The Interdisciplinary Management of Lung Cancer in the European Community.

Lung cancer continues to be the largest cause of cancer-related mortality among men and women globally, accounting for around 27% of all cancer-related deaths. Recent advances in lung cancer medicines, particularly for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), have increased the need for multidisciplinary disease care, thereby enhancing patient outcomes and quality of life. Different studies in the European community have evaluated the impact of multidisciplinary care on outcomes for lung cancer patients, including its impact on survival, adherence to guideline treatment, utilization of all treatment modalities, timeliness of treatment, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and referral to palliative care. This publication will examine the roles and duties of all multidisciplinary members and the influence of multidisciplinary care on lung cancer outcomes in Europe. Multidisciplinary treatment is the foundation of lung cancer treatment. The optimal setting for interdisciplinary collaboration between specialists with complementary functions is multidisciplinary meetings. Multidisciplinary care in lung cancer facilitates the delivery of a high-quality service, which may improve lung cancer patients' survival, utilization of all treatment modalities, adherence to guideline management, and quality of life, despite the fact that only limited observational data have demonstrated these results. To confirm the relationship between multidisciplinary treatment and improved lung cancer patient outcomes, however, further research is required.

Safety and Feasibility of Thoracic Malignancy Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has decreased surgical activity, particularly in the field of oncology, because of the suspicion of a higher risk of COVID-19-related severe events. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of thoracic cancer surgery in the most severely affected European and Canadian regions during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The study investigators prospectively collected data on surgical procedures for malignant thoracic diseases from January 1 to April 30, 2020. The study included patients from 6 high-volume thoracic surgery departments: Nancy and Strasbourg (France), Freiburg (Germany), Milan and Turin (Italy), and Montreal (Canada). The centers involved in this research are all located in the most severely affected regions of those countries. An assessment of COVID-19-related symptoms, polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 infection, rates of hospital and intensive care unit admissions, and death was performed for each patient. Every deceased patient was tested for COVID-19 by PCR. RESULTS: In the study period, 731 patients who underwent 734 surgical procedures were included. In the whole cohort, 9 cases (1.2%) of COVID-19 were confirmed by PCR, including 5 in-hospital contaminants. Four patients (0.5%) needed readmission for oxygen requirements. In this subgroup, 2 patients (0.3%) needed intensive care unit and mechanical ventilatory support. The total number of deaths in the whole cohort was 22 (3%). A single death was related to COVID-19 (0.14%). CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining surgical oncologic activity in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic seems safe and feasible, with very low postoperative morbidity or mortality. To continue to offer the best care to patients who do not have COVID-19, reports on other diseases are urgently needed.

A methodological evaluation of the published consensus statements, recommendations and guidelines about surgical management in the course of coronavirus disease pandemic.

BACKGROUND: A project to benchmark the consensus statements, guidelines, and recommendations on surgical management in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic was developed to assess the methodology used. Standard and practical approaches for COVID-19 management in surgical patients to date are not accessible, despite the magnitude of the pandemic. A plethora of consensus statements, guidelines, and recommendations on surgical management in the course of COVID-19 epidemic have been rapidly published in the last three months. METHODS: Each manuscript was scored on a seven-point scale in the different items and domains with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II. RESULTS: Nine guidelines that met the inclusion criteria were assessed. Transnational cooperation produced only one guideline. Multivariable analysis showed that improved scores of stakeholders' involvement were related to internationally developed guidelines. Clarity of presentation was related to the contribution of scientific societies due to greater rigor of development. The rigor of development produced guidelines with a high overall value. Higher healthcare expenses did not produce superior guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluated by the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II, the methodological characteristic of consensus statements, guidelines, and recommendations on surgical management during COVID-19 pandemic was relatively low. International development should be recommended as a model for the development of best methodological quality guidelines.