Institutional-Level Differences in Quality and Outcomes of Lung Cancer Resections in the United States

International standards of care in thoracic oncology: A narrative review of clinical quality indicators

Unwarranted variations in lung cancer care are widely described. Clinical Quality Indicators (CQIs) enable the systematic identification and alleviation of variations in care and other evidence-practice gaps. The aim of this review was to describe and evaluate lung cancer CQIs utilised internationally, in order to provide a substrate for the development of Australasian lung cancer CQIs and future quality improvement initiatives. A literature search was performed to identify relevant publications; references were excluded if they did not explicitly define original lung cancer-specific quality indicators, or were review or opinion articles. Ultimately, 48 publications containing 661 individual CQIs were evaluated. Although almost all references were published in the last decade, CQIs did not always reflect contemporary standards of care. For example, there were just sixteen CQIs regarding biomarker profiling, eleven CQIs regarding multidisciplinary team review, and three clinical trial enrolment CQIs. Of 307 lung cancer treatment CQIs, almost half (137) pertain to surgical resection; a treatment option available to a minority of lung cancer patients. Consumer engagement during indicator development was uncommon. In conclusion, whilst CQIs are widely measured and reported, they are not always consistent with evidence-based practice, nor do they reliably support the holistic evaluation of the lung cancer care continuum. Moving forward, Australia and New Zealand must adopt a unified, evidence-based and patient-centred approach to drive meaningful improvements in practice.

The Role of Sublobar Resection for the Surgical Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Lung cancer is the most common cancer killer in the world. The standard of care for surgical treatment of non-small cell lung cancer has been lobectomy. Recent studies have identified that sublobar resection has non-inferior survival rates compared to lobectomy, however. Sublobar resection may increase the number of patients who can tolerate surgery and reduce postoperative pulmonary decline. Sublobar resection appears to have equivalent results to surgery in patients with small, peripheral tumors and no lymph node disease. As the utilization of segmentectomy increases, there may be some centers that perform this operation more than other centers. Care must be taken to ensure that all patients have access to this modality. Future investigations should focus on examining the outcomes from segmentectomy as it is applied more widely. When employed on a broad scale, morbidity and survival rates should be monitored. As segmentectomy is performed more frequently, patients may experience improved postoperative quality of life while maintaining the same oncologic benefit.

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.

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.

Rates of Guideline-Concordant Surgery and Adjuvant Chemotherapy Among Patients With Early-Stage Lung Cancer in the US ALCHEMIST Study (Alliance A151216)

Importance

Standard treatment for resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) includes anatomic resection with adequate lymph node dissection and adjuvant chemotherapy for appropriate patients. Historically, many patients with early-stage NSCLC have not received such treatment, which may affect the interpretation of the results of adjuvant therapy trials.

Objective

To ascertain patterns of guideline-concordant treatment among patients enrolled in a US-wide screening protocol for adjuvant treatment trials for resected NSCLC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study included 2833 patients with stage IB to IIIA NSCLC (per American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition criteria) who enrolled in the Adjuvant Lung Cancer Enrichment Marker Identification and Sequencing Trial (ALCHEMIST) screening study (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A151216) from August 18, 2014, to April 1, 2019, and who did not enroll in a therapeutic adjuvant clinical trial; patients had tumors of at least 4 cm and/or with positive lymph nodes. Statistical analysis was conducted from June 1, 2020, through October 1, 2021.

Exposures

Care patterns were ascertained overall and by sociodemographic and clinical factors, including age, sex, race and ethnicity, educational level, marital status, geography, histologic characteristics, stage, genomic variant status, smoking history, and comorbidities.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Five outcomes are reported: whether patients (1) had anatomic surgical resection, (2) had adequate lymph node dissection (≥1 N1 nodal station plus ≥3 N2 nodal stations), (3) received any adjuvant chemotherapy, (4) received any cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy, and (5) received at least 4 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Results

Of the 2833 patients (1505 women [53%]; mean [SD] age, 66.5 [9.2] years) included in this analysis, 2697 (95%) had anatomic surgical resection, 1513 (53%) had adequate lymph node dissection, 1617 (57%) received any adjuvant chemotherapy, 1237 (44%) received at least 4 cycles of adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy, and 965 (34%) received any cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy. Rates were similar across race and ethnicity.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study found that among participants in a screening protocol for adjuvant clinical trials for resected early-stage NSCLC, just 53% underwent adequate lymph node dissection, and 57% received adjuvant chemotherapy, despite indications for such treatment. These results may affect the interpretation of adjuvant trials. Efforts are needed to optimize the use of proven therapies for early-stage NSCLC.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02194738.

Outcomes After Use of a Lymph Node Collection Kit for Lung Cancer Surgery: A Pragmatic, Population-Based, Multi-Institutional, Staggered Implementation Study

INTRODUCTION

Suboptimal pathologic nodal staging prevails after curative-intent resection of lung cancer. We evaluated the impact of a lymph node specimen collection kit on lung cancer surgery outcomes in a prospective, population-based, staggered implementation study.

METHODS

From January 1, 2014, to August 28, 2018, we implemented the kit in three homogeneous institutional cohorts involving 11 eligible hospitals from four contiguous hospital referral regions. Our primary outcome was pathologic nodal staging quality, defined by the following evidence-based measures: the number of lymph nodes or stations examined, proportions with poor-quality markers such as nonexamination of lymph nodes, and aggregate quality benchmarks including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. Additional outcomes included perioperative complications, health care utilization, and overall survival.

RESULTS

Of 1492 participants, 56% had resection with the kit and 44% without. Pathologic nodal staging quality was significantly higher in the kit cases: 0.2% of kit cases versus 9.8% of nonkit cases had no lymph nodes examined; 3.2% versus 25.3% had no mediastinal lymph nodes; 75% versus 26% attained the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). Kit cases revealed no difference in perioperative complications or health care utilization except for significantly shorter duration of surgery, lower proportions with atelectasis, and slightly higher use of blood transfusion. Resection with the kit was associated with a lower hazard of death (crude, 0.78 [95% confidence interval: 0.61-0.99]; adjusted 0.85 [0.71-1.02]).

CONCLUSIONS

Lung cancer surgery with a lymph node collection kit significantly improved pathologic nodal staging quality, with a trend toward survival improvement, without excessive perioperative morbidity or mortality.