Beliefs among Physicians in the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approach to Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

A Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Program: Does It Reduce Delay Between Diagnosis and Treatment?

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the USA, claiming more than 140,000 deaths annually. Delays in diagnosis and treatment can lead to missed opportunities for both curative and life prolonging therapies. This study aimed to evaluate duration of time to diagnosis and first treatment, as well as investigate reasons for delays in care.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all lung cancer cases diagnosed by Stony Brook's Lung Cancer Evaluation Center (LCEC) between 2013 and 2019. Demographic, radiologic, pathologic and clinical variables were investigated, including cancer staging, histology, and medical and family histories. Evaluations included the determination of median time from initial encounter to diagnosis, median time from diagnosis to start of treatment and an exploration of the factors that influence possible causes for delays in care.

RESULTS

The LCEC's comprehensive multidisciplinary lung nodule program yielded a median length of time from CT to PET of 11 days, PET to procedure of 13 days, procedure to treatment consult of 9 days, and from consult to treatment of 9 days. LCEC patients experienced an overall median of 44 days from initial presentation to first treatment compared to the national ideal of 62 days, thereby representing a 29% reduction in time from first CT to onset of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Delays in lung cancer diagnosis and treatment can negatively impact patient morbidity and mortality. This study suggests that a coordinated multidisciplinary lung cancer program may reduce delays in care, thereby improving patient outcomes.

Association of Survival With Adjuvant Chemotherapy Among Patients With Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With vs Without High-Risk Clinicopathologic Features

Importance

Tumor size larger than 4 cm is accepted as an indication for adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-negative non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Treatment guidelines suggest that high-risk features are also associated with the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy among patients with early-stage NSCLC, yet this association is understudied.

Objective

To assess the association between adjuvant chemotherapy and survival in the presence and absence of high-risk pathologic features in patients with node-negative early-stage NSCLC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study using data from the National Cancer Database included 50 814 treatment-naive patients with a completely resected node-negative NSCLC diagnosed between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2015. The study was limited to patients who survived at least 6 weeks after surgery (ie, estimated median time to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery) to mitigate immortal time bias. Statistical analysis was performed from December 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020.

Exposures

Adjuvant chemotherapy use vs observation, stratified according to the presence or absence of high-risk pathologic features (visceral pleural invasion, lymphovascular invasion, and high-grade histologic findings), sublobar surgery, and tumor size.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The association of high-risk pathologic features with survival after adjuvant chemotherapy vs observation was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression models.

Results

Overall, 50 814 eligible patients with NSCLC (27 365 women [53.9%]; mean [SD] age, 67.4 [9.5] years]) were identified, including 4220 (8.3%) who received adjuvant chemotherapy and 46 594 (91.7%) who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Among patients with tumors 3 cm or smaller, chemotherapy was not associated with improved survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.26; P = .17). For patients with tumors larger than 3 cm to 4 cm, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a survival benefit among patients who underwent sublobar surgery (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.93; P = .004). For tumors larger than 4 cm to 5 cm, a survival benefit was associated with adjuvant chemotherapy only in patients with at least 1 high-risk pathologic feature (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.80; P = .02). For tumors larger than 5 cm, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a survival benefit irrespective of the presence of high-risk pathologic features (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.91; P = .004).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, tumor size alone was not associated with improved efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early-stage (node-negative) NSCLC. High-risk clinicopathologic features and tumor size should be considered simultaneously when evaluating patients with early-stage NSCLC for adjuvant chemotherapy.

Variations in Oncologist Recommendations for Chemotherapy for Stage IV Lung Cancer: What Is the Role of Performance Status?

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy prolongs survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. However, few studies have included patients with poor performance status. This study examined rates of oncologists' recommendations for chemotherapy by patient performance status and symptoms and how physician characteristics influence chemotherapy recommendations.

METHODS

We surveyed medical oncologists involved in the care of a population-based cohort of patients with lung cancer from the CanCORS (Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance) study. Physicians were queried about their likelihood to recommend chemotherapy to patients with stage IV lung cancer with varying performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 [good] v 3 [poor]) and presence or absence of tumor-related pain. Repeated measures logistic regression was used to estimate the independent associations of patients' performance status and symptoms and physicians' demographic and practice characteristics with chemotherapy recommendations.

RESULTS

Nearly all physicians (adjusted rate, 97% to 99%) recommended chemotherapy for patients with good performance status, and approximately half (adjusted rate, 38% to 53%) recommended chemotherapy for patients with poor performance status (P < .001). Compared with patient factors, physician and practice characteristics were less strongly associated with chemotherapy recommendations in adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

Strong consensus among oncologists exists for chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and good performance status. However, the relatively high rate of chemotherapy recommendations for patients with poor performance status despite the unfavorable risk-benefit profile highlights the need for ongoing work to define high-value care in oncology and to implement and evaluate strategies to align incentives for such care.

Typical Time to Treatment of Patients With Lung Cancer in a Multisite, US-Based Study

Introduction:

The importance of high-quality, timely lung cancer care and the need to have indicators to measure timeliness are increasingly discussed in the United States. This study explored when and why delays occur in lung cancer care and compared timeliness between two states with divergent disease incidence.

Methods:

Patients with small-cell or non–small-cell lung cancer were recruited through cancer centers, outpatient clinics, and community approaches, and interviewed over the phone. Statistical analysis of patient-reported dates included descriptive statistics and comparing time intervals between states and across the sites with Mann-Whitney U tests. Additionally, data from patients with longer timelines were qualitatively analyzed to identify possible reasons for delays.

Results:

On the basis of the dates reported by 275 patients, the median time from first presentation to a clinician to treatment was 52 days; 29% of patients experienced a wait of 90 days or more. Median times for key intervals were 36.5 days from abnormal radiograph to treatment, 9.5 days from initial presentation to specialist referral, 15 days from patient informed of diagnosis to first therapy, and 16 days from referral to treatment to first therapy. More than one quarter of patients perceived delays in care. No significant differences in length of time intervals were identified between states. Monitoring of small nodules, missed diagnosis, and other reasons for longer timelines were documented.

Conclusion:

Results defined typical time to treatment of patients with lung cancer across a variety of health systems and should facilitate establishing metrics for determining timeliness of lung cancer care.

Clinician perceptions of care difficulty, quality of life, and symptom reports for lung cancer patients: an analysis from the Symptom Outcomes and Practice patterns (SOAPP) study

INTRODUCTION

Despite recent therapeutic advances, lung cancer is a difficult disease to manage. This study assessed clinicians' perceptions of care difficulty, quality of life (QOL), and symptom reports for their lung cancer patients compared with their patients with breast, prostate, and colon cancer.

METHODS

This report focused on secondary analyses from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Symptom Outcomes and Practice Patterns (SOAPP) study (E2Z02); outcome measures included clinician ratings of 3106 solid tumor patients. Univariate analyses focused on patterns of disease-specific perceptions; multivariable analyses examined whether disease-specific differences persisted after covariate inclusion.

RESULTS

In univariate comparisons, clinicians rated lung cancer patients as more difficult to treat than other solid tumor patients, with poorer QOL and higher symptom reports. After covariates were adjusted, the odds of clinicians perceiving lower QOL for their lung cancer patients were 3.6 times larger than for patients with other solid tumors (odds ratio = 3.6 [95% confidence interval, 2.0-6.6]; p < 0.0001). In addition, the odds of clinicians perceiving weight difficulties for their lung cancer patients were 3.2 times larger (odds ratio = 3.2 [95% confidence interval, 1.7-6.0]; p = 0.0004). No other outcome showed significant differences between lung versus other cancers in multivariable models.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians were more pessimistic about the well-being of their lung cancer patients compared with patients with other solid tumors. Differences remained for clinician perceptions of patient QOL and weight difficulty, even after controlling for such variables as stage, performance status, and patient-reported outcomes. These continuing disparities suggest possible perception bias. More research is needed to confirm this disparity and explore the underpinnings.

International patterns of radiotherapy practice for non-small cell lung cancer

Radiotherapy is an important treatment modality for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). There are models of radiotherapy utilization that estimate the proportion of patients with NSCLC who have an evidence-based indication for radiotherapy. These estimates range from 46%-68% for radiotherapy utilization at diagnosis and 64%-75% overall. However, actual radiotherapy utilization throughout much of the world is lower than this, ranging from 28%-53%, with the largest differences between actual and estimated radiotherapy utilization seen in stage III NSCLC. Some of this discrepancy is attributable to the assumptions in the models that are based on broad factors such as stage and performance status. Characteristics of the population with underlying lung cancer that often has comorbidities or compromised respiratory function also influence the ability to deliver radiotherapy safely. Sociodemographic factors such as race and income have been found to affect access to radiotherapy in certain jurisdictions. The type of clinician or medical setting the patient presents to initially can also influence radiotherapy use in NSCLC. Potential solutions to improve appropriate radiotherapy utilization for NSCLC include restructuring models of care to ensure that all patients with lung cancer are managed within a multidisciplinary team including a radiation oncologist.

What do you mean, a spot?: A qualitative analysis of patients' reactions to discussions with their physicians about pulmonary nodules

BACKGROUND

More than 150,000 Americans each year are found to have a pulmonary nodule. Even more will be affected following the publication of the National Lung Screening Trial. Patient-doctor communication about pulmonary nodules can be challenging. Although most nodules are benign, it may take 2 to 3 years to rule out cancer. We sought to characterize patients’ perceptions of communication with their providers about pulmonary nodules.

METHODS

We conducted four focus groups at two sites with 22 adults with an indeterminate pulmonary nodule. Transcripts were analyzed using principles of grounded theory.

RESULTS

Patients described conversations with 53 different providers about the pulmonary nodule. Almost all patients immediately assumed that they had cancer when first told about the nodule. Some whose providers did not discuss the actual cancer risk or explain the evaluation plan experienced confusion and distress that sometimes lasted for months. Patients were frustrated when their providers did not address their concerns about cancer or potential adverse effects of surveillance (eg, prolonged uncertainty, radiation exposure), which in some cases led to poor adherence to evaluation plans. Patients found it helpful when physicians used lay terms, showed the CT image, and quantified cancer risk. By contrast, patients resented medical jargon and dismissive language.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients commonly assume that a pulmonary nodule means cancer. What providers tell (or do not tell) patients about their cancer risk and the evaluation plan can strongly influence patients’ perceptions of the nodule and related distress. We describe simple communication strategies that may help patients to come to terms with an indeterminate pulmonary nodule.

A qualitative analysis of lung cancer screening practices by primary care physicians

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States, but no scientific organization currently recommends screening because of limited evidence for its effectiveness. Despite this, physicians often order screening tests such as chest X-rays and computerized tomography scans for their patients. Limited information is available about how physicians decide when to order these tests. To identify factors that affect whether physicians' screen patients for lung cancer, we conducted five 75-min telephone-based focus groups with 28 US primary care physicians and used inductive qualitative research methods to analyze their responses. We identified seven factors that influenced these physicians' decisions about screening patients for lung cancer: (1) their perception of a screening test's effectiveness, (2) their attitude toward recommended screening guidelines, (3) their practice experience, (4) their perception of a patient's risk for lung cancer, (5) reimbursement and payment for screening, (6) their concern about litigation, and (7) whether a patient requested screening. Because these factors may have conflicting effects on physicians' decisions to order screening tests, physicians may struggle in determining when screening for lung cancer is appropriate. We recommend (1) more clinician education, beginning in medical school, about the existing evidence related to lung cancer screening, with emphasis on the benefit of and training in tobacco use prevention and cessation, (2) more patient education about the benefits and limitations of screening, (3) further studies about the effect of patients' requests to be screened on physicians' decisions to order screening tests, and (4) larger, quantitative studies to follow up on our formative data.