Follow-Up Imaging Guidelines for Patients with Stage III Unresectable NSCLC: Recommendations Based on the PACIFIC Trial.

The PACIFIC trial showed a survival benefit with durvalumab through five years in stage III unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, optimal use of imaging to detect disease progression remains unclearly defined for this population. An expert working group convened to consider available evidence and clinical experience and develop recommendations for follow-up imaging after concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy (CRT). Voting on agreement was conducted anonymously via online survey. Follow-up imaging was recommended for all suitable patients after CRT completion regardless of whether durvalumab is received. Imaging should occur every 3 months in Year 1, at least every 6 months in Year 2, and at least every 12 months in Years 3-5. Contrast computed tomography was preferred; routine brain imaging was not recommended for asymptomatic patients. The medical oncologist should follow-up during Year 1 of durvalumab therapy, with radiation oncologist involvement if pneumonitis is suspected; medical and radiation oncologists can subsequently alternate follow-up. Some patients can transition to the family physician/community primary care team at the end of Year 2. In Years 1-5, patients should receive information regarding smoking cessation, comorbidity management, vaccinations, and general follow-up care. These recommendations provide guidance on follow-up imaging for patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC whether or not they receive durvalumab consolidation therapy.

Variation in suspected cancer referral pathways in primary care: comparative analysis across the International Benchmarking Cancer Partnership.

BACKGROUND: International variations in cancer outcomes persist and may be influenced by differences in the accessibility and organisation of cancer patient pathways. More evidence is needed to understand to what extent variations in the structure of primary care referral pathways for cancer investigation contribute to differences in the timeliness of diagnoses and cancer outcomes in different countries. AIM: To explore the variation in primary care referral pathways for the management of suspected cancer across different countries. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive comparative analysis using mixed methods across the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) countries. METHOD: Schematics of primary care referral pathways were developed across 10 ICBP jurisdictions. The schematics were initially developed using the Aarhus statement (a resource providing greater insight and precision into early cancer diagnosis research) and were further supplemented with expert insights through consulting leading experts in primary care and cancer, existing ICBP data, a focused review of existing evidence on the management of suspected cancer, published primary care cancer guidelines, and evaluations of referral tools and initiatives in primary care. RESULTS: Referral pathway schematics for 10 ICBP jurisdictions were presented alongside a descriptive comparison of the organisation of primary care management of suspected cancer. Several key areas of variation across countries were identified: inflexibility of referral pathways, lack of a managed route for non-specific symptoms, primary care practitioner decision-making autonomy, direct access to investigations, and use of emergency routes. CONCLUSION: Analysing the differences in referral processes can prompt further research to better understand the impact of variation on the timeliness of diagnoses and cancer outcomes. Studying these schematics in local contexts may help to identify opportunities to improve care and facilitate discussions on what may constitute best referral practice.