Predictors for Long COVID and Differences in Long COVID Symptoms, Findings on Chest Imaging and Pulmonary Function between Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients with versus without Intensive Care Unit Admission.

INTRODUCTION: Many COVID-19 survivors suffer from persisting sequelae after acute disease. This is referred to as long COVID. The objectives of this study were to assess factors associated with long COVID and to analyze differences in persistent symptoms, findings on chest imaging, and pulmonary function between intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU hospitalized patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study including patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Patients were stratified into ICU patients and non-ICU patients. We analyzed the outcomes of patients who were in clinical follow-up 6 months after discharge with persistent symptoms, radiological and/or functional abnormalities. Logistic regression was used to examine the association between long COVID and patient characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 549 patients were included. Eighty-one ICU patients (66%) and 146 (34%) non-ICU patients had persistent symptoms or abnormalities on chest imaging or lung function test minimally 6 months after discharge. Significantly more ICU patients had residual fibrotic abnormalities on chest CT and functional impairment. Female gender, myocardial infarction, OSAS, low PCO2 at admission, and longer hospital stay were associated with a higher risk of developing long COVID. Diabetes and treatment with tocilizumab were associated with a lower risk of developing long COVID. CONCLUSION: Of the patients hospitalized for COVID-19, 34-66% suffered from persistent symptoms, residual abnormalities on chest imaging, or reduced lung function at around 6 months after discharge. While persistent sequelae were more frequent in ICU patients, admission to the ICU was not found to be an independent risk factor for developing long COVID.

High Protein Oral Nutritional Supplements Enable the Majority of Cancer Patients to Meet Protein Intake Recommendations during Systemic Anti-Cancer Treatment: A Randomised Controlled Parallel-Group Study.

ESPEN guidelines recommend a minimum protein intake of 1.0 g/kg body weight (BW) per day to maintain or restore lean body mass in patients with cancer. During anti-cancer treatment, optimal protein intake is difficult to achieve. We investigated whether a high-protein, low-volume oral nutritional supplement (ONS) supports patients in meeting recommendations. A multi-centre, randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group study was carried out in nine hospitals (five countries) between January 2019 and July 2021 in colorectal and lung cancer patients undergoing first-line systemic treatment with chemo(radio-) or immunotherapy. Subjects were randomised (2:1) to receive Fortimel Compact Protein® or standard care. Protein intake was assessed with a 3-day food diary (primary outcome). BW was a secondary outcome. Due to challenges in recruitment, the study was terminated prematurely with 42 patients randomised (intervention group (IG) 28; control group (CG) 14). At T1 and T2, protein intake was statistically significantly higher in the IG compared to the CG (1.40 vs. 1.07 g/kg/day at T1, p = 0.008; 1.32 vs. 0.94 g/kg/day at T2, p = 0.002). At baseline, only 65% (IG) and 45% (CG) of patients met ESPEN minimum protein intake recommendations. However, at T1 and T2 in the IG, a higher proportion of patients met recommendations than in the CG (88% vs. 55% and 40%). No statistically significant difference between study groups was observed for BW. Mean compliance to the ONS was 73.4%. A high-protein, low-volume ONS consumed twice daily enables the majority of patients to reach minimal ESPEN protein recommendations.

Development and validation of a decision model for the evaluation of novel lung cancer treatments in the Netherlands.

Recent discoveries in molecular diagnostics and drug treatments have improved the treatment of patients with advanced (inoperable) non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from solely platinum-based chemotherapy to more personalized treatment, including targeted therapies and immunotherapies. However, these improvements come at considerable costs, highlighting the need to assess their cost-effectiveness in order to optimize lung cancer care. Traditionally, cost-effectiveness models for the evaluation of new lung cancer treatments were based on the findings of the randomized control trials (RCTs). However, the strict RCT inclusion criteria make RCT patients not representative of patients in the real-world. Patients in RCTs have a better prognosis than patients in a real-world setting. Therefore, in this study, we developed and validated a diagnosis-treatment decision model for patients with advanced (inoperable) non-squamous NSCLC based on real-world data in the Netherlands. The model is a patient-level microsimulation model implemented as discrete event simulation with five health events. Patients are simulated from diagnosis to death, including at most three treatment lines. The base-model (non-personalized strategy) was populated using real-world data of patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy between 2008 and 2014 in one of six Dutch teaching hospitals. To simulate personalized care, molecular tumor characteristics were incorporated in the model based on the literature. The impact of novel targeted treatments and immunotherapies was included based on published RCTs. To validate the model, we compared survival under a personalized treatment strategy with observed real-world survival. This model can be used for health-care evaluation of personalized treatment for patients with advanced (inoperable) NSCLC in the Netherlands.

Benefit of Concurrent Versus Sequential Chemoradiotherapy in Elderly Patients With Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the largest cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Eighty-five percent of patients is diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Almost a third of patients is aged over 75, but this group is poorly represented in clinical trials. This study compares the effects of therapy in non-operable stage III NSCLC in elderly patients compared to their younger counterparts. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study. Patients are divided into three groups; patients younger than 65, patients aged between 65 and 75 and patients of 75 years or older. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is compared to sequential chemoradiotherapy using Cox regression analysis. The primary outcome is survival. A sub analysis is performed for the presence of toxicity using logistic regression. RESULTS: Seven hundred and fifty patients were diagnosed with stage III NSCLC and treated with concurrent (442) or sequential (308) chemoradiotherapy. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy provides a decreased HR of death of 0.72 (0.560-0.85) compared to sequential chemoradiotherapy, even when corrected for age. Elderly patients receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy do not have a significantly larger risk of toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients of all ages with stage III NSCLC benefit from concurrent chemoradiotherapy compared to sequential chemoradiotherapy. Age is not a deciding factor in this prospect, nor do the patients experience more severe toxicity than their younger counterparts.

Adjuvant Treatment Following Irradical Resection of Stage I-III Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Population-based Study.

Irradical (R1-2) resection for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is associated with a dismal prognosis. Adjuvant treatment attempts to improve survival outcomes, but evidence on the optimal strategy is limited. The purpose of this study was to compare overall survival (OS) between different adjuvant treatment strategies in these patients. Out of 8,528 patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC from 2015-2018, those with an R1-2 resection were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. First, OS was compared between adjuvant treatment groups 'no therapy', 'radiotherapy (RT) only', 'chemotherapy only', and 'chemo- and radiotherapy (CRT)' using multinomial propensity score-weighted Cox regression analysis. Second, three 1:1 propensity score-matched sets were created for chemotherapy vs no chemotherapy, RT only vs no therapy, and CRT vs chemotherapy only. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses for OS were performed in each set. With a median follow-up of 23 months, 427 patients were selected. In the weighted regression analysis, compared to no adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy and CRT were associated with improved OS (HR 0.41, 95%CI: 0.22-0.76; and HR 0.55, 95%CI: 0.37-0.81, respectively), whereas RT was not (HR 1.04, 95%CI: 0.73-1.50). In the matched sets, OS was improved after chemotherapy (+/- RT) compared to no chemotherapy (HR 0.47, 95%CI: 0.32-0.69). No OS difference was observed between matched groups of RT only vs no adjuvant therapy (HR 1.13, 95%CI: 0.74-1.72), nor for CRT vs chemotherapy only (HR 1.37, 95%CI: 0.70-2.71). Adjuvant chemotherapy, but not radiotherapy, improves survival after an R1-2 resection in stage I-III NSCLC.

Randomized phase III study of docetaxel versus docetaxel plus intercalated erlotinib in patients with relapsed non-squamous non-small cell lung carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Earlier preclinical and phase II research showed enhanced effect of docetaxel plus intercalated erlotinib. The NVALT-18 phase III study was designed to compare docetaxel with docetaxel plus intercalated erlotinib in relapsed metastasized non-squamous (NSQ) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients with relapsed Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) wild type (WT) NSQ-NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 21 days (control), or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 plus erlotinib 150 mg/day orally on day 2-16 every 21 days (experimental arm). Progression free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint, secondary objectives were duration of response, overall survival (OS) and toxicity. RESULTS: Between October 2016 and April 2018 a total of 45 patients were randomized and received treatment in the control (N = 23) or experimental arm (N = 22), the study was stopped due to slow accrual. Median PFS was 4.0 months (95% CI: 1.5-7.1) versus 1.9 months (95% CI 1.4-3.5), p = 0.01 respectively; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.51 (95% CI: 1.16-5.43). Corresponding median OS was 10.6 months (95% CI: 7.0-8.6) versus 4.7 months (95% CI: 3.2-8.6), p = 0.004, with an adjusted HR of 3.67 (95% CI: 1.46-9.27). Toxicity was higher with combination therapy, with toxicity ≥ CTCAE grade 3 in N = 6 (26%) in the control arm and N = 17 (77%) in the experimental arm (p < 0.001), mainly consisting of gastrointestinal symptoms and leukopenia. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows detrimental effects of docetaxel plus intercalated erlotinib, and strongly discourages further exploration of this combination in clinical practice.

Development and Evaluation of a Real-World Outcomes-Based Tool to Support Informed Clinical Decision Making in the Palliative Treatment of Patients With Metastatic NSCLC.

PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate a tool for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer and their thoracic oncologists (TOs) that provides insight into real-world effectiveness of systemic treatments to support informed clinical decision making in the palliative setting. METHODS: A participatory design approach was used to acquire insights from patients and TOs into preferences regarding the content and design of the web-based tool. Implementation was investigated by means of an adoption and usage rate. The appreciation of the tool was evaluated through a telephone survey with patients and a questionnaire for TOs. RESULTS: From clinical data of 2,989 patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer diagnosed in one of the Santeon hospitals, an interface was developed to show treatments plus both real-world outcomes and clinical trial results after selecting patient characteristics (patients like me). This prototype of the tool was finalized after discussion in a focus group with four TOs and semi-structured interviews with six patients. The tool was implemented and used by TOs in three of six Santeon hospitals (50% adoption rate). The tool was used in 48 patients (29% usage rate), of which 17 participated in the telephone survey. Ten TOs responded to the questionnaire. The responses varied from positive reactions on the clear overview of treatment outcomes to statements that the tool rarely changed treatment decisions. Overall, the majority of patients and TOs scored the tool as of added value (71% and 83%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our real-world data tool in metastatic lung cancer was appreciated in clinical practice by both patients and TOs. However, the efficacy of the implementation can be improved.

Prediction of Microscopic Metastases in Patients with Metachronous Oligo-Metastases after Curative Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Microsimulation Study.

Metachronous oligo-metastatic disease is variably defined as one to five metastases detected after a disease-free interval and treatment of the primary tumour with curative intent. Oligo-metastases in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are often treated with curative intent. However additional metastases are often detected later in time, and the 5-year survival is low. Burdensome surgical treatment in patients with undetected metastases may be avoided if patients with a high versus low risk of undetected metastases can be separated. Because there is no clinical data on undetected metastases available, a microsimulation model of the development and detection of metastases in 100,000 hypothetical stage I NSCLC patients with a controlled primary tumour was constructed. The model uses data from the literature as well as patient-level data. Calibration was used for the unobservable model parameters. Metastases can be detected by a scheduled scan, or an unplanned scan when the patient develops symptoms. The observable information at time of detection is used to identify subgroups of patients with a different risk of undetectable metastases. We identified the size and number of detected oligo-metastases, as well as the presence of symptoms that are the most important risk predictors. Based on these predictors, patients could be divided into a low-risk and a high-risk group, having a model-based predicted probability of 8.1% and 89.3% to have undetected metastases, respectively. Currently, the model is based on a synthesis of the literature data and individual patient-level data that were not collected for the purpose of this study. Optimization and validation of the model is necessary to allow clinical usability. We describe the type of data that needs to be collected to update our model, as well as the design of such a validation study.

Real-world outcomes versus clinical trial results of immunotherapy in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the Netherlands.

This study aims to assess how clinical outcomes of immunotherapy in real-world (effectiveness) correspond to outcomes in clinical trials (efficacy) and to look into factors that might explain an efficacy-effectiveness (EE) gap. All patients diagnosed with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in 2015-2018 in six Dutch large teaching hospitals (Santeon network) were identified and followed-up from date of diagnosis until death or end of data collection. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from first-line (1L) pembrolizumab and second-line (2L) nivolumab were compared with clinical trial data by calculating hazard ratios (HRs). From 1950 diagnosed patients, 1005 (52%) started with any 1L treatment, of which 83 received pembrolizumab. Nivolumab was started as 2L treatment in 141 patients. For both settings, PFS times were comparable between real-world and trials (HR 1.08 (95% CI 0.75-1.55), and HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.74-1.14), respectively). OS was significantly shorter in real-world for 1L pembrolizumab (HR 1.55; 95% CI 1.07-2.25). Receiving subsequent lines of treatment was less frequent in real-world compared to trials. There is no EE gap for PFS from immunotherapy in patients with stage IV NSCLC. However, there is a gap in OS for 1L pembrolizumab. Fewer patients proceeding to a subsequent line of treatment in real-world could partly explain this.

'Care for Outcomes': systematic development of a set of outcome indicators to improve patient-relevant outcomes for patients with lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Measuring quality of care is important, however many of the quality indicators used do not focus on outcome of treatment and aspects which are valuable for patients and physicians. The project 'Care for Outcomes' aims to establish a relevant set of outcome indicators for lung cancer. SETTING: Network of seven large, non-university teaching hospitals in the Netherlands (Santeon). METHODS: By reviewing the literature, a list of potential outcome indicators for patients with lung cancer was composed and subsequently prioritised by expert's opinion. Three external parties, with expertise on lung cancer, clinical management and public health, evaluated and reduced the list of indicators to a working set. Finally, the resulting selection of outcome indicators was tested for feasibility and discrimination in patient data, by collecting retrospective data and performing regression and survival analyses. PARTICIPANTS: Development of the indicator set in six Santeon hospitals. Retrospective cohort study in 5922 patients diagnosed with lung cancer (all types and stages). RESULTS: Selected outcome indicators were divided into three levels of outcome (tiers). The first tier about survival and the process of recovery include mortality, survival, positive resection margins, rethoracotomy after resection and quality of life at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months. Tier 2 concerning the sustainability of the recovery include complications after resection and toxicity after chemotherapy and/or radiation. Tier 3 about sustainability of health revealed no measurable outcomes. The retrospective data collection showed differences between hospitals and variation in case mix. CONCLUSION: A relevant set of outcome indicators for lung cancer was systematically developed. This set has the potential to compare quality of care between hospitals and inform patients with lung cancer about outcomes. The project is ongoing in the current Santeon Value-Based Health Care programme through quality and improvement cycles.

Evaluation of Serum Biomarker CEA and Ca-125 as Immunotherapy Response Predictors in Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Treatment options for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) include immunotherapy. Elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cancer antigen 125 (Ca-125) levels are associated with poorer prognoses of resected NSCLC, but currently no predictive biomarkers exist for immunotherapy response. This study evaluated CEA and Ca-125 as predictive biomarkers for immunotherapy efficiency in patients with metastatic NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The single-centre observational retrospective study includes NSCLC stage III/IV patients treated with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors nivolumab or pembrolizumab. The primary study endpoint was treatment response assessed by CT-scan following RECIST-criteria 1.1. CEA/Ca-125 serum values were determined at initiation of treatment and repeated every 2 weeks. Values closest to the day of CT-scan were compared to baseline values. RESULTS: A total of 136 patients were treated with mono-immunotherapy. Of these, 73 patients were included in the CEA group and 53 patients were included in the Ca-125 group. Baseline CEA and Ca-125 ranged from 8.14 to 5,909 and 1.1 to 4,238 respectively. The sensitivity for Ca-125 as predictor for tumor response was 62.9% (95% CI=61.8%-63.6%), specificity 61.1% (95% CI=60.2%-62.0%), with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 75.9% (95% CI=75.2%-76.7%). For CEA, the sensitivity was 72.0% (95% CI=71.5%-72.5%), specificity 47.1% (95% CI 46.4%-47.8%), with a PPV of 80.0% (95% CI=79.6%-80.4%). CONCLUSION: Increased serum CEA might predict tumor progression in NSCLC patients treated with PD-L1 inhibitors. Unconfirmed progression accompanied by increased CEA would support discontinuation of the immunotherapy, while continuation would be advised when serum CEA is not increased.

Cost-Effectiveness of Surveillance Scanning Strategies after Curative Treatment of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: After curative treatment of primary non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), patients undergo intensive surveillance with the aim to detect recurrences from the primary tumor or metachronous second primary lung cancer as early as possible and improve overall survival. However, the benefit of surveillance is debated. Available evidence is of low quality and conflicting. Microsimulation modeling facilitates the exploration of the impact of different surveillance strategies and provides insight into the cost-effectiveness of surveillance. METHODS: A microsimulation model was used to simulate a range of computed tomography (CT)-based surveillance schedules, differing in the frequency and duration of CT surveillance. The impact on survival, quality-adjusted life-years, costs, and cost-effectiveness of each schedule was assessed. RESULTS: Ten of 108 strategies formed the cost-effectiveness frontier; that is, these were the strategies with the optimal cost-health benefit balance. Per person, the discounted QALYs of these strategies varied between 5.72 and 5.81 y, and discounted costs varied between €9892 and €19,259. Below a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000/QALY, no scanning is the preferred option. For a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY, surveillance scanning every 2 y starting 1 y after curative treatment becomes the best option, with €11,860 discounted costs and 5.76 discounted QALYs per person. The European Society for Medical Oncology guideline strategy was more expensive and less effective than several other strategies. CONCLUSION: Model simulations suggest that limited CT surveillance scanning after the treatment of primary NSCLC is cost-effective, but the incremental health-benefit remains marginal. However, model simulations do suggest that the guideline strategy is not cost-effective.

Trends in Drug Costs and Overall Survival in Patients with Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in The Netherlands Diagnosed from 2008 Through 2014.

BACKGROUND: The Value-Based Health Care concept defines patient value as patient-relevant outcomes divided by costs. The aim of the present study was to assess the development of systemic treatment costs over the years compared with changes in overall survival (OS) at the level of a diagnosis of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: All patients diagnosed (in 2008-2014) with stage IV NSCLC and treated with systemic treatment in six Dutch large teaching hospitals (Santeon network) were included. We collected data on OS and amounts of drug units (milligrams) for every drug in the applied systemic cancer treatments, until death. These amounts were multiplied by Dutch unit costs (Euros/mg) expressed in 2018 Euros to construct total drug costs per line of treatment per patient. Costs for day care visits were added for drugs requiring parenteral administration. RESULTS: Data were collected from 1214 patients. Median OS and mean total drug costs showed no significant variation over the years (p = 0.437 and p = 0.693, respectively). Mean total drug costs per 1 year of survival ranged from €20,665 to €26,438 during the period under study. Costs for first-line systemic treatment were significantly higher in 2011-2014 compared with 2008-2010. CONCLUSION: This study shows that overall drug costs were stable over the years, despite a relative increase in first-line treatment costs. Median OS remained at around 8 months from year to year. These trend data are very relevant as background for the assessment of costs and achieved outcomes in the more recent years.

Systematic evaluation of the efficacy-effectiveness gap of systemic treatments in extensive disease small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to assess how clinical outcomes in real-world (effectiveness) correspond to the outcomes in clinical trials (efficacy) of systemic treatments for extensive disease small cell lung cancer (ED SCLC). METHODS: All patients diagnosed with ED SCLC between 2008 and 2014 in six Dutch large teaching hospitals (Santeon network) were identified and followed-up from date of diagnosis until death or end of data collection. For every patient, an efficacy-effectiveness factor (EE factor) was calculated by dividing individual patients' overall survival (OS) by the pooled median OS assessed from clinical trials with the respective treatment. RESULTS: From 792 diagnosed patients, 568 (72%) started with first-line treatment. Overall, the median EE factor was 0.79 (P < .001 from 1.00). Poor performance status (ECOG≥2) and a higher age at diagnosis (age ≥ 65 years) were independent predictors for a lower EE factor. The EE gap was 43% in patients with both age ≥ 65 years and ECOG ≥2 (EE factor 0.57). The mean age and the proportion of patients with ECOG≥2 in real-world were different from those in clinical trials (mean age of 66 versus 62 years, and ECOG≥2 25% versus 17%; both P < .001). CONCLUSION: OS of patients with ED SCLC treated with systemic therapy in real-world practice is 21% shorter than for patients included in trials. Age at diagnosis and performance status partly explain this gap.

Effects of a time out consultation with the general practitioner on cancer treatment decision-making: a randomised controlled trial: Time out with the general practitioner and cancer treatment decision.

OBJECTIVE: Improving shared decision-making (SDM) enables more tailored cancer treatment decisions. We evaluated a Time Out consultation (TOC) with the general practitioner (GP), between cancer diagnosis and treatment decision, which aims at supporting SDM and improving continuity of primary care. This study aims to evaluate the effects of a TOC on perceived SDM, information provision and self-efficacy. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial included newly diagnosed patients with curable cancer (breast, lung, colorectal, gynaecologic and melanoma) from four Dutch hospitals. Primary outcome is perceived SDM and secondary outcomes are information provision and self-efficacy. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four patients (control n = 77, intervention n = 77) - female: 75%, mean age: 61 (SD ± 11.9). In the intervention group, 80.5% (n = 62) had a TOC, of which 82.3% (n = 51) took place after treatment decision. Perceived SDM was lower in the intervention group (-8.9 [95% CI: 0.6-17.1]). Among those with a TOC before treatment decision (n = 11), perceived SDM was comparable to the control group (66.5 ± 27.2 vs. 67.9 ± 26.1). CONCLUSION: Even though patients are motivated to have a TOC, implementing a TOC between diagnosis and treatment decision is challenging. Effects of a timely TOC could not be established. Non-timely TOC decreased perceived SDM. Planning of the TOC should be optimised, and future research should establish if adequately timed TOC results in improved SDM in cancer patients.

Predicting Incomplete Resection in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Preoperatively: A Validated Nomogram.

BACKGROUND: Patients who are surgically treated for stage I to III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have dismal prognosis after incomplete (R1-R2) resection. Our study aimed to develop a prediction model to estimate the chance of incomplete resection based on preoperative patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related factors. METHODS: From a Dutch national cancer database, NSCLC patients who had surgical treatment without neoadjuvant therapy were selected. Thirteen possible predictors were analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to create a prediction model. External validation was applied in the American National Cancer Database, whereupon the model was adjusted. Discriminatory ability and calibration of the model was determined after internal and external validation. The prediction model was presented as nomogram. RESULTS: Of 7156 patients, 511 had an incomplete resection (7.1%). Independent predictors were histology, cT stage, cN stage, extent of surgery, and open vs thoracoscopic approach. After internal validation, the corrected C statistic of the resulting nomogram was 0.72. Application of the nomogram to an external data set of 85,235 patients with incomplete resection in 2485 patients (2.9%) resulted in a C statistic of 0.71. Calibration revealed good overall fit of the nomogram in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: An internationally validated nomogram is presented providing the ability to predict the individual chance of incomplete resection in patients with stage I to III NSCLC planned for resection. In case of a high predicted risk of incomplete resection, alternative treatment strategies could be considered, whereas a low risk further supports the use of surgical procedures.

Efficacy of Ibandronate Loading Dose on Rapid Pain Relief in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Cancer Induced Bone Pain: The NVALT-9 Trial.

Introduction: Approximately 80% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with bone metastases have cancer induced bone pain (CIBP). Methods: The NVALT-9 was an open-label, single arm, phase II, multicenter study. Main inclusion criterion: bone metastasized NSCLC patients with uncontrolled CIBP [brief pain inventory [BPI] ≥ 5 over last 7 days]. Patients were treated with six milligram ibandronate intravenously (day 1-3) once a day. Main exclusion criteria: active secondary malignancy, systemic anti-tumor treatment and radiotherapy ≤4 weeks before study start, previous bisphosphonate treatment. Statistics: Simon's Optimal two-stage design with a 90% power to declare the treatment active if the pain response rate is ≥ 80% and 95% confidence to declare the treatment inactive if the pain response rate is ≤ 60%. If pain response is observed in ≤ 12 of the first 19 patients further enrollment will be stopped. Primary endpoint: bone pain response, defined as 25% decrease in worst pain score (PSc) over a 3-day period (day 5-7) compared to baseline PSc with maximum of 25% increase in mean analgesic consumption during the same period. Secondary endpoints: BPI score, quality of life, toxicity and World Health Organization Performance Score. Results: Of the 19 enrolled patients in the first stage, 18 were evaluable for response. All completed ibandronate treatment according to protocol. In 4 (22.2%), a bone pain response was observed. According to the stopping rule, further enrollment was halted. Discussion: Ibandronate loading doses lead to insufficient pain relief in NSCLC patients with CIBP.

Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with extensive disease small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical outcome data on patients with extensive disease small cell lung cancer (ED SCLC) treated in routine practice is limited. The aim of this retrospective study is to present data on treatment patterns and survival in an unselected patient population with ED SCLC. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with ED SCLC between 2008 and 2014 in six Dutch large teaching hospitals (Santeon network) were included. We collected data on patient characteristics, systemic treatments, overall survival (OS), dose reductions (<80% of initial dose) and early discontinuation (<4 cycles). RESULTS: From 792 diagnosed patients, 568 (72%) started with first-line treatment. Of these patients, 41% received second-line treatment. Only 68 patients received third-line treatment. For all treated patients, the mean age was 66 years. The majority (72%) had a performance status (ECOG) of 0 or 1 at diagnosis. Median OS of treated patients was 7.4 months. Of all patients with first-line treatment, 26% received <4 cycles and dose reductions were observed in 29%. CONCLUSION: After first-line systemic treatment in ED SCLC the fraction of patients receiving subsequent lines of treatment is rapidly decreasing. This information is necessary as background for evaluation of the added value of future drugs under study for ED SCLC.

Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic body radiation therapy versus video assisted thoracic surgery in medically operable stage I non-small cell lung cancer: A modeling study.

OBJECTIVES: Stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can be treated with either Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) or Video Assisted Thoracic Surgery (VATS) resection. To support decision making, not only the impact on survival needs to be taken into account, but also on quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness. Therefore, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing SBRT to VATS resection with respect to quality adjusted life years (QALY) lived and costs in operable stage I NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient level and aggregate data from eight Dutch databases were used to estimate costs, health utilities, recurrence free and overall survival. Propensity score matching was used to minimize selection bias in these studies. A microsimulation model predicting lifetime outcomes after treatment in stage I NSCLC patients was used for the cost-effectiveness analysis. Model outcomes for the two treatments were overall survival, QALYs, and total costs. We used a Dutch health care perspective with 1.5 % discounting for health effects, and 4 % discounting for costs, using 2018 cost data. The impact of model parameter uncertainty was assessed with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Patients receiving either VATS resection or SBRT were estimated to live 5.81 and 5.86 discounted QALYs, respectively. Average discounted lifetime costs in the VATS group were €29,269 versus €21,175 for SBRT. Difference in 90-day excess mortality between SBRT and VATS resection was the main driver for the difference in QALYs. SBRT was dominant in at least 74 % of the probabilistic simulations. CONCLUSION: Using a microsimulation model to combine available evidence on survival, costs, and health utilities in a cost-effectiveness analysis for stage I NSCLC led to the conclusion that SBRT dominates VATS resection in the majority of simulations.