Prevalence of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor and Programmed Death-Ligand 1 testing in a population-based lung cancer surgical resection cohort from 2018-2022.

BACKGROUND: Biomarker-directed therapy requires biomarker testing. We assessed the patterns of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) and Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PDL1) testing in a non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) resection cohort. We hypothesized that testing would increase but be unevenly distributed across patient-, provider- and institution-level demographics. METHODS: We examined the population-based Mid-south Quality of Surgical Resection (MS-QSR) cohort of NSCLC resections. We evaluated the proportions receiving EGFR and PDL1 testing before and after approval of biomarker-directed adjuvant therapy (2018-2020 versus 2021-2022). We used association tests and logistic regression to compare factors. RESULTS: From 2018-2022, 1687 patients had NSCLC resection across 12 MS-QSR institutions: 1045 (62%) from 2018-2020; and 642 (38%) from 2021-2022. From 2018-2020 11% had EGFR testing, versus 38% in 2021-2022 (56% in those meeting ADAURA trial inclusion criteria, p<0.0001). From 2018-2020, 8% had PDL1 testing, versus 20% in 2021-2022 (p<0.0001). EGFR testing did not significantly differ by age (p=0.07), sex (p=0.99), race (p=0.33), or smoking history (p=0.28); PDL1 testing did not differ significantly by age (p=0.47), sex (p=0.41), race (p=0.51), or health insurance (p=0.07). Testing was significantly less likely in non-teaching and non-Commission on Cancer-accredited hospitals and after resection by cardiothoracic or general surgeons (versus dedicated thoracic surgeons) (all p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: EGFR and PDL1 testing increased after approval of biomarker-directed adjuvant therapies. However, testing rates were still suboptimal and differed by institutional and provider-level factors. IMPACT: The association of institutional, pathologist, and surgeon characteristics with differences in testing demonstrate the need for more standardization in testing processes.

Effects of a change in recall period on reporting severe symptoms: an analysis of a pragmatic multisite trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal methods for deploying electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) to manage symptoms in routine oncologic practice remain uncertain. The eSyM symptom management program asks chemotherapy and surgery patients to self-report 12 symptoms regularly. Feedback from nurses and patients led to changing the recall period from the past 7 days to the past 24 hours. METHODS: Using questionnaires submitted during the 16-weeks surrounding the recall period change, we assessed the likelihood of reporting a severe, or a moderate-severe, symptom across all 12 symptoms and separately for the 5 most prevalent symptoms. Interrupted time series analyses modeled the effects of the change using generalized linear mixed-effects models. Surgery and chemotherapy cohorts were analyzed separately. Study-wide effects were estimated using a meta-analysis method. RESULTS: In total, 1,692 patients from 6 institutions submitted 7,823 eSyM assessments during the 16-weeks surrounding the recall period change. Shortening the recall period was associated with lower odds of severe symptom reporting in the surgery cohort (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.93; p = .02) and lower odds of moderate-severe symptom reporting in the chemotherapy cohort (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; p = .02). Among the most prevalent symptoms, 24-hour recall was associated with lower rate of reporting post-operative constipation, but no differences in reporting rates for other symptoms. CONCLUSION: A shorter recall period was associated with a reduction in the proportion of patients reporting moderate-severe symptoms. The optimal recall period may vary depending on whether ePROs are collected for active symptom management, as a clinical trial endpoint, or another purpose. (Clinicaltrails.gov (NCT03850912).

Strategies for Implementing an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes-Based Symptom Management Program Across Six Cancer Centers.

Background: Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO)-based symptom management improves cancer patients' outcomes. However, implementation of ePROs is challenging, requiring technical resources for integration into clinical systems, substantial buy-in from clinicians and patients, novel workflows to support between-visit symptom management, and institutional investment. Methods: The SIMPRO Research Consortium developed eSyM, an electronic health record-integrated, ePRO-based symptom management program for medical oncology and surgery patients and deployed it at six cancer centers between August 2019 and April 2022 in a type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized stepped-wedge study. Sites documented implementation strategies monthly using REDCap, itemized them using the Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) list and mapped their target barriers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to inform eSyM program enhancement, facilitate inter-consortium knowledge sharing and guide future deployment efforts. Results: We documented 226 implementation strategies: 35 'foundational' strategies were applied consortium-wide by the coordinating center and 191 other strategies were developed by individual sites. We consolidated these 191 site-developed strategies into 64 unique strategies (i.e., removed duplicates) and classified the remainder as either 'universal', consistently used by multiple sites (N=29), or 'adaptive', used only by individual sites (N=35). Universal strategies were perceived as having the highest impact; they addressed eSyM clinical preparation, training, engagement of patients/clinicians, and program evaluation. Across all documented SIMPRO strategies, 44 of the 73 ERIC strategies were addressed and all 5 CFIR barriers were addressed. Conclusion: Methodical collection of theory-based implementation strategies fostered the identification of universal, high-impact strategies that facilitated adoption of a novel care-delivery intervention by patients, clinicians, and institutions. Attention to the high-impact strategies identified in this project could support implementation of ePROs as a component of routine cancer care at other institutions.

Program-Based Lung Cancer Care: A Prospective Observational Tumor Registry Linkage Study.

Introduction: Low-dose computed tomography screening (LDCT) and lung nodule programs (LNP) promote early lung cancer detection, improve survival; Multidisciplinary Care Programs (MDC) promote guideline-concordant care. The impact of such program-based care on "real-world" lung cancer survival is unquantified. We evaluated outcomes of lung cancer care delivered through structured programs in a community health care system. Methods: We conducted a cohort study linking institutional prospective observational LDCT, LNP and MDC databases with Tumor Registry of Baptist Cancer Center facilities. We categorized all patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 2011 and 2021 into program-based care versus non-program-based care cohorts. We compared patient characteristics, stage distribution, treatment modalities, survival and mortality in each pathway of care. Results: Of 12,148 patients, 237, 1,165, 1,140 and 9,606 were diagnosed through the LDCT, LNP, MDC or no program, respectively; non-program-based care sequentially diminished from 96.3% to 66.5%, diagnosis through LDCT increased from 0.5% to 7.1%, LNP from 3.5% to 20.8%; and MDC alone decreased from a high of 12.8% in 2014 to 5.6% in 2021. Program-based care was associated with earlier stage (p < 0.001), higher surgical resection rates (p < 0.001), greater use of adjuvant therapy (p < 0.001), better aggregate and stage-stratified survival (p < 0.001), and lower all-cause and lung cancer-specific mortality (p < 0.001). Recipients of non-program-based care were considerably less likely to receive lung cancer treatment; results remained consistent when patients receiving no treatment were excluded. Conclusions: Program-based care was associated with substantially better survival. Increasing access to program-based care should be explored as a matter of urgent public policy.

Two Interventions on Pathologic Nodal Staging in a Population-Based Lung Cancer Resection Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Despite its prognostic importance, poor pathologic nodal staging of lung cancer prevails. We evaluated the impact of 2 interventions to improve pathologic nodal staging. METHODS: We implemented a lymph node specimen collection kit to improve intraoperative lymph node collection (surgical intervention) and a novel gross dissection method for intrapulmonary node retrieval (pathology intervention) in nonrandomized stepped-wedge fashion, involving 12 hospitals and 7 pathology groups. We used standard statistical methods to compare surgical quality and survival of patients who had neither intervention (group 1), pathology intervention only (group 2), surgical intervention only (group 3), and both interventions (group 4). RESULTS: Of 4019 patients from 2009 to 2021, 50%, 5%, 21%, and 24%, respectively, were in groups 1 to 4. Rates of nonexamination of lymph nodes were 11%, 9%, 0%, and 0% and rates of nonexamination of mediastinal lymph nodes were 29%, 35%, 2%, and 2%, respectively, in groups 1 to 4 (P < .0001). Rates of attainment of American College of Surgeons Operative Standard 5.8 were 22%, 29%, 72%, and 85%; and rates of International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer complete resection were 14%, 21%, 53%, and 61% (P < .0001). Compared with group 1, adjusted hazard ratios for death were as follows: group 2, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.76-1.15); group 3, 0.91 (0.78-1.03); and group 4, 0.75 (0.64-0.87). Compared with group 2, group 4 adjusted hazard ratio was 0.72 (0.57-0.91); compared with group 3, it was 0.83 (0.69-0.99). These relationships remained after exclusion of wedge resections. CONCLUSIONS: Combining a lymph node collection kit with a novel gross dissection method significantly improved pathologic nodal evaluation and survival.

Disparities in electronic health record portal access and use among patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record-linked portals may improve health-care quality for patients with cancer. Barriers to portal access and use undermine interventions that rely on portals to reduce cancer care disparities. This study examined portal access and persistence of portal use and associations with patient and structural factors before the implementation of 3 portal-based interventions within the Improving the Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium. METHODS: Portal use data were extracted from electronic health records for the 12 months preceding intervention implementation. Sociodemographic factors, mode of accessing portals (web vs mobile), and number of clinical encounters before intervention implementation were also extracted. Rurality was derived using rural-urban commuting area codes. Broadband access was estimated using the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. Multiple logistic regression models tested the associations of these factors with portal access (ever accessed or never accessed) and persistence of portal use (accessed the portal ≤20 weeks vs ≥21 weeks in the 35-week study period). RESULTS: Of 28 942 eligible patients, 10 061 (35%) never accessed the portal. Male sex, membership in a racial and ethnic minority group, rural dwelling, not working, and limited broadband access were associated with lower odds of portal access. Younger age and more clinical encounters were associated with higher odds of portal access. Of those with portal access, 25% were persistent users. Using multiple modalities for portal access, being middle-aged, and having more clinical encounters were associated with persistent portal use. CONCLUSION: Patient and structural factors affect portal access and use and may exacerbate disparities in electronic health record-based cancer symptom surveillance and management.

Assessing Patient Readiness for an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Symptom Management Intervention in a Multisite Study.

PURPOSE: While the use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) in routine clinical practice is increasing, barriers to patient engagement limit adoption. Studies have focused on technology access as a key barrier, yet other characteristics may also confound readiness to use ePROs including patients' confidence in using technology and confidence in asking clinicians questions. METHODS: To assess readiness to use ePROs, adult patients from six US-based health systems who started a new oncology treatment or underwent a cancer-directed surgery were invited to complete a survey that assessed access to and confidence in the use of technology, ease of asking clinicians questions about health, and symptom management self-efficacy. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression models were fit to assess the association between technology confidence, ease of asking questions, and symptom management self-efficacy. RESULTS: We contacted 3,212 individuals, and 1,043 (33%) responded. The median age was 63 years, 68% were female, and 75% reported having access to patient portals. Over 80% had two or more electronic devices. Most patients reported high technology confidence, higher ease of asking clinicians questions, and high symptom management self-efficacy (n = 692; 66%). Patients with high technology confidence also reported higher ease of asking nurses about their health (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 4.58 [95% CI, 2.36 to 8.87]; P ≤ .001). Those who reported higher ease of asking nurses questions were more likely to report higher confidence in managing symptoms (AOR, 30.54 [95% CI, 12.91 to 72.30]; P ≤ .001). CONCLUSION: Patient readiness to use ePROs likely depends on multiple factors, including technology and communication confidence, and symptom management self-efficacy. Future studies should assess interventions to address these factors.

Incidentally Detected Lung Cancer in Persons Too Young or Too Old for Lung Cancer Screening in a Mississippi Delta Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer risk in screening age-ineligible persons with incidentally detected lung nodules is poorly characterized. We evaluated lung cancer risk in two age-ineligible Lung Nodule Program (LNP) cohorts. METHODS: Prospective observational study comparing 2-year cumulative lung cancer diagnosis risk, lung cancer characteristics, and overall survival between low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening participants aged 50 to 80 years and LNP participants aged 35 to younger than 50 years (young) and older than 80 years (elderly). RESULTS: From 2015 to 2022, lung cancer was diagnosed in 329 (3.43%), 39 (1.07%), and 172 (6.87%) LDCT, young, and elderly LNP patients, respectively. The 2-year cumulative incidence was 3.0% (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 2.6%-3.4%) versus 0.79% (CI: 0.54%-1.1%) versus 6.5% (CI: 5.5%-7.6%), respectively, but lung cancer diagnosis risk was similar between young LNP and Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) 1 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.88 [CI: 0.50-1.56]) and Lung-RADS 2 (aHR = 1.0 [0.58-1.72]). Elderly LNP risk was greater than Lung-RADS 3 (aHR = 2.34 [CI: 1.50-3.65]), but less than 4 (aHR = 0.28 [CI: 0.22-0.35]). Lung cancer was stage I or II in 62.92% of LDCT versus 33.33% of young (p = 0.0003) and 48.26% of elderly (p = 0.0004) LNP cohorts; 16.72%, 41.03%, and 29.65%, respectively, were diagnosed at stage IV. The aggregate 5-year overall survival rates were 57% (CI: 48-67), 55% (CI: 39-79), and 24% (CI: 15-40) (log-rank p < 0.0001). Results were similar after excluding persons with any history of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: LNP modestly benefited persons too young or old for screening. Differences in clinical characteristics and outcomes suggest differences in biological characteristics of lung cancer in these three patient cohorts.

Current and Future Perspectives on Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer: A Roadmap From 2023 to 2027 From the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer substantially reduces mortality from lung cancer, as revealed in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. This review is based on the ninth CT screening symposium of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, which focuses on the major themes pertinent to the successful global implementation of LDCT screening and develops a strategy to further the implementation of lung cancer screening globally. These recommendations provide a 5-year roadmap to advance the implementation of LDCT screening globally, including the following: (1) establish universal screening program quality indicators; (2) establish evidence-based criteria to identify individuals who have never smoked but are at high-risk of developing lung cancer; (3) develop recommendations for incidentally detected lung nodule tracking and management protocols to complement programmatic lung cancer screening; (4) Integrate artificial intelligence and biomarkers to increase the prediction of malignancy in suspicious CT screen-detected lesions; and (5) standardize high-quality performance artificial intelligence protocols that lead to substantial reductions in costs, resource utilization and radiologist reporting time; (6) personalize CT screening intervals on the basis of an individual's lung cancer risk; (7) develop evidence to support clinical management and cost-effectiveness of other identified abnormalities on a lung cancer screening CT; (8) develop publicly accessible, easy-to-use geospatial tools to plan and monitor equitable access to screening services; and (9) establish a global shared education resource for lung cancer screening CT to ensure high-quality reading and reporting.

The Longitudinal Implementation Strategy Tracking System (LISTS): feasibility, usability, and pilot testing of a novel method.

BACKGROUND: Systematic approaches are needed to accurately characterize the dynamic use of implementation strategies and how they change over time. We describe the development and preliminary evaluation of the Longitudinal Implementation Strategy Tracking System (LISTS), a novel methodology to document and characterize implementation strategies use over time. METHODS: The development and initial evaluation of the LISTS method was conducted within the Improving the Management of SymPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Research Consortium (supported by funding provided through the NCI Cancer MoonshotSM). The IMPACT Consortium includes a coordinating center and three hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies testing routine symptom surveillance and integration of symptom management interventions in ambulatory oncology care settings. LISTS was created to increase the precision and reliability of dynamic changes in implementation strategy use over time. It includes three components: (1) a strategy assessment, (2) a data capture platform, and (3) a User's Guide. An iterative process between implementation researchers and practitioners was used to develop, pilot test, and refine the LISTS method prior to evaluating its use in three stepped-wedge trials within the IMPACT Consortium. The LISTS method was used with research and practice teams for approximately 12 months and subsequently we evaluated its feasibility, acceptability, and usability using established instruments and novel questions developed specifically for this study. RESULTS: Initial evaluation of LISTS indicates that it is a feasible and acceptable method, with content validity, for characterizing and tracking the use of implementation strategies over time. Users of LISTS highlighted several opportunities for improving the method for use in future and more diverse implementation studies. CONCLUSIONS: The LISTS method was developed collaboratively between researchers and practitioners to fill a research gap in systematically tracking implementation strategy use and modifications in research studies and other implementation efforts. Preliminary feedback from LISTS users indicate it is feasible and usable. Potential future developments include additional features, fewer data elements, and interoperability with alternative data entry platforms. LISTS offers a systematic method that encourages the use of common data elements to support data analysis across sites and synthesis across studies. Future research is needed to further adapt, refine, and evaluate the LISTS method in studies with employ diverse study designs and address varying delivery settings, health conditions, and intervention types.

Systematic symptom management in the IMPACT Consortium: rationale and design for 3 effectiveness-implementation trials.

Cancer and its treatment produce deleterious symptoms across the phases of care. Poorly controlled symptoms negatively affect quality of life and result in increased health-care needs and hospitalization. The Improving the Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium was created to develop 3 large-scale, systematic symptom management systems, deployed through electronic health record platforms, and to test them in pragmatic, randomized, hybrid effectiveness and implementation trials. Here, we describe the IMPACT Consortium's conceptual framework, its organizational components, and plans for evaluation. The study designs and lessons learned are highlighted in the context of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Staging Project for Lung Cancer: Proposals for the Revision of the N Descriptors in the Forthcoming Ninth Edition of the TNM Classification for Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The accurate assessment of nodal (N) status is crucial to the management and prognostication of nonmetastatic NSCLC. We sought to determine whether the current N descriptors should be maintained or revised for the upcoming ninth edition of the international TNM lung cancer staging system. METHODS: Data were assembled by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer on patients with NSCLC, detailing both clinical and pathologic N status, with information about anatomical location and individual station-level identification. Survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and prognostic groups were assessed by a Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Data for clinical N and pathologic N status were available in 45,032 and 35,009 patients, respectively. The current N0 to N3 descriptors for both clinical N and pathologic N categories reflect prognostically distinct groups. Furthermore, single-station N2 involvement (N2a) exhibited a better prognosis than multistation N2 involvement (N2b) in both clinical and pathologic classifications, and the differences between all neighboring nodal subcategories were highly significant. The prognostic differences between N2a and N2b were robust and consistent across resection status, histologic type, T category, and geographic region. CONCLUSIONS: The current N descriptors should be maintained, with the addition of new subdescriptors to N2 for single-station involvement (N2a) and multiple-station involvement (N2b).

Lung Cancer Patients' and Caregivers' Satisfaction With Multidisciplinary Versus Serial Care in a Community Healthcare Setting: A Prospective Comparative-Effectiveness Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary Care is recommended for complex oncologic conditions. We compared lung cancer patients' and caregivers' satisfaction with Multidisciplinary Care to routine, serial care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed validated surveys administered at baseline, 3 and 6 months to patients and their caregivers enrolled in a prospective cohort comparative-effectiveness study of Multidisciplinary versus Serial Care (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02123797). Multivariate mixed linear models examined the cross-group differences, time-related variances, and how interaction between groups and time-periods influenced satisfaction. RESULTS: Compared to serial care (N = 297), the Multidisciplinary Care cohort (N = 159), was older (69 vs. 66 years), had earlier clinical stage (41% vs. 33% stage I/II), and less severe symptoms (45% vs. 35% asymptomatic). Demographic and social-economic characteristics of caregivers (N = 99 for Multidisciplinary and 123 for Serial Care, respectively) were similar. Multidisciplinary Care patients and caregivers were more likely to perceive their care to be better than that of other patients (p < .01). Although Serial Care patients and caregivers expressed greater satisfaction with their treatment plan (p < .01 patients, p = 0.04 caregivers), Multidisciplinary Care patients showed greater improvement at 6-months (p < .01). Multidisciplinary Care patients and caregivers reported better overall satisfaction with team members (p < .01) while Serial Care patients had greater improvement in their satisfaction with team members at 6-months (p = .04). Multidisciplinary Care patients perceived more financial burden at 6-months compared to Serial Care patients (p = .04). CONCLUSION: Patient-caregiver dyads had mixed perceptions of their care experience. Recipients of Multidisciplinary Care perceived better experience with care and team members; Serial Care recipients expressed greater satisfaction with their treatment plan.

Surgeon Quality and Patient Survival After Resection for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The quality and outcomes of curative-intent lung cancer surgery vary in populations. Surgeons are key drivers of surgical quality. We examined the association between surgeon-level intermediate outcomes differences, patient survival differences, and potential mitigation by processes of care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using a baseline population-based surgical resection cohort, we derived surgeon-level cut points for rates of positive margins, nonexamination of lymph nodes, nonexamination of mediastinal lymph nodes, and wedge resections. Applying the baseline cut points to a subsequent cohort from the same population-based data set, we assign surgeons into three performance categories in reference to each metric: 1 (<25th percentile), 2 (25th-75th percentile), and 3 (>75th percentile). The sum of performance scores created three surgeon quality tiers: 1 (4-6, low), 2 (7-9, intermediate), and 3 (10-12, high). We used chi-squared, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, and Kruskal-Wallis tests to compare patient characteristics between the baseline and subsequent cohorts and across surgeon tiers. We applied Cox proportional hazards models to examine the association between patient survival and surgeon performance tier, sequentially adjusting for clinical stage, patient characteristics, and four specific processes. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2021, 39 surgeons performed 4,082 resections across the baseline and subsequent cohorts. Among 31 subsequent cohort surgeons, five were tier 1, five were tier 2, and 21 were tier 3. Tier 1 and 2 surgeons had significantly worse outcomes than tier 3 surgeons (hazard ratio [HR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.72 and 1.19; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.43, respectively). Adjustment for specific processes mitigated the surgeon-tiered survival differences, with adjusted HRs of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.8 to 1.3) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.7 to 1.25), respectively. CONCLUSION: Readily accessible intermediate outcomes metrics can be used to stratify surgeon performance for targeted process improvement, potentially reducing patient survival disparities.

Expanding the Reach and Grasp of Lung Cancer Screening.

Low-dose computer tomographic (LDCT) lung cancer screening reduces lung cancer-specific and all-cause mortality among high-risk individuals, but implementation has been challenging. Despite health insurance coverage for lung cancer screening in the United States since 2015, fewer than 10% of eligible persons have participated; striking geographic, racial, and socioeconomic disparities were already evident, especially in the populations at greatest risk of lung cancer and, therefore, most likely to benefit from screening; and adherence to subsequent testing is significantly lower than that reported in clinical trials, potentially reducing the realized benefit. Lung cancer screening is a covered health care benefit in very few countries. Obtaining the full population-level benefit of lung cancer screening will require improved participation of already eligible persons (the grasp of screening) and improved eligibility criteria that more closely match up with the full spectrum of persons at risk (the reach of screening), irrespective of smoking history. We used the socioecological framework of health care to systematically review implementation barriers to lung cancer screening and discuss multilevel solutions. We also discussed guideline-concordant management of incidentally detected lung nodules as a complementary approach to early lung cancer detection that can extend the reach and strengthen the grasp of screening. Furthermore, we discussed ongoing efforts in Asia to explore the possibility of LDCT screening in populations in whom lung cancer risk is relatively independent of smoking. Finally, we summarized innovative technological solutions, including biomarker selection and artificial intelligence strategies, to improve the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening in diverse populations.

Acquiring tissue for advanced lung cancer diagnosis and comprehensive biomarker testing: A National Lung Cancer Roundtable best-practice guide.

Advances in biomarker-driven therapies for patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) both provide opportunities to improve the treatment (and thus outcomes) for patients and pose new challenges for equitable care delivery. Over the last decade, the continuing development of new biomarker-driven therapies and evolving indications for their use have intensified the importance of interdisciplinary communication and coordination for patients with or suspected to have lung cancer. Multidisciplinary teams are challenged with completing comprehensive and timely biomarker testing and navigating the constantly evolving evidence base for a complex and time-sensitive disease. This guide provides context for the current state of comprehensive biomarker testing for NSCLC, reviews how biomarker testing integrates within the diagnostic continuum for patients, and illustrates best practices and common pitfalls that influence the success and timeliness of biomarker testing using a series of case scenarios.

Institution-Level Evolution of Lung Cancer Resection Quality With Implementation of a Lymph Node Specimen Collection Kit.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer surgery with a lymph node kit improves patient-level outcomes, but institution-level impact is unproven. METHODS: Using an institutional stepped-wedge implementation study design, we compared lung cancer resection quality between institutions in preimplementation and postimplementation phases of kit deployment and, within implementing institutions, resections without versus with the kit. Benchmarks included rates of nonexamination of lymph nodes, nonexamination of mediastinal lymph nodes, and attainment of American College of Surgeons Operative Standard 5.8. We report institution-level adjusted ORs (aORs) for attaining quality benchmarks. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2020, three preimplementing hospitals had 953 resections; 11 implementing hospitals had 4013 resections, 58% without and 42% with the kit. Quality was better in implementing institutions and with kit cases. Compared with preimplementing institutions, the aOR for nonexamination of lymph nodes was 0.62 (0.49-0.8, p = 0.002), nonexamination of mediastinal lymph nodes was 0.56 (0.47-0.68, p < 0.0001), and attainment of Operative Standard 5.8 was 7.3 (5.6-9.4, p < 0.0001); aORs for kit cases were 0.01 (0.001-0.06), 0.08 (0.06-0.11), and 11.6 (9.9-13.7), respectively (p < 0.0001 for all). Surgical quality was persistently poor in preimplementing institutions but sequentially improved in implementing institutions in parallel with kit adoption. In implementing institutions, resections with the kit had a uniformly high level of quality, whereas nonkit cases had a low level of quality, approximating that of preimplementing institutions. Within implementing institutions, 5-year overall survival was 61% versus 51% after surgery with versus without the kit (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery with a lymph node specimen collection kit improved institution-level quality of curative-intent lung cancer resection.

Evaluation of Lung Cancer Risk Among Persons Undergoing Screening or Guideline-Concordant Monitoring of Lung Nodules in the Mississippi Delta.

Importance: Guideline-concordant management of lung nodules promotes early lung cancer diagnosis, but the lung cancer risk profile of persons with incidentally detected lung nodules differs from that of screening-eligible persons. Objective: To compare lung cancer diagnosis hazard between participants receiving low-dose computed tomography screening (LDCT cohort) and those in a lung nodule program (LNP cohort). Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study included LDCT vs LNP enrollees from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2021, who were seen in a community health care system. Participants were prospectively identified, data were abstracted from clinical records, and survival was updated at 6-month intervals. The LDCT cohort was stratified by Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System as having no potentially malignant lesions (Lung-RADS 1-2 cohort) vs those with potentially malignant lesions (Lung-RADS 3-4 cohort), and the LNP cohort was stratified by smoking history into screening-eligible vs screening-ineligible groups. Participants with prior lung cancer, younger than 50 years or older than 80 years, and lacking a baseline Lung-RADS score (LDCT cohort only) were excluded. Participants were followed up to January 1, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Comparative cumulative rates of lung cancer diagnosis and patient, nodule, and lung cancer characteristics between programs, using LDCT as a reference. Results: There were 6684 participants in the LDCT cohort (mean [SD] age, 65.05 [6.11] years; 3375 men [50.49%]; 5774 [86.39%] in the Lung-RADS 1-2 and 910 [13.61%] in the Lung-RADS 3-4 cohorts) and 12 645 in the LNP cohort (mean [SD] age, 65.42 [8.33] years; 6856 women [54.22%]; 2497 [19.75%] screening eligible and 10 148 [80.25%] screening ineligible). Black participants constituted 1244 (18.61%) of the LDCT cohort, 492 (19.70%) of the screening-eligible LNP cohort, and 2914 (28.72%) of the screening-ineligible LNP cohort (P < .001). The median lesion size was 4 (IQR, 2-6) mm for the LDCT cohort (3 [IQR, 2-4] mm for Lung-RADS 1-2 and 9 [IQR, 6-15] mm for Lung-RADS 3-4 cohorts), 9 (IQR, 6-16) mm for the screening-eligible LNP cohort, and 7 (IQR, 5-11) mm for the screening-ineligible LNP cohort. In the LDCT cohort, lung cancer was diagnosed in 80 participants (1.44%) in the Lung-RADS 1-2 cohort and 162 (17.80%) in the Lung-RADS 3-4 cohort; in the LNP cohort, it was diagnosed in 531 (21.27%) in the screening-eligible cohort and 447 (4.40%) in the screening-ineligible cohort. Compared with Lung-RADS 1-2, the fully adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were 16.2 (95% CI, 12.7-20.6) for the screening-eligible cohort and 3.8 (95% CI, 3.0-5.0) for the screening-ineligible cohort; compared with Lung-RADS 3-4, the aHRs were 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0-1.5) and 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2-0.4), respectively. The stage of lung cancer was I to II in 156 of 242 patients (64.46%) in the LDCT cohort, 276 of 531 (52.00%) in the screening-eligible LNP cohort, and 253 of 447 (56.60%) in the screening-ineligible LNP cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the cumulative lung cancer diagnosis hazard of screening-age persons enrolled in the LNP was higher than that in a screening cohort, irrespective of smoking history. The LNP provided access to early detection for a higher proportion of Black persons.