient approval.