Search

Lung cancer is an important public health problem with almost no improvement in survival over the past decades. Although observational studies demonstrate that low-dose multi-detector spiral-CT screening is able to detect lung cancer in an early stage in 55-85% of all cancer cases detected, and that 5- and even 10-year survival rates close to 90% can be achieved, these studies do not answer the question whether CT screening is advisable. Excellent survival rates in a few individuals do not necessarily indicate that there is a lung cancer-specific reduction in mortality, since observational studies are subject to several biases: lead time bias, over-diagnosis bias, and length time bias. Therefore, there is a strong worldwide recommendation from various professional organisations not to adopt CT screening for lung cancer on a wide scale, but to await the results from large randomised studies such as the US 'National lung screening trial' and the Dutch-Belgian-Danish 'Netherlands-Louvain lung cancer screening study' (NELSON), which will provide more clarity as to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and possible negative effects of CT screening for lung cancer.

The very poor prognosis of lung cancer has barely changed in the last two decades despite all efforts. However, prognosis is better when the disease is detected earlier, so that curative surgery or radiotherapy can be applied. Lung cancer screening in the past by chest X-ray did not lead to a decrease in lung cancer mortality, because the chest X-ray has low sensitivity for early invasive stages. With the advent of the low-dose spiral CT scan it has become feasible to detect early invasive stage I lung cancer in 80-90%. Modern screening for lung cancer by spiral CT scan could possibly decrease lung cancer mortality. Despite the first favourable results of screening the question remains whether lung cancer screening will be cost-effective. These questions can only be resolved in a randomised controlled trial with lung cancer mortality as unbiased end-point. Such a study should be initiated in the Netherlands, a country with large experience in screening trials and a good health care system. Only after lung cancer screening has proven to be cost-effective can appropriate implementation be recommended to prevent uncontrolled and opportunistic diffusion of this new screening technique into clinical practice in the near future.

Two male patients with a testicular carcinoma and a female with a mammary carcinoma, all associated with pulmonary sarcoidosis are described. This coincidence is very rare, but clinically relevant as enlarged mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes might suggest metastatic disease or metastasis after a curative treatment. The role of mediastinoscopy in obtaining a histological diagnosis is stressed. A causal relationship between sarcoidosis and malignant diseases has not yet been established.

This review describes the role of central venous catheters (CVC's) in the treatment of cancer. Indications and contra-indications for CVC-insertion, CVC-care, their complications, prevention and management are discussed. Totally implantable CVC's have been compared with Hickman-Broviac catheters to facilitate an adequate choice for an individual patient. Both CVC-types showed a similar and low number of complications, provided staff and patients are well instructed and given good care. In such cases infection and thrombosis occur in less than 3-5% of nowadays CVC's. The CVC proved to be useful and safe in cancer treatment and should not be withheld when the patient lacks, or will probably lack within a short time an adequate venous access.

The case is reported of a patient with renal insufficiency, proteinuria and heart failure caused by 'light chain deposition disease' (LCDD). A renal biopsy showed nodular glomerulosclerosis, IF examination revealed linear deposits of monoclonal lambda light chains along the glomerular and tubular basement membranes. Similar deposits could be shown in a skin biopsy. No light chains could be detected in urine and serum. The patient had a good response to treatment with melphalan and prednisone.