Association of patient socioeconomic status with outcomes after palliative treatment for disseminated cancer.

BACKGROUND: Palliative treatment has been associated with improved quality of life and survival for a wide variety of metastatic cancers. However, it is unclear whether the benefits of palliative treatment are uniformly experienced across the US cancer population. We evaluated patterns and outcomes of palliative treatment based on socioeconomic, sociodemographic and treating facility characteristics. METHODS: Patients diagnosed between 2008 and 2019 with Stage IV primary cancer of nine organ sites were analyzed in the National Cancer Database. The association between identified variables, and outcomes concerning the administration of palliative treatment were analyzed with multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Overall 238,995 (23.6%) of Stage IV patients received palliative treatment, which increased over time for all cancers (from 20.7% in 2008 to 25.6% in 2019). Palliative treatment utilization differed significantly by region (West less than Northeast, OR: 0.55 [0.54-0.56], p < 0.001) and insurance payer status (uninsured greater than private insurance, OR: 1.35 [1.32-1.39], p < 0.001). Black race and Hispanic ethnicity were also associated with lower rates of palliative treatment compared to White and non-Hispanics respectively (OR for Blacks: 0.91 [0.90-0.93], p < 0.001 and OR for Hispanics: 0.79 [0.77-0.81] p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There are important differences in the utilization of palliative treatment across different populations in the United States. A better understanding of variability in palliative treatment use and outcomes may identify opportunities to improve informed decision making and optimize quality of care at the end-of-life.

Respect the Middle Lobe: Perioperative Risk of Bilobectomy Compared With Lobectomy and Pneumonectomy.

BACKGROUND: In some cases of right-sided lung cancer, tumor extension, bronchial involvement, or pulmonary artery infiltration may necessitate bilobectomy. Although the middle lobe is believed to represent a fraction of total lung function, the morbidity and mortality associated with bilobectomy is not well described. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database who underwent lobectomy, bilobectomy, or pneumonectomy for lung cancer from 2009 to 2017. The primary outcome was 30-day perioperative mortality. We performed propensity matching by patient demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative variables for each surgical type against bilobectomy and ran Cox proportional hazard models. Secondary outcomes of 30-day morbidity and mortality of upper vs lower bilobectomy were also compared. RESULTS: Within the study period 2911 bilobectomy, 65,506 lobectomy, and 3370 pneumonectomy patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients undergoing pneumonectomy and bilobectomy had fewer comorbidities than lobectomy patients. After propensity matching 30-day mortality of bilobectomy was comparable with left pneumonectomy (hazard ratio [HR], 1.35; 95% CI, 0.95-1.91; P = .09) and significantly worse than left (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.29-0.56; P < .0001) or right (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31-0.59; P < .0001) lobectomy. Bilobectomy was associated with a survival advantage compared with right pneumonectomy (HR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.72-3.74; P < .0001). Thirty-day morbidity was higher for bilobectomy compared with lobectomy, and upper bilobectomy had a significant unadjusted 30-day mortality advantage compared with lower bilobectomy (98.3% vs 97%, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: The morbidity and mortality of bilobectomy is significantly worse than lobectomy and is comparable with left pneumonectomy. The addition of middle lobectomy to a pulmonary resection is not without risk and should be carefully considered during preoperative risk stratification.

Association Between Metastatic Pattern and Prognosis in Stage IV Gastric Cancer: Potential for Stage Classification Reform.

PURPOSE: This study aims to clarify the association between metastatic pattern and prognosis in stage IV gastric cancer, with a focus on patients presenting with metastases limited to nonregional lymph nodes. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, the National Cancer Database was used to identify patients ≥ 18 years of age diagnosed with stage IV gastric cancer between 2016 and 2019. Patients were stratified according to pattern of metastatic disease at diagnosis: nonregional lymph nodes only ("stage IV-nodal"), single systemic organ ("stage IV-single organ"), or multiple organs ("stage IV-multi-organ"). Survival was assessed by Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox models in unadjusted and propensity score-matched samples. RESULTS: Overall, 15,050 patients were identified, including 1,349 (8.7%) stage IV-nodal patients. Most patients in each group received chemotherapy [68.6% of stage IV-nodal patients, 65.2% of stage IV-single organ patients, and 63.5% of stage IV-multi-organ patients (p = 0.003)]. Stage IV-nodal patients exhibited better median survival (10.5 months, 95% CI 9.7-11.9, p < 0.001) than single organ (8.0, 95% CI 7.6-8.2) and multi-organ (5.7, 95% CI 5.4-6.0) patients. In the multivariable Cox model, stage IV-nodal patients also exhibited better survival (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.85, p < 0.001) than single organ (reference) and multi-organ (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.22-1.33, p < 0.001) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 9% of clinical stage IV gastric cancer patients have their distant disease confined to nonregional lymph nodes. These patients were managed similarly to other stage IV patients but experienced a better prognosis, suggesting opportunities to introduce M1 staging subclassifications.

Lung cancer with air lucency: a systematic review and clinical management guide.

Background: Lung cancers with air lucency are poorly understood, often recognized only after substantial progression. Methods: From a systematic review (PubMed and EMBASE, 2000-2022, terms related to cystic, cavitary, bulla, pseudocavitary, bubble-like, date 10-30-2022) 49 studies were selected using broad inclusion criteria (case series of ≥10 cases up to trials and reviews). There was no source of funding. Primary evidence relevant to clinical management issues was assembled. Because data was available only from heterogeneous retrospective case series, meta-analysis and formal risk-of-bias assessment was omitted. A framework was developed to guide clinical management based on the available data. Results: Demographic, smoking and histologic differences suggest that cystic, cavitary and bullous lung cancers with air lucency may be distinct entities; insufficient data leaves it unclear whether this also applies to pseudocavitary (solid) or bubble-like (ground glass) cancers. Annual observation of irregular thin-walled cysts is warranted; a surgical diagnosis (and resection) is justified once a solid component appears because subsequent progression is often rapid with markedly worse outcomes. Bubble-like ground glass lesions should be managed similarly. Cavitary lesions must be distinguished from infection or vasculitis, but generally require needle or surgical biopsy. Pseudocavitary lesions are less well studied; positron emission tomography may be useful in this setting to differentiate scar from malignancy. Further research is needed because these conclusions are based on interpretation of retrospective case series. Conclusions: The aggregate of available evidence suggests a framework for management of suspected lung cancers with air lucency. Greater awareness, earlier detection, and aggressive management once a solid component appears are needed. This review and framework should facilitate further research; questions include whether the suggested entities and proposed management are borne out and should involve clearly defined terms and outcomes related to progression and treatment. In summary, a conceptual understanding is emerging from interpretation of available data about a previously poorly understood topic; this should improve patient outcomes.

Utilization and Outcomes of Radiation in Stage IV Esophageal Cancer.

Introduction: For patients with stage IV esophageal cancer, esophageal radiation may be used selectively for local control and palliation. We aimed to understand patterns of radiation administration among patients with stage IV esophageal cancer and any potential survival associations. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, the National Cancer Database was queried for patients with metastatic stage IV esophageal cancer diagnosed between 2016 and 2019. Patterns of radiation use were identified. Survival was determined through Kaplan-Meier analysis of propensity score-matched pairs of patients who did and did not receive radiotherapy and time-to-event models. Results: Overall, 12,088 patients with stage IV esophageal cancer were identified, including 32.7% who received esophageal radiation. The median age was 65 (interquartile range [IQR]: 58-73) years, and 82.6% were male. Among the irradiated patients, the median total radiation dose was 35 (IQR: 30-50) Gy administered in a median of 14 (IQR: 10-25) fractions given in 22 (IQR: 14-39) days. Overall, esophageal radiation was not associated with better survival (log-rank p = 0.41). When stratified by radiation dose, a survival advantage (over no radiation) was found in the 1144 patients (29% of the irradiated patients) who received 45 to 59.9 Gy (time ratio = 1.28, 95% confidence interval: 1.20-1.37, p < 0.001) and the 88 patients (2.2%) who received 60 to 80 Gy (time ratio = 1.37, 95% confidence interval: 1.11-1.69, p = 0.003). Conclusions: One-third of the patients with metastatic stage IV esophageal cancer in the National Cancer Database received esophageal radiation. Most received a radiation dose that, although consistent with palliative regimens, was not associated with a survival advantage. Further study is warranted to understand the indications for radiation in stage IV esophageal cancer and potentially reevaluate the most appropriate radiation dose for palliation.

Nonregional Lymph Nodes as the Only Metastatic Site in Stage IV Esophageal Cancer.

Introduction: Metastatic involvement of at least one nonregional lymph node currently renders patients with esophageal cancer as having stage IV disease. However, the management and outcomes of patients whose sole determinant of stage IV status is nonregional lymph nodes (abbreviated as "stage IV-nodal" disease) have not been fully characterized. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, the National Cancer Database was queried to identify patients 18 years of age or older who were diagnosed with stage IV esophageal cancer between 2016 and 2019. Survival was assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox models in the overall sample and a propensity-matched sample. Patients with "stage IV-nodal" disease were compared with patients with systemic metastases involving a single organ or multiple organs. Results: Overall, 11,589 patients with clinical stage IV esophageal cancer were identified, including 1331 (11.5%) patients with stage IV-nodal disease. Patients with stage IV-nodal disease were more likely to receive chemotherapy (77%) than those with single systemic organ metastases (64%) and multiorgan metastases (63%) (p < 0.0001); patients with stage IV-nodal disease were also more likely to receive radiation (49%) than those with single systemic organ metastases (40%) and multiorgan metastases (39%) (p < 0.0001). Squamous cell carcinoma (OR = 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-1.86, p < 0.0001) and academic facility type (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09-1.4, p = 0.0009) were associated with higher likelihood of the stage IV-nodal presentation. Patients with stage IV-nodal disease experienced superior survival (hazard ratio = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.66-0.78, p < 0.0001) than those with stage IV-single systemic metastases (reference group) and stage IV-multiorgan disease (hazard ratio = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.24-1.37). Conclusions: Approximately 12% of patients with stage IV esophageal cancer lack systemic metastases at presentation. These patients with stage IV-nodal disease are more likely to receive treatment and experience superior survival. Further study of the stage IV-nodal population and consideration of a potential stage IV subclassification system is justified.

Evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux disease and hiatal hernia as risk factors for lobectomy complications.

Objective: Up to 40% of lobectomies are complicated by adverse events. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and hiatal hernia have been associated with morbidity across a range of clinical scenarios, yet their relation to recovery from pulmonary resection is understudied. We evaluated GERD and hiatal hernia as predictors of complications after lobectomy for lung cancer. Methods: Lobectomy patients at Yale-New Haven Hospital between January 2014 and April 2021 were evaluated for predictors of 30-day postoperative complications, pneumonia, atrial arrhythmia, readmission, and mortality. Multivariable regression models included sociodemographic characteristics, body mass index, surgical approach, cardiopulmonary comorbidities, hiatal hernia, GERD, and preoperative acid-suppressive therapy as predictors. Results: Overall, 824 patients underwent lobectomy, including 50.5% with a hiatal hernia and 38.7% with GERD. The median age was 68 [interquartile range, 61-74] years, and the majority were female (58.4%). At least 1 postoperative complication developed in 39.6% of patients, including atrial arrhythmia (11.7%) and pneumonia (4.1%). Male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-2.06, P = .01), age ≥70 years (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.11, P = .01), hiatal hernia (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.03-1.90, P = .03), and intraoperative packed red blood cells (OR, 4.80; 95% CI, 1.51-15.20, P = .01) were significant risk factors for developing at least 1 postoperative complication. Hiatal hernia was also a significant predictor of atrial arrhythmia (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.02-2.62, P = .04) but was not associated with other adverse events. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that hiatal hernia may be a novel risk factor for complications, especially atrial arrhythmia, following lobectomy that should be considered in the preoperative evaluation of lung cancer patients.

Immunotherapy After Chemotherapy and Radiation for Clinical Stage III Lung Cancer.

Importance: The 2017 international PACIFIC trial established a role for immunotherapy after chemoradiation for unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, in the US, patients with NSCLC commonly differ from clinical trial populations in terms of age, health, access to care, and treatment course, which may all factor into the efficacy of immunotherapy. Objective: To determine the outcomes of immunotherapy use in unresectable stage III NSCLC in the general US population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed the National Cancer Database for patients diagnosed with clinical stage III NSCLC between 2015 and 2017 with follow-up through the end of 2018 who were treated with chemotherapy and radiation. Data were analyzed January 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality hazard in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model and survival among a propensity-matched sample treated with chemotherapy and radiation, with and without immunotherapy. Results: A total of 23 811 patients with clinical stage III NSCLC with median (IQR) age 66 (59-72) years met inclusion criteria (10 454 [43.9%] women; 564 [2.4%] Asian, 2930 [12.3%] Black, 20 077 [84.3%] White patients), including 209 (16.1%) patients with multiple comorbidities and 1297 (5.4%) immunotherapy recipients. Immunotherapy after chemotherapy and radiation was associated with reduced mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67-0.82; P < .001). Among a propensity-matched sample, immunotherapy was associated with superior 3-year survival (52% [1297 patients at 0 months, 56 patients at 36 months] vs 44% [2594 patients at 0 months, 173 patients at 36 months]; P < .001). The treatment of 833 patients who received immunotherapy (64.2%) differed from the PACIFIC trial protocol, including 221 patients (17.0%) who received radiation doses outside of the protocol range and 731 patients (56.4%) who started immunotherapy more than 6 weeks after radiation was completed. The survival advantage of immunotherapy persisted when initiated up to 12 weeks after radiation was completed (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92). Among patients who received radiation outside the PACIFIC protocol range, the survival advantage of immunotherapy was not significant (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69-1.01). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, immunotherapy after chemotherapy and radiation for stage III NSCLC was associated with a survival advantage in the general US population despite two-thirds of patients treated differently than the PACIFIC protocol. The findings suggest there may be flexibility in the timing of immunotherapy initiation after radiation; further study is warranted to clarify the clinical benefits of immunotherapy.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 1: a guide to decision-making.

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options (lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy, thermal ablation), weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: Based on a systematic review from 2000-2021, evidence regarding relevant outcomes was assembled, with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers. A framework was developed to present this information a format that enhances decision-making at the point of care for individual patients. Results: While patients often cross over several boundaries, the evidence fits into categories of healthy patients, compromised patients, and favorable tumors. In healthy patients with typical (i.e., solid spiculated) lung cancers, the impact on long-term outcomes is the major driver of treatment selection. This is only slightly ameliorated in older patients. In compromised patients increasing frailty accentuates short-term differences and diminishes long-term differences especially when considering non-surgical vs. surgical approaches; nuances of patient selection (technical treatment feasibility, anticipated risk of acute toxicity, delayed toxicity, and long-term outcomes) as well as patient values are increasingly influential. Favorable (less-aggressive) tumors generally have good long-term outcomes regardless of the treatment approach. Discussion: A framework is provided that organizes the evidence and identifies the major drivers of decision-making for an individual patient. This facilitates blending available evidence and clinical judgment in a flexible, nuanced manner that enhances individualized clinical care.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 2: systematic review of evidence regarding resection extent in generally healthy patients.

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options (lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy, thermal ablation), weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after lobectomy, segmentectomy and wedge resection in generally healthy patients is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons with at least some adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved. Results: In healthy patients there is no short-term benefit to sublobar resection vs. lobectomy in randomized and non-randomized comparisons. A detriment in long-term outcomes is demonstrated by adjusted non-randomized comparisons, more marked for wedge than segmentectomy. Quality-of-life data is confounded by the use of video-assisted approaches; evidence suggests the approach has more impact than the resection extent. Differences in pulmonary function tests by resection extent are not clinically meaningful in healthy patients, especially for multi-segmentectomy vs. lobectomy. The margin distance is associated with the risk of recurrence. Conclusions: A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding resection extent in healthy patients with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation on which to build a framework for individualized clinical decision-making.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 3: systematic review of evidence regarding surgery in compromised patients or specific tumors.

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options [lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), thermal ablation], weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after lobectomy, segmentectomy and wedge resection in older patients, patients with limited pulmonary reserve and favorable tumors is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons (NRCs) with adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved. Results: In older patients, perioperative mortality is minimally altered by resection extent and only slightly affected by increasing age; sublobar resection may slightly decrease morbidity. Long-term outcomes are worse after lesser resection; the difference is slightly attenuated with increasing age. Reported short-term outcomes are quite acceptable in (selected) patients with severely limited pulmonary reserve, not clearly altered by resection extent but substantially improved by a minimally invasive approach. Quality-of-life (QOL) and impact on pulmonary function hasn't been well studied, but there appears to be little difference by resection extent in older or compromised patients. Patient selection is paramount but not well defined. Ground-glass and screen-detected tumors exhibit favorable long-term outcomes regardless of resection extent; however solid tumors <1 cm are not a reliably favorable group. Conclusions: A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding resection extent in compromised patients and favorable tumors with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation for a framework for individualized decision-making.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 4: systematic review of evidence involving SBRT and ablation.

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options [lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), thermal ablation], weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after SBRT or thermal ablation vs. resection is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons with at least some adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved. Results: Short-term outcomes are meaningfully better after SBRT than resection. SBRT doesn't affect quality-of-life (QOL), on average pulmonary function is not altered, but a minority of patients may experience gradual late toxicity. Adjusted non-randomized comparisons demonstrate a clinically relevant detriment in long-term outcomes after SBRT vs. surgery. The short-term benefits of SBRT over surgery are accentuated with increasing age and compromised patients, but the long-term detriment remains. Ablation is associated with a higher rate of complications than SBRT, but there is little intermediate-term impact on quality-of-life or pulmonary function tests. Adjusted comparisons show a meaningful detriment in long-term outcomes after ablation vs. surgery; there is less difference between ablation and SBRT. Conclusions: A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy or thermal ablation vs. resection with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation for a framework for individualized decision-making.

Association Between Food and Drug Administration Approval and Disparities in Immunotherapy Use Among Patients With Cancer in the US.

Importance: Clinical trials and compassionate use agreements provide selected patients with access to potentially life-saving treatments before approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Approval from the FDA decreases a number of access barriers; however, it is unknown whether FDA approval is associated with increases in the equitable use of novel therapies and reductions in disparities in use among patients with cancer in the US. Objective: To assess the association between FDA drug approval and disparities in the use of immunotherapy across health, sociodemographic, and socioeconomic strata before and after approval of the first checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of patients with cancer in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the National Cancer Database to examine the use of immunotherapy across health, sociodemographic, and socioeconomic strata before and after FDA approval of the first checkpoint inhibitor therapies. A total of 402 689 patients 20 years or older who were diagnosed with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), or melanoma of the skin between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2018 (specific years varied by tumor type), were included. Exposures: Patient health (Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score and age), sociodemographic characteristics (sex, race, and ethnicity), and socioeconomic (insurance status and household income based on zip code of residence) characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: The association of patient characteristics with receipt of immunotherapy was evaluated in the 4 years before and the 3 years immediately after FDA approval using multivariable logistic regression modeling. Results: Among 402 689 patients (median [IQR] age, 68 [60-76 years]; 225 081 men [55.9%]), 347 233 had NSCLC, 43 714 had RCC, and 11 742 patients had melanoma. A total of 47 527 patients (11.8%) were Black, 15 763 (3.9%) were Hispanic, 375 874 (93.3%) were non-Hispanic, 335 833 (83.4%) were White, and 16 553 (4.1%) were of other races. Before FDA approval, 6271 patients (3.2%) with NSCLC, 1155 patients (4.8%) with RCC, and 504 patients (8.6%) with melanoma received immunotherapy compared with 23 908 patients (15.6%) with NSCLC, 3890 patients (19.7%) with RCC, and 1143 patients (19.3%) with melanoma after FDA approval. Before FDA approval, sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics were associated with variable immunotherapy administration by tumor type. For example, among those with NSCLC, Black patients were less likely to receive immunotherapy than White patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.78; 95% CI ,0.71-0.85; P < .001); among those with RCC, uninsured patients were less likely to receive immunotherapy than privately insured patients (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.20-0.48; P < .001). After FDA approval, most disparities persisted, but several narrowed (eg, Black patients with NSCLC: OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.83-0.91; P < .001]; uninsured patients with RCC: OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.48-0.75; P < .001]). Although many disparities remained, some gaps across socioeconomic characteristics appeared to widen (eg, patients with NSCLC in the lowest vs highest income quartile: OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.83; P < .001), and new gaps emerged (eg, Black patients with RCC: OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93; P = .003). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, disparities in immunotherapy use existed across a number of sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics among patients with NSCLC, RCC, and melanoma before FDA approval, including during the important period when clinical trials were accruing patients. Although FDA approval was associated with a significant increase in the use of immunotherapy, gaps persisted, suggesting that FDA approval may not eliminate disparities in the use of novel therapies.

Revisiting Indications for Brain Imaging During the Clinical Staging Evaluation of Lung Cancer.

Introduction: Available guidelines are inconsistent as to whether patients with newly diagnosed clinical stage II NSCLC should receive routine brain imaging. Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried for the prevalence of isolated brain metastases among patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC in 2016 and 2017. Patients with metastases in locations other than the brain were excluded. The prevalences were then stratified by clinical T and N classifications and further stratified into a summary stage, which was calculated based on T and N classifications. The summary stage represents the clinical stage that would have been available at the time of decision for brain imaging. Results: A total of 6,949 of 149,958 patients (4.6%) with clinical stages I, II, III, or brain-limited stage IV NSCLC had dissemination limited to the brain. As T and N stages increased, prevalence of brain metastases generally increased. Among patients with node-negative (N0) NSCLC, the prevalence of brain-only metastases increased from 1.2% in patients with T1a to 3.8% among patients with T4 (p < 0.001). Among patients with T1a, the prevalence of brain-only metastases increased from 1.2% for patients with N0 to 7.9% for patients with N3 (p < 0.001). The prevalence of brain-limited metastases generally increased with increasing summary stage. The prevalence of brain-only metastases among patients with stage IA was 1.7% whereas that among patients with stage IIIA was 6.7% (p < 0.001). Of note, the prevalence of brain-limited metastases was approximately 6% for both summary stages II and III. Conclusions: Considering the similarity in prevalence of isolated brain metastases and the potential hazards associated with brain imaging in early stage NSCLC, practitioners may consider a more liberal use of brain imaging when interpreting conflicting guidelines.

Do You Get What You Pay For? The Relationship of Price and Quality in Hospital Provided Procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Starting in 2021, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services required hospitals to provide pricing information to allow consumers to compare prices. Patients perceived that the quality of these services also impacts decision-making. This study examines the relationship between procedure price and quality from the patients' perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Unnegotiated prices of procedures were extracted from hospital websites. Hospital quality was defined as the U.S. News & World Report's score for the specialty performing the procedure. Regional differences in markets were corrected with the Wage Price Index. Spearman's correlations were used for analysis between price and quality. RESULTS: Overall, 67% (1225/1815) of hospitals had a pricing document. Compliance by procedure was poor with a low of 7% for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 93000 and a high of 27% for CPTs 93452 and 62323. Wide variability of prices for all procedures was noted. The smallest difference in price range listed was for CPT 45380 with a 32× difference between the minimum and maximum ($310-$10,023) with the first, second, and third quartiles being $1457, $2759, and $4276, respectively. The largest difference in price range was for CPT 55700 with a 5036× difference between the minimum and maximum ($9-$45,322) with the first, second, and third quartiles being $1638, $2971, and $5342, respectively. Correlation between price and quality was low, with the strongest being rho = 0.369 (P = 0.02) for CPT 93000. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with price transparency was low with large variability in prices for the same procedure. There was no correlation between hospital price and quality. As currently implemented, poor compliance and wide price variability may limit patients' understanding of procedure costs.

Understanding the Implications of Medicaid Expansion for Cancer Care in the US: A Review.

IMPORTANCE: Insurance status has been linked to important differences in cancer treatment and outcomes in the US. With more than 15 million individuals gaining health insurance through Medicaid expansion, there is an increasing need to understand the implications of this policy within the US cancer population. This review provides an overview of the fundamental principles and nuances of Medicaid expansion, as well as the implications for cancer care. OBSERVATIONS: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act presented states with an option to expand Medicaid coverage by broadening the eligibility criteria (eg, raising the eligible income level). During the past 10 years, Medicaid expansion has been credited with a 30% reduction in the population of uninsured individuals in the US. Such a significant change in the insurance profile could have important implications for the 1.7 million patients diagnosed with cancer each year, the oncology teams that care for them, and policy makers. However, several factors may complicate efforts to characterize the effect of Medicaid expansion on the US cancer population. Most notably, there is considerable variation among states in terms of whether Medicaid expansion took place, when expansion occurred, eligibility criteria for Medicaid, and coverage types that Medicaid provides. In addition, economic and health policy factors may be intertwined with factors associated with Medicaid expansion. Finally, variability in the manner in which cancer care has been captured and depicted in large databases could affect the interpretation of findings associated with expansion. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The expansion of Medicaid was a historic public policy initiative. To fully leverage this policy to improve oncological care and to maximize learning for subsequent policies, it is critical to understand the effect of Medicaid expansion. This review aims to better prepare investigators and their audiences to fully understand the implications of this important health policy initiative.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy for T4 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with Additional Ipsilateral Lung Nodules.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy is indicated for patients with resectable stage II and IIIa non-small cell lung cancer. With the revised definition of T4 tumors with nodules in a different ipsilateral lobe, the survival advantage imparted by adjuvant chemotherapy has yet to be defined. We evaluated the role of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with T4 disease characterized by additional tumor nodules in a different ipsilateral lobe treated with surgical resection. METHODS: We identified patients with T4 disease and additional tumor nodules in a different ipsilateral lobe treated with surgical resection alone or with adjuvant chemotherapy in the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2016. The primary outcome was 3-year overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 920 patients with T4 tumors and additional tumor nodules in a different ipsilateral lobe were identified. We excluded patients with lymph node metastases, tumors 4 cm or greater, and local invasion. Of the remaining 373 patients, 152 received surgery and adjuvant multiagent chemotherapy whereas 221 received surgery alone. When adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment factors, the use of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved 3-year OS compared with surgery alone (hazard ratio = 0.572; 95% confidence interval, 0.348-0.940; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with T4 non-small cell lung cancer with additional tumor nodules in a different ipsilateral lobe is associated with improved 3-year OS. Accurate identification of T4 disease is important to define patients in whom adjuvant chemotherapy should be considered. Further prospective study is needed to delineate further the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for this patient population.