FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1527556707> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1527556707 endingPage "2903" @default.
• W1527556707 startingPage "2902" @default.
• W1527556707 abstract "We have read with great interest the paper from L. J. Wirth and co-workers reporting their experience with a multimodality treatment for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC; Ref. 1). In this report, the authors described the findings of a complex and multidisciplinary approach to stage III (a and b) NSCLC, exploring its feasibility with a Phase I dose escalation study design. In this setting, however, an analysis of the possible “induction” potential (i.e., tumor clinical and pathological response) of this protocol along with the possible effects on survival have been realized.This experience is very similar to the one that we realized 2 years ago and reported previously (2, 3). Thus, we have drafted some reflections integrating the substantially common background and outcome with recent evidence and recommendations regarding the general approach to LA-NSCLC (4, 5).First of all, we see the point that the definition of LA-NSCLC has not been homogeneous in the last 2 decades. Even if this may seem a collateral issue, it is actually the rationale for why the majority of small and large trials exploring therapeutic strategies for LA-NSCLC include patients with very different cancers. For this reason, the interpretation of results has been, and is still, somewhat confused. A functional definition as the one reported by Macchiarini et al. (5) does not resolve the problem of patient stratification inside clinical trials, especially when surgical indication follows chemotherapy and/or radiation treatment.In an extreme simplification, in fact, it is widely accepted (even in the absence of proper consolidated results from Phase III randomized trials) that LA-NSCLC with clinical stage IIIa for a T3N1 or T1–3N2 condition could be “ideally” cured by a multimodality chemotherapy or chemo-radiation approach, eventually followed by surgery (and in carefully selected patients, adjuvant chemotherapy). On the other hand, when clinical IIIb cases for a T4 or N3 status are at stake, there is much more confusion.Continuing along the lines of simplification, we could assert that this heterogeneity exists because, whereas in the first group of patients (IIIa), the fact that the induction treatment is chosen on the basis of “operability”, in the second group (IIIb), the treatment is chosen to modify “resectability,” which is a more immediate objective (subjective from the surgeon’s point of view) and strict parameter, and operability stands second in line.Following the recent “guidelines” of Mactay and Jeremic (4), we can say that a direct surgical indication could exist in very selected T4N0–1 cases (with poor long-term results and a 5-year survival rate at <20%) at the price of extended and aggressive surgical approaches, whereas N3 cases are generally not considered eligible for surgery at all.The potential impact of a “neoadjuvant” approach for T4 and/or N3 cases on clinical tumor response and survival has been investigated in the past. A certain correlation among local control (clinical tumor response and, thus, clinicopathological downstaging) and survival seems to effectively exist (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10), especially if downstaging is obtained at the N level (7).In our experience (2) and in that reported by Wirth et al. (1) several stage IIIb patients were included in the Phase I study (designed as dose finding); clinical response to the multimodality treatment was “incidentally” so good as to have some of those initially judged inoperable and unresectable re-enter the chance for complete surgical resection.This evidence supported the idea that the two multimodality approaches (1, 2), even if designed as Phase I studies, proved to have an induction potential; moreover, a possible benefit on long-term survival could be hypothesized in the light of previously cited consolidated experiences (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).If we focus on the very group of IIIb patients studied by Wirth et al. (1), we see that one clinical T4N0 case who experienced a partial response to a chemo plus chemoradiation protocol, one clinical T2N3 case with partial response as well and one clinical T2N3 case with a preoperative question of progression of disease were all deemed to have achieved such satisfactory downstaging at restaging as to have re-entered operability and resectability and were operated on. The first and the second cases experienced significant pathological downstaging [with complete pathological response (clinical partial response) and with complete absence of tumor in the specimen of the latter] whereas the third was upstaged to stage IV because of intra-operative and pathological evidence of a neoplastic nodule in a lung lobe different from that of the primary tumor site.We would like to amicably invite the authors to clarify some aspects of the following results:(a) re-staging (T and N statuses in adjunct to the stage) should be disclosed so as to make the reader better understand the process of surgical indication;(b) in particular, it would be interesting to understand why the T4 patient got this clinical status and what was her restaging situation. In this setting, in fact, an important difference exists if a patient is T4 because of an assumed neoplastic nodule in a different lobe of the same lung or because of a direct infiltration of, let’s say, the main branch of the pulmonary artery. Moreover, if this is the case, it is extremely difficult to outline the criteria (essentially attributable to technical heterogeneity and interobserver variability) for upgrading a case from T3, because of a simple contact between the tumor and the mediastinal pleura around the vessel, to T4, because of a clear vessel infiltration. This kind of difficulty is magnified when the assessment is made after chemotherapy or chemo-plus-radiation treatment has been administered when, at the moment of the restaging, the morphology of the therapy-induced biological effect is checked and interpreted (11).(c) furthermore, we assume that the two N3 cases had had their mediastinal controlateral nodal involvement status assessed via pathological verification of mediastinoscopic biopsy material indicated on a clinical suspicion. A comprehensive definition of the clinical N3 status (which stations and how many, now many nodes, etc.) would be welcome; moreover, because both cases experienced a pathological downstaging at the N3 level (one to N0 and one to N2) we would like to know how this was assessed: clinically only (computed tomography scan, positron emission tomography, and so forth); by re-do mediastinoscopy? pathologically by controlateral lymphadenectomy at operation? If re-do mediastinoscopy was performed, it would be of interest if the authors could discuss this procedure after such a complex chemotherapy plus chemoradiation protocol in the light of very important issues such as technical feasibility, biopsy reliability, and so forth, which, in our turn, we have reported (3) and discussed (12).In this setting, in fact, we have experienced significant technical difficulty in re-do mediastinoscopy procedures performed after concurrent chemoradiation treatment (two patients): in both cases, the pre- and paratracheal plans were nullified, and the senior surgeon who performed the operations was not entirely sure to have re-biopsied the same area as in the first step (at the moment of mediastinoscopy); the pathologist disclosed a significant difficulty in assessing the nature of the specimen (neoplastic versus scar) at the frozen-section examination and could confirm the eventual absence of tumor only after a complete and definitive examination of the specimen.We would like to close this short and friendly comment by asking the authors whether, in light of their experience, they agree that selected T4 and/or N3 LA-NSCLC patients should be offered a multimodality approach with neoadjuvant intent and whether surgery should be indicated in all cases in which resectability could be reasonably predicted on a coherent restaging: this may include, in the N3 patients, a complex procedure (clinical and pathological) and, eventually, an extensive surgical approach.In this setting, we feel strongly that an evidence-based consensus through the analysis and discussion of proper and focused clinical research experiences is still needed." @default.
• W1527556707 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1527556707 creator A5006589635 @default.
• W1527556707 creator A5010900232 @default.
• W1527556707 creator A5012661742 @default.
• W1527556707 creator A5028246700 @default.
• W1527556707 creator A5042707898 @default.
• W1527556707 creator A5045805982 @default.
• W1527556707 creator A5062834268 @default.
• W1527556707 creator A5077246272 @default.
• W1527556707 creator A5083762202 @default.
• W1527556707 creator A5084562855 @default.
• W1527556707 date "2004-04-15" @default.
• W1527556707 modified "2023-10-02" @default.
• W1527556707 title "Correspondence re L. J. Wirth et al., Induction Docetaxel and Carboplatin Followed by Weekly Docetaxel and Carboplatin with Concurrent Radiotherapy, Then Surgery in Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: a Phase I Study. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9:1698–704." @default.
• W1527556707 cites W1817196311 @default.
• W1527556707 cites W2038952002 @default.
• W1527556707 cites W2052704782 @default.
• W1527556707 cites W2074743892 @default.
• W1527556707 cites W2090868027 @default.
• W1527556707 cites W2098399273 @default.
• W1527556707 cites W2116777501 @default.
• W1527556707 cites W2121375027 @default.
• W1527556707 cites W2125974244 @default.
• W1527556707 cites W2128076724 @default.
• W1527556707 cites W2132257082 @default.
• W1527556707 cites W2160433100 @default.
• W1527556707 doi "https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.2902.10.8" @default.
• W1527556707 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15102699" @default.
• W1527556707 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W1527556707 type Work @default.
• W1527556707 sameAs 1527556707 @default.
• W1527556707 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W1527556707 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1527556707 hasAuthorship W1527556707A5006589635 @default.
• W1527556707 hasAuthorship W1527556707A5010900232 @default.
• W1527556707 hasAuthorship W1527556707A5012661742 @default.
• W1527556707 hasAuthorship W1527556707A5028246700 @default.
• W1527556707 hasAuthorship W1527556707A5042707898 @default.
• W1527556707 hasAuthorship W1527556707A5045805982 @default.
• W1527556707 hasAuthorship W1527556707A5062834268 @default.
• W1527556707 hasAuthorship W1527556707A5077246272 @default.
• W1527556707 hasAuthorship W1527556707A5083762202 @default.
• W1527556707 hasAuthorship W1527556707A5084562855 @default.
• W1527556707 hasBestOaLocation W15275567071 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConcept C143998085 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConcept C146357865 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConcept C2776256026 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConcept C2776611710 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConcept C2776694085 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConcept C2778239845 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConcept C2781190966 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConcept C2781451048 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConcept C509974204 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConceptScore W1527556707C121608353 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConceptScore W1527556707C126322002 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConceptScore W1527556707C141071460 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConceptScore W1527556707C143998085 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConceptScore W1527556707C146357865 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConceptScore W1527556707C151730666 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConceptScore W1527556707C2776256026 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConceptScore W1527556707C2776611710 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConceptScore W1527556707C2776694085 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConceptScore W1527556707C2778239845 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConceptScore W1527556707C2781190966 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConceptScore W1527556707C2781451048 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConceptScore W1527556707C509974204 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConceptScore W1527556707C71924100 @default.
• W1527556707 hasConceptScore W1527556707C86803240 @default.
• W1527556707 hasIssue "8" @default.
• W1527556707 hasLocation W15275567071 @default.
• W1527556707 hasLocation W15275567072 @default.
• W1527556707 hasOpenAccess W1527556707 @default.
• W1527556707 hasPrimaryLocation W15275567071 @default.
• W1527556707 hasRelatedWork W2009086286 @default.
• W1527556707 hasRelatedWork W2013653877 @default.
• W1527556707 hasRelatedWork W2027569686 @default.
• W1527556707 hasRelatedWork W2277416945 @default.
• W1527556707 hasRelatedWork W2407189953 @default.
• W1527556707 hasRelatedWork W2410193585 @default.
• W1527556707 hasRelatedWork W2439707001 @default.
• W1527556707 hasRelatedWork W2460868461 @default.
• W1527556707 hasRelatedWork W2471989939 @default.
• W1527556707 hasRelatedWork W2954897945 @default.
• W1527556707 hasVolume "10" @default.
• W1527556707 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1527556707 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1527556707 magId "1527556707" @default.
• W1527556707 workType "article" @default.