Trends and predictors of Quality of Life in lung cancer survivors

INTRODUCTION

Health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) is often impaired in lung cancer survivors. To inform personalized survivorship care, we identified associations between HR-QoL scores and patient-, tumor-, and treatment-factors over time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated HR-QoL scores provided at diagnosis, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years from the Yale Lung Cancer Biorepository. HR-QoL was measured via the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung (FACT-L) instrument and available for a subset of patients (n = 513). Analyses were stratified by early-stage (I-II; n = 355) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), advanced stage NSCLC (III-IV; n = 158), and small cell lung cancer (SCLC, n = 21). We used mixed effects modeling and multivariable analysis with covariate adjustment to examine changes in FACT-L from diagnosis to follow-up. Sensitivity analysis was performed including patients with early-stage disease and complete FACT-L scores at both baseline and year 2 (n = 91).

RESULTS

The average FACT-L scores at diagnosis in early-stage NSCLC, advanced stage NSCLC, and SCLC were 121.0 (standard deviation (SD) 11.4), 109.2 (18.7), and 98.7 (20.2) respectively. At all timepoints, HR-QoL was higher in patients with early-stage NSCLC (vs advanced-stage disease). In patients with early- and advanced-stage NSCLC, HR-QoL was higher at years 1 and 2 than at diagnosis, though the changes did not meet clinical significance. At NSCLC diagnosis, higher HR-QoL was associated with older age, better performance status, participating in physical activity, adenocarcinoma histology, and (in advanced stage NSCLC) anticipated treatment with chemotherapy. At NSCLC follow-up, HR-QoL was higher in patients with higher BMI and better performance status.

DISCUSSION

In patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC, HR-QoL scores are impacted by patient factors, tumor factors, and treatment factors. HR-QoL is higher in patients with early-stage disease. In patients surviving 2 years, HR-QoL was higher at follow-up, though the change did not meet clinical significance. To optimize HR-QoL, lung cancer survivorship teams should prioritize comorbidity management, physical activity, healthy weight maintenance, and treatment-related side effects.

Assessment of Advanced Diagnostic Bronchoscopy Outcomes for Peripheral Lung Lesions: A Delphi Consensus Definition of Diagnostic Yield and Recommendations for Patient-centered Study Designs. An Official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians Research Statement

Background: Advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy targeting the lung periphery has developed at an accelerated pace over the last two decades, whereas evidence to support introduction of innovative technologies has been variable and deficient. A major gap relates to variable reporting of diagnostic yield, in addition to limited comparative studies. Objectives: To develop a research framework to standardize the evaluation of advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy techniques for peripheral lung lesions. Specifically, we aimed for consensus on a robust definition of diagnostic yield, and we propose potential study designs at various stages of technology development. Methods: Panel members were selected for their diverse expertise. Workgroup meetings were conducted in virtual or hybrid format. The cochairs subsequently developed summary statements, with voting proceeding according to a modified Delphi process. The statement was cosponsored by the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians. Results: Consensus was reached on 15 statements on the definition of diagnostic outcomes and study designs. A strict definition of diagnostic yield should be used, and studies should be reported according to the STARD (Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) guidelines. Clinical or radiographic follow-up may be incorporated into the reference standard definition but should not be used to calculate diagnostic yield from the procedural encounter. Methodologically robust comparative studies, with incorporation of patient-reported outcomes, are needed to adequately assess and validate minimally invasive diagnostic technologies targeting the lung periphery. Conclusions: This American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians statement aims to provide a research framework that allows greater standardization of device validation efforts through clearly defined diagnostic outcomes and robust study designs. High-quality studies, both industry and publicly funded, can support subsequent health economic analyses and guide implementation decisions in various healthcare settings.

Navigational Bronchoscopy versus Computed Tomography-guided Transthoracic Needle Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Indeterminate Lung Nodules: protocol and rationale for the VERITAS multicenter randomized trial

Background

Lung nodule incidence is increasing. Many nodules require biopsy to discriminate between benign and malignant etiologies. The gold-standard for minimally invasive biopsy, computed tomography-guided transthoracic needle biopsy (CT-TTNB), has never been directly compared to navigational bronchoscopy, a modality which has recently seen rapid technological innovation and is associated with improving diagnostic yield and lower complication rate. Current estimates of the diagnostic utility of both modalities are based largely on non-comparative data with significant risk for selection, referral, and publication biases.

Methods

The VERITAS trial (na V igation E ndoscopy to R each Indeterminate lung nodules versus T ransthoracic needle A spiration, a randomized controlled S tudy) is a multicenter, 1:1 randomized, parallel-group trial designed to ascertain whether electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy with integrated digital tomosynthesis is noninferior to CT-TTNB for the diagnosis of peripheral lung nodules 10-30 mm in diameter with pre-test probability of malignancy of at least 10%. The primary endpoint is diagnostic accuracy through 12 months follow-up. Secondary endpoints include diagnostic yield, complication rate, procedure duration, need for additional invasive diagnostic procedures, and radiation exposure.

Discussion

The results of this rigorously designed trial will provide high-quality data regarding the management of lung nodules, a common clinical entity which often represents the earliest and most treatable stage of lung cancer. Several design challenges are described. Notably, all nodules are centrally reviewed by an independent interventional pulmonology and radiology adjudication panel relying on pre-specified exclusions to ensure enrolled nodules are amenable to sampling by both modalities while simultaneously protecting against selection bias favoring either modality. Conservative diagnostic yield and accuracy definitions with pre-specified criteria for what non-malignant findings may be considered diagnostic were chosen to avoid inflation of estimates of diagnostic utility.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04250194.

A Multicenter, Single-Arm, Prospective Trial Assessing the Diagnostic Yield of Electromagnetic Bronchoscopic and Transthoracic Navigation for Peripheral Pulmonary Nodules

Rationale: Strict adherence to procedural protocols and diagnostic definitions is critical to understand the efficacy of new technologies. Electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy (ENB) for lung nodule biopsy has been used for decades without a solid understanding of its efficacy, but offers the opportunity for simultaneous tissue acquisition via electromagnetic navigational transthoracic biopsy (EMN-TTNA) and staging via endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS). Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic yield of EBUS, ENB, and EMN-TTNA during a single procedure using a strict a priori definition of diagnostic yield with central pathology adjudication. Methods: A prospective, single-arm trial was conducted at eight centers enrolling participants with pulmonary nodules (<3 cm; without computed tomography [CT]- and/or positron emission tomography-positive mediastinal lymph nodes) who underwent a staged procedure with same-day CT, EBUS, ENB, and EMN-TTNA. The procedure was staged such that, when a diagnosis had been achieved via rapid on-site pathologic evaluation, the procedure was ended and subsequent biopsy modalities were not attempted. A study finding was diagnostic if an independent pathology core laboratory confirmed malignancy or a definitive benign finding. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic yield of the combination of CT, EBUS, ENB, and EMN-TTNA. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 160 participants at 8 centers with a mean nodule size of 18 ± 6 mm were enrolled. The diagnostic yield of the combined procedure was 59% (94 of 160; 95% confidence interval [CI], 51-66%). Nodule regression was found on same-day CT in 2.5% of cases (4 of 160; 95% CI, 0.69-6.3%), and EBUS confirmed malignancy in 7.1% of cases (11 of 156; 95% CI, 3.6-12%). The yield of ENB alone was 49% (74 of 150; 95% CI, 41-58%), that of EMN-TTNA alone was 27% (8 of 30; 95% CI, 12-46%), and that of ENB plus EMN-TTNA was 53% (79 of 150; 95% CI, 44-61%). Complications included a pneumothorax rate of 10% and a 2% bleeding rate. When EMN-TTNA was performed, the pneumothorax rate was 30%. Conclusions: The diagnostic yield for ENB is 49%, which increases to 59% with the addition of same-day CT, EBUS, and EMN-TTNA, lower than in prior reports in the literature. The high complication rate and low diagnostic yield of EMN-TTNA does not support its routine use. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03338049).

Changing recommendations for lung cancer screening: National Lung Cancer Roundtable member perspectives

Although the revised (2021) US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for lung cancer screening offer the opportunity to save more lives and reduce disparities, National Lung Cancer Roundtable members share a cautionary message about the challenges ahead. To facilitate high‐quality care for diverse populations, a patient‐centered approach is needed that incorporates high‐quality shared decision‐making, improved access to care and navigation, and more streamlined systems of care.

Guided Bronchoscopy for the Evaluation of Pulmonary Lesions: An Updated Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Guided bronchoscopy is increasingly used to diagnose peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs). A meta-analysis published in 2012 demonstrated a pooled diagnostic yield of 70%; however, recent publications have documented yields as low as 40% and as high as 90%.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Has the diagnostic yield of guided bronchoscopy in patients with PPLs improved over the past decade?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed of studies evaluating the diagnostic yield of differing bronchoscopic technologies used to reach PPLs. Study quality was assessed using the Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy of studies (QUADAS-2) assessment tool. Number of lesions, type of technology used, overall diagnostic yield, and yield by size were extracted. Adverse events were recorded. Meta-analytic techniques were used to summarize findings across all studies.

RESULTS

A total of 16,389 lesions from 126 studies were included. There was no significant difference in diagnostic yield prior to 2012 (39 studies; 3,052 lesions; yield 70.5%) vs after 2012 (87 studies; 13,535 lesions; yield 69.2%) (P > .05). Additionally, there was no significant difference in yield when comparing different technologies. Studies with low risk of overall bias had a lower diagnostic yield than those with high risk of bias (66% vs 71%, respectively; P = .018). Lesion size > 2 cm, presence of bronchus sign, and reports with a high prevalence of malignancy in the study population were associated with significantly higher diagnostic yield. Significant (P < .0001) between-study heterogeneity was also noted.

INTERPRETATION

Despite the reported advances in bronchoscopic technology to diagnose PPLs, the diagnostic yield of guided bronchoscopy has not improved.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Lung Cancer Screening: 2022 Update

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality for men and women in the United States. Screening for lung cancer with annual low-dose CT is saving lives, and the continued implementation of lung screening can save many more. In 2015, the CMS began covering annual lung screening for those who qualified based on the original United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung screening criteria, which included patients 55 to 77 year of age with a 30 pack-year history of smoking, who were either currently using tobacco or who had smoked within the previous 15 years. In 2021, the USPSTF issued new screening guidelines, decreasing the age of eligibility to 80 years of age and pack-years to 20. Lung screening remains controversial for those who do not meet the updated USPSTF criteria, but who have additional risk factors for the development of lung cancer. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

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.

Outcomes From More Than 1 Million People Screened for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose CT Imaging

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) imaging was recommended in 2013, making approximately 8 million Americans eligible for LCS. The demographic characteristics and outcomes of individuals screened in the United States have not been reported at the population level.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the outcomes among people screened and entered in the American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry compared with those of trial participants?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a cohort study of individuals undergoing baseline LDCT imaging for LCS between 201 and 2019. Predictors of adherence to annual screening were computed. LDCT scan interpretations by Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) score, cancer detection rates (CDRs), and stage at diagnosis were compared with National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST) data.

RESULTS

Adherence was 22.3%, and predictors of poor adherence included current smoking status and Hispanic or Black race. On baseline screening, 83% of patients showed negative results and 17% showed positive screening results. The overall CDR was 0.56%. The percentage of people with cancer detected at baseline was higher in the positive Lung-RADS categories at 0.4% for Lung-RADS category 3, 2.6% for Lung-RADS category 4A, 11.1% for Lung-RADS category 4B, and 19.9% for Lung-RADS category 4X. The cancer stage distribution was similar to that observed in the NLST, with 53.5% of patients receiving a diagnosis of stage I cancer and 14.3% with stage IV cancer. Underreporting into the registry may have occurred.

INTERPRETATION

This study revealed both the positive aspects of CT scan screening for lung cancer and the challenges that remain. Findings on CT imaging were correlated accurately with lung cancer detection using the Lung-RADS system. A significant stage shift toward early-stage lung cancer was present. Adherence to LCS was poor and likely contributes to the lower than expected cancer detection rate, all of which will impact the outcomes of patients undergoing screening for lung cancer.

Factors Associated With Smoking Cessation Attempts in Lung Cancer Screening: A Secondary Analysis of the National Lung Screening Trial

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality resulting from lung cancer screening (LCS) with an additive reduction from smoking abstinence. However, successful smoking cessation within LCS is variable.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What patient and treatment factors are associated with attempts to quit smoking among those screened for lung cancer?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

In a secondary analysis of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network arm of the NLST, patient demographics, patient smoking behaviors, and tobacco treatment variables were stratified by patient smoking status. The Cox proportional hazards ratio was used to evaluate each variable's effect on attempting to quit smoking.

RESULTS

Seven thousand three hundred sixty-nine patients were smoking actively at enrollment in the NLST. Of the patients who reported they were smoking, 73.4% did not receive any pharmacologic tobacco treatment. More patients who attempted to quit received pharmacologic tobacco treatment than those who continued to smoke: (nicotine replacement therapy [NRT], 18.0% vs 12.4% [P < .01]; bupropion, 7.9% vs 6.9% [P = .02]; both NRT and bupropion, 5.6% vs 3.9% [P < .01]). Stable users were more likely to be women (47.8% vs 43.8%; P < .01), to be African American (8.2% vs 6.3%; P = .007), to be unmarried (43.2% vs 36.9% [P < .01]), and to have less than a college education (47.7% vs 42.3%; P < .01). Patients with high dependence who received dual therapy with bupropion and NRT showed the highest likelihood of quit attempt (hazard ratio, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.75-2.44).

INTERPRETATION

In this analysis, only one-quarter of patients who underwent LCS and who smoked were treated with pharmacologic therapy, which is associated with increased likelihood of attempting to quit. Certain characteristics are associated with difficulty with attempting to quit smoking. Those with high nicotine dependence benefitted most from dual pharmacologic therapy.

Characteristics of Persons Screened for Lung Cancer in the United States : A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2013, making approximately 8 million Americans eligible for screening. The demographic characteristics and adherence of persons screened in the United States have not been reported at the population level.

OBJECTIVE

To define sociodemographic characteristics and adherence among persons screened and entered into the American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry (LCSR).

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

United States, 2015 to 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Persons receiving a baseline LDCT for LCS from 3625 facilities reporting to the LCSR.

MEASUREMENTS

Age, sex, and smoking status distributions (percentages) were computed among persons who were screened and among respondents in the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) who were eligible for screening. The prevalence between the LCSR and the NHIS was compared with prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% CIs. Adherence to annual screening was defined as having a follow-up test within 11 to 15 months of an initial LDCT.

RESULTS

Among 1 159 092 persons who were screened, 90.8% (n = 1 052 591) met the USPSTF eligibility criteria. Compared with adults from the NHIS who met the criteria (n = 1257), screening recipients in the LCSR were older (34.7% vs. 44.8% were aged 65 to 74 years; PR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.20 to 1.39]), more likely to be female (41.8% vs. 48.1%; PR, 1.15 [CI, 1.08 to 1.23]), and more likely to currently smoke (52.3% vs. 61.4%; PR, 1.17 [CI, 1.11 to 1.23]). Only 22.3% had a repeated annual LDCT. If follow-up was extended to 24 months and more than 24 months, 34.3% and 40.3% were adherent, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Underreporting of LCS and missing data may skew demographic characteristics of persons reported to be screened. Underreporting of adherence may result in underestimates of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 91% of persons who had LCS met USPSTF eligibility criteria. In addition to continuing to target all eligible adults, men, those who formerly smoked, and younger eligible patients may be less likely to be screened. Adherence to annual follow-up screening was poor, potentially limiting screening effectiveness.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Nicotine Replacement Therapy Sampling in Primary Care: a Markov Cohort Simulation Model

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapies remain a central focus of successful tobacco control, but uptake remains very low.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost effectiveness of a primary care nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) sampling intervention.

DESIGN

A Markov cohort simulation model was constructed to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses. Clinical trial results were used to initialize the Markov model. All other model parameters were derived from the literature. The study was conducted over a lifetime horizon, from the payers' budgetary perspective.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers with a primary care visit.

INTERVENTION

Medication sampling, which provided short, starter packets of NRT (nicotine patch and lozenge) to smokers in the primary care setting.

MAIN MEASURES

Lifetime healthcare expenditures, quality-adjusted life years, and life years.

KEY RESULTS

Medication sampling was the dominant strategy compared to standard care. Our intervention cost $75, yielding a discounted lifetime savings of $1065 in healthcare expenditures, and increased both discounted quality-adjusted life years and discounted life years by 0.01. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that medication sampling remained dominant in plausible ranges except when it failed to increase cessation relative to standard care. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed that medication sampling was dominant in 94.1% of the simulated cases, with an implementation cost of $74 (95% CI $73-$76) and discounted lifetime savings in health expenditures of $1061 (- $1106 to - $1,017), increasing quality-adjusted life years by 0.008 (0.0085-0.0093) and life years by 0.008 (0.0081-0.0089).

CONCLUSION

Medication sampling, an easily implementable, scalable and low-cost intervention to encourage smoking cessation, is cost saving and improves quality of life.

Safety and Feasibility of a Sheath Cryoprobe for Bronchoscopic Transbronchial Biopsy: The FROSTBITE Trial

BACKGROUND

Bronchoscopic lung biopsy is typically performed using transbronchial forceps. However, this method is limited by small sample size and presence of crush artifact. Cryobiopsy offers the potential to overcome these limitations with larger artifact-free samples but has not been widely adopted due to concerns over increased rates of bleeding and pneumothorax. A new, smaller 1.1-mm cryoprobe has been developed that operates in a similar fashion to forceps, though the safety profile of this cryoprobe has not yet been prospectively studied.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the safety of transbronchial biopsy using a novel 1.1-mm cryoprobe.

METHODS

This prospective, single-arm study enrolled patients referred for transbronchial biopsy. All procedures were performed using the 1.1-mm cryoprobe with oversheath. The primary outcome was the composite of significant complications related to the cryobiopsy procedure (bleeding Grade ≥3, pneumothorax Grade ≥2, and respiratory failure). Bleeding and pneumothorax were graded according to previously published scales.

RESULTS

Fifty participants from two academic medical centers underwent transbronchial cryobiopsy. Indications for biopsy included evaluation of lung transplant allograft (50%), diffuse lung disease (44%), and pulmonary parenchymal lesion (6%). There were two pneumothoraces (4%), neither of which required aspiration or chest tube placement. There were no Grade 3 or 4 bleeding events. Mild bleeding (Grade ≤2) was observed in 25 cases (50%). No complications occurred that met the a priori primary outcome of bleeding Grade ≥3, pneumothorax Grade ≥2, and respiratory failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Transbronchial cryobiopsy using a 1.1-mm cryoprobe is feasible with an acceptable safety profile.

Personalised Lung Cancer Screening (PLuS) study to assess the importance of coexisting chronic conditions to clinical practice and policy: protocol for a multicentre observational study

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the USA and worldwide, and lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) has the potential to improve lung cancer outcomes. A critical question is whether the ratio of potential benefits to harms found in prior LCS trials applies to an older and potentially sicker population. The Personalised Lung Cancer Screening (PLuS) study will help close this knowledge gap by leveraging real-world data to fully characterise LCS recipients. The principal goal of the PLuS study is to characterise the comorbidity burden of individuals undergoing LCS and quantify the benefits and harms of LCS to enable informed decision-making.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PLuS is a multicentre observational study designed to assemble an LCS cohort from the electronic health records of ~40 000 individuals undergoing annual LCS with LDCT from 2016 to 2022. Data will be integrated into a unified repository to (1) examine the burden of multimorbidity by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and age; (2) quantify potential benefits and harms; and (3) use the observational data with validated simulation models in the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to provide LCS outcomes in the real-world US population. We will fit a multivariable logistic regression model to estimate the adjusted ORs of comorbidity, functional limitations and impaired pulmonary function adjusted for relevant covariates. We will also estimate the cumulative risk of LCS outcomes using discrete-time survival models. To our knowledge, this is the first study to combine observational data and simulation models to estimate the long-term impact of LCS with LDCT.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Kaiser Permanente Southern California Institutional Review Board and VA Portland Health Care System. The results will be disseminated through publications and presentations at national and international conferences. Safety considerations include protection of patient confidentiality.

Associations between biomarker testing and characteristics of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC): An analysis of CancerLinQ Discovery (CLQD) data

9127

Background: Guidelines have evolved from 2011-2019; there are now 23 approved therapies targeting various predictive biomarkers in mNSCLC. 2021 NCCN Guidelines advocate for a minimum of ALK, EGFR, BRAF, METex14, NTRK1/2/3, RET, KRAS, and ROS1 testing before determining a treatment regimen. The study objective was to estimate the association between the presence of biomarker testing and smoking status, age, sex, race, ethnicity, histology, and diagnosis year in patients with mNSCLC. Methods: CLQD is a real-world data source that provides de-identified electronic health record (EHR) data from more than 60 U.S. oncology practices utilizing 10 different EHRs. This retrospective analysis included patients initially diagnosed with mNSCLC from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2019. Standard logistic regression models were fit separately by practice to estimate practice-specific odds ratios to assess variability across practices in associations between covariates (smoking status, age, race, etc.) and the primary outcome of biomarker testing, defined as documented testing for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, KRAS, MET, RET, ERBB2, and/or PD-L1 within -60 to +365 days of mNSCLC diagnosis. Random effects logistic regression was then used to estimate associations with random intercepts, accounting for clustering by practices. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: 8704 patients from 31 practices were eligible. Testing rates increased from 31.5% in 2011 to a peak of 62.3% in 2017. Patients with a smoking history were half as likely to receive testing than patients without a smoking history (OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.60); patients with unknown smoking history were 0.66 times as likely (95% CI: 0.52, 0.84). Females were more likely to be tested than males (OR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.32). After adjusting for other covariates, Asian patients were 1.51 times more likely to be tested than patients of other races (95% CI: 1.05, 2.17); Hispanic patients were 1.33 times more likely to be tested than patients without Hispanic ethnicity (95% CI: 0.99, 1.78). The odds of receiving biomarker testing were 6x greater for patients with non-squamous mNSCLC versus squamous mNSCLC (95% CI: 5.45, 7.20). Patients > 70 years old were less likely to be tested (OR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.75, 0.93) than younger patients. Conclusions: Our data demonstrate annual increases in testing rates, reflecting guideline changes. However, in this cohort of patients with mNSCLC, biomarker testing was more likely for non-squamous mNSCLC patients, females, Asians, Hispanics, or those who did not have a history of smoking. Patient characteristics should no longer factor into obtaining biomarker testing. Non-discriminant, broad panel-based reflex molecular testing in mNSCLC can reduce treatment choice ambiguity and enhance patient opportunities.

Not just biology: Comparing social determinants of health in patients diagnosed with late-stage lung, breast, and colon cancer

e18582

Background: Lung, colorectal, and breast cancer account for the majority of cancer deaths in the U.S. Patients with late stage lung cancer have the shortest survival of the three, and lung cancer patients are more likely to be diagnosed at later stages. We undertook this study to compare social determinants of health in patients diagnosed with late stages of lung, breast, and colon cancer to assess the impact they have on health and mortality. Methods: Data from the National Cancer Database was used for this study. We compared factors including insurance, income, and residency among late stage cancer patients (Stage III and IV). We also compared baseline health status measured by comorbidity index. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patient characteristics. Statistical significance was determined on the basis of a two-sided p value < 0.05. All statistical analysis was performed using SAS, version 9.4. Results: Between 2004 - 2016, 3,005,513 patients were diagnosed with lung (1,004,999), breast (1,309,796), and colon (690,718) cancer. The racial make-up of the groups was similar. 72.5% of lung cancer patients were diagnosed at late stage compared to 48.8% of colon and 13.8% of breast cancer patients. Patients with late stage lung cancer were more likely to have income < $38,000, reside in rural locations, and less likely to have private insurance. Late stage lung cancer patients were 2 and 4 times more likely to have at least 2 comorbidities than patients with colon and breast cancer respectively. Conclusions: Patients with lung cancer are disproportionately affected by several negative social determinants of health. The association between smoking and lung cancer may help explain this because the highest smoking rates in the U.S. occur in populations with lower income, low education status, less insurance coverage, and significantly more comorbidities (e.g. COPD, Heart Disease). These patients are dealing with the complex interplay of negative social determinants of health and worse baseline health status causing delays in diagnosis and treatment when compared to other cancers. Recognizing this may allow systems to better support this disadvantaged population and improve access to screening, clinical trial inclusion, and personalized treatment options while working longitudinally to reverse the systemic factors affecting disproportionate tobacco use and lack of healthcare access in for this underserved population.

Pretreatment Invasive Nodal Staging in Lung Cancer: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Beliefs Among Academic and Community Physicians

BACKGROUND

Pretreatment invasive nodal staging is paramount for appropriate treatment decisions in non-small cell lung cancer. Despite guidelines recommending when to perform staging, many studies suggest that invasive nodal staging is underused. Attitudes and barriers to guideline-recommended staging are unclear. The National Lung Cancer Roundtable initiated this study to better understand the factors associated with guideline-adherent nodal staging.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the knowledge gaps, attitudes, and beliefs of thoracic surgeons and pulmonologists about invasive nodal staging? What are the barriers to guideline-recommended staging?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A web-based survey of a random sample of pulmonologists and thoracic surgeons identified as members of American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) was conducted in 2019. Survey domains included knowledge of invasive nodal staging guidelines, attitudes and beliefs toward implementation, and perceived barriers to guideline adherence.

RESULTS

Among 453 responding physicians, 29% were unaware that invasive nodal staging guidelines exist. Among the 320 physicians who knew guidelines exist, attitudes toward the guidelines were favorable, with 91% agreeing guidelines are generalizable and 90% agreeing that recommendations improved their staging and treatment decisions. Approximately 80% responded that guideline recommendations are based on satisfactory levels of scientific evidence, and 50% stated a lack of evidence linking adherence to guidelines to changes in management or better patient outcomes. Nearly 9 in 10 physicians reported at least one barrier to guideline adherence. The most common barriers included patient anxiety associated with treatment delays (62%), difficulty implementing guidelines into routine practice (52%), and time delays of additional testing (51%).

INTERPRETATION

Among physicians who responded to our survey, more than one-quarter were unaware of invasive nodal staging guidelines. Attitudes toward guideline recommendations were positive, although 20% reported insufficient evidence to support staging algorithms. Most physicians reported barriers to implementing guidelines. Multilevel interventions are likely needed to increase rates of guideline-recommended invasive nodal staging.

Defining comprehensive biomarker-related testing and treatment practices for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Results of a survey of U.S. oncologists

BACKGROUND

An ASCO taskforce comprised of representatives of oncology clinicians, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (NLCRT), LUNGevity, the GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer, and the ROS1ders sought to: characterize U.S. oncologists' biomarker ordering and treatment practices for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); ascertain barriers to biomarker testing; and understand the impact of delays on treatment decisions.

METHODS

We deployed a survey to 2374 ASCO members, targeting U.S. thoracic and general oncologists.

RESULTS

We analyzed 170 eligible responses. For non-squamous NSCLC, 97% of respondents reported ordering tests for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF. Testing for MET, RET, and NTRK was reported to be higher among academic versus community providers and higher among thoracic oncologists than generalists. Most respondents considered 1 (46%) or 2 weeks (52%) an acceptable turnaround time, yet 37% usually waited three or more weeks to receive results. Respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to defer treatment until results were reviewed (63%). Community and generalist respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to initiate non-targeted treatment while awaiting results. Respondents <5 years out of training were more likely to cite their concerns about waiting for results as a reason for not ordering biomarker testing (42%, vs. 19% with ≥6 years of experience).

CONCLUSIONS

Respondents reported high biomarker testing rates in patients with NSCLC. Treatment decisions were impacted by test turnaround time and associated with practice setting and physician specialization and experience.

Correlation of Vital Signs and Depth of Sedation by Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) Scale in Bronchoscopy

BACKGROUND

With complex, lengthy bronchoscopies, there is a need for safe, effective sedation. Most bronchoscopists strive for moderate sedation, though often difficult without compromising vital signs. The Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) scale is a validated 6-point scale assessing responsiveness of patients coinciding with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) continuum of sedation. It is commonly used in studying bronchoscopic sedation, but depth of sedation by MOAA/S and correlation with vital signs and adverse events has not been determined.

METHODS

This study was a post hoc analysis of a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of remimazolam. MOAA/S and corresponding vital signs were used to assess the effect of the level of sedation on vital signs and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 23,341 MOAA/S scores from 431 patients were recorded. Older and higher ASA class patients spent more time in deeper sedation (MOAA/S 0 to 1) (6% vs. 2%, P=0.01). Oxygen saturation was equal in deep sedation (MOAA/S 0 to 1) (97±3%) compared with moderate sedation (96±3%) (P=0.11). Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures were significantly lower when comparing MOAA/S 0 to 1 to MOAA/S 5 (systolic blood pressure: 126±19 vs. 147±24 mm Hg, P<0.01; diastolic blood pressure: 68±14 vs. 84±15 mm Hg, P<0.01). There was a nonsignificant trend towards lower heart rate at deep versus moderate sedation (84±15 vs. 94±18 beats/min, P=0.07). Respiratory rate was also comparable with moderate and deep sedation (17±5 vs. 18±6 beats/min, P=0.94).

CONCLUSION

There was no clinically meaningful correlation between vital signs and depth of sedation assessed by MOAA/S. Older and higher ASA class patients spend more time in deeper sedation. However, when in deep sedation, there was no difference in vital signs other than a slightly increased incidence of clinically insignificant hypotension.

Knowledge and Practice Patterns Among Pulmonologists for Molecular Biomarker Testing in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Targeted therapies for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with oncogenic drivers have caused a paradigm shift in care. Biomarker testing is needed to assess eligibility for these therapies. Pulmonologists often perform bronchoscopy, providing tissue for both pathologic diagnosis and biomarker analysis. We performed this survey to define the existing knowledge and practices regarding the pulmonologists' role in biomarker testing for advanced NSCLC.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the current knowledge and practice of pulmonologists regarding biomarker testing and targeted therapies in advanced NSCLC?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study was performed using an electronic survey of a random sample of 7,238 pulmonologists. Questions focused on diagnostic steps and biomarker analyses for NSCLC.

RESULTS

A total of 453 pulmonologists responded. Respondents vary by reported lung cancer patient volume, ranging from 51% evaluating one to four new cases per month to 19% evaluating > 10 cases per month. Interventional training, academic practice setting, and higher volume of endobronchial ultrasound with transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) were associated with increased knowledge of practice guidelines for the number of recommended passes during EBUS-TBNA (P < .05). Academic pulmonologists more commonly performed or referred for EBUS-TBNA than community pulmonologists (96% and 83%, respectively; P < .0005). Higher testing rates were associated with interventional training, academic setting, and the presence of an institutional policy, whereas lower testing rates were associated with general pulmonologists, practice in community settings, and lack of a guiding institutional policy (P < .05).

INTERPRETATION

Substantial differences among pulmonologists' evaluation of advanced NSCLC, variation in knowledge of available biomarkers and the importance of targeted therapies, and differences in institutional coordination likely lead to underutilization of biomarker testing. Interventional training appears to drive improved knowledge and practice for biomarker testing more than practice setting. Improvements are needed in tissue acquisition and interdisciplinary coordination to ensure universal and comprehensive testing for eligible patients.

Bronchial Thermoplasty in Severe Asthmatics At 5 Years: The PAS2 Study

BACKGROUND

Bronchial thermoplasty is a device-based treatment for subjects ≥18 years with severe asthma poorly controlled with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists. The Post-FDA Approval Clinical Trial Evaluating Bronchial Thermoplasty in Severe Persistent Asthma (PAS2) study collected data on severe asthmatics undergoing this procedure.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the 5-year efficacy and safety results in severe asthmatics who have undergone bronchial thermoplasty?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a prospective, open-label, observational, multi-center study conducted in the United States and Canada. Subjects aged 18-65, taking inhaled corticosteroids ≥1000μg/day (beclomethasone or equivalent) and long-acting β-agonists ≥80μg/day (salmeterol or equivalent) were included. Severe exacerbations, hospitalization, emergency department visits, and medication usage were evaluated for the 12 months prior to and at years 1-5 post-treatment. Spirometry was evaluated at baseline and at years 1-5 post-treatment.

RESULTS

284 subjects were enrolled at 27 centers; 227 subjects (80%) completed 5 years of follow-up. By year 5 post-treatment, the proportion of subjects with severe exacerbations, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations was 42.7%, 7.9%, and 4.8%, respectively, compared to 77.8%, 29.4%, and 16.1% in the 12 months prior to treatment. The proportion of subjects on maintenance oral corticosteroids decreased from 19.4% at baseline to 9.7% at 5 years. Analyses of subgroups based on baseline clinical and biomarker characteristics revealed a statistically significant clinical improvement among all subgroups.

INTERPRETATION

Five years after treatment, subjects experienced decreases in severe exacerbations, hospitalizations, emergency department visits and corticosteroid exposure. All subgroups demonstrated clinically significant improvement, suggesting that bronchial thermoplasty improves asthma control in different asthma phenotypes.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND

Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part because of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, and increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not.

METHODS

Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, and key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses were performed when enough evidence was available. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in seven graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can impact this balance.

Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Screening Patterns Among Black and White Adults in the United States

This cohort study compares the demographics of US adults who are currently being screened for lung cancer and assesses the potential association between proposed changes to the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening recommendations and screening rates by race and age.

State Variation in Low-Dose Computed Tomography Scanning for Lung Cancer Screening in the United States

BACKGROUND

Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest computed tomography in older current and former smokers (ie, eligible adults) has been recommended since 2013. Uptake has been slow and variable across the United States. We estimated the LCS rate and growth at the national and state level between 2016 and 2018.

METHODS

The American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry was used to capture screening events. Population-based surveys, the US Census, and cancer registry data were used to estimate the number of eligible adults and lung cancer mortality (ie, burden). Lung cancer screening rates (SRs) in eligible adults and screening rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure changes by state and year.

RESULTS

Nationally, the SR was steady between 2016 (3.3%, 95% CI = 3.3% to 3.7%) and 2017 (3.4%, 95% CI = 3.4% to 3.9%), increasing to 5.0% (95% CI = 5.0% to 5.7%) in 2018 (2018 vs 2016 SR ratio = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.51 to 1.62). In 2018, several southern states with a high lung-cancer burden (eg, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas) had relatively low SRs (<4%) among eligible adults, whereas several northeastern states with lower lung cancer burden (eg, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire) had the highest SRs (12.8%-15.2%). The exception was Kentucky, which had the nation's highest lung cancer mortality rate and one of the highest SRs (13.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer than 1 in 20 eligible adults received LCS nationally, and uptake varied widely across states. LCS rates were not aligned with lung cancer burden across states, except for Kentucky, which has supported comprehensive efforts to implement LCS.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report - Executive Summary

BACKGROUND

Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part due to the results of the National Lung Screening Trial. Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, as well as increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not.

METHODS

Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, as well as key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the GRADE approach. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and un-graded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in 7 graded recommendations and 9 ungraded consensus statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions, can impact this balance.

Cancer Outcomes Among Medicare Beneficiaries And Their Younger Uninsured Counterparts

Proposals for expanding Medicare insurance coverage to uninsured Americans approaching the Medicare eligibility age of sixty-five has been the subject of intense debate. We undertook this study to assess cancer survival differences between uninsured patients younger than age sixty-five and older Medicare beneficiaries by using data from the National Cancer Database from the period 2004-16. The main outcomes were survival at one, two, and five years for sixteen cancer types in 1,206,821 patients. We found that uninsured patients ages 60-64 were nearly twice as likely to present with late-stage disease and were significantly less likely to receive surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy than Medicare beneficiaries ages 66-69, despite lower comorbidity among younger patients. Compared with older Medicare patients, younger uninsured patients had strikingly lower five-year survival across cancer types. For instance, five-year survival in younger uninsured patients with late-stage breast or prostate cancer was 5-17 percent lower than that among older Medicare patients. We conclude that survival after a diagnosis of cancer is considerably lower in younger uninsured patients than in older Medicare patients. Expanding comprehensive health insurance coverage to people approaching Medicare age eligibility may improve cancer outcomes in the US.

Physician concern about delaying lung cancer treatment while awaiting biomarker testing: Results of a survey of U.S. oncologists

9067

Background: With rapid advancements in biomarker testing informing lung cancer treatment decisions, clinicians are challenged to maintain knowledge of who, what and when to test and how to treat based on test results. An ASCO taskforce including representatives from the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable and patient advocates conducted a study to assess biomarker testing and treatment practices for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) among U.S. oncologists. Methods: A survey was sent to 2374 ASCO members – lung cancer specialists and general oncologists. Eligibility required treating ≥1 lung cancer patient/month. Proportions were estimated across groups and compared using chi-square tests. Results: 170 responses were analyzed. 59% of respondents work at an academic center (i.e., have a fellowship program), while 41% work at a community (non-academic hospital/health system/private practice). Nearly all (98%) believe biomarker results should be received within 1 or 2 weeks of ordering, yet 37% wait an average of 3 or 4 weeks for results. Of respondents who usually wait 3 or 4 weeks, 37% initiate a non-targeted systemic treatment while waiting. Respondents from community practices were more likely to initiate non-targeted systemic treatment if results were not available after 2 weeks (59% compared to 40% of academic respondents; p = 0.013). ). When asked about reasons for not testing, respondents <5 years since training were more likely to report that delaying treatment while waiting for results was always/often a concern compared to those >6 years from training (41% vs 19%). Respondents reported high testing rates in both non-squamous and squamous aNSCLC. Roughly equal representation of generalists/specialists and academic/community respondents helps mitigate potential concerns about external validity. Conclusions: Respondents indicated that treatment decisions are impacted by delays in biomarker test results. Clinicians should be informed about when it is safe and appropriate to defer treatment while biomarker testing is pending. Respondents suggest that diagnostic biomarker testing companies should strive to expedite results.[Table: see text]

"Randomized trial of physical activity on quality of life and lung cancer biomarkers in patients with advanced stage lung cancer: a pilot study"

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer survivors need more options to improve quality of life (QoL). It is unclear to what extent patients with advanced stage disease are willing to participate in home-based physical activity (PA) and if these interventions improve QoL. The goal of our study was to determine interest in participating in our 3-month home-based walking regimen in patients with advanced stage lung cancer. We used a randomized design to evaluate for potential benefit in PA and patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

We performed an open-label, 1:1 randomized trial in 40 patients with stage III/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) evaluating enrollment rate, PA, QoL, dyspnea, depression, and biomarkers. Compared to usual care (UC), the intervention group (IG) received an accelerometer, in-person teaching session, and gain-framed text messages for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

We enrolled 56% (40/71) of eligible patients. Participants were on average 65 years and enrolled 1.9 years from diagnosis. Most patients were women (75%), and receiving treatment (85%) for stage IV (73%) adenocarcinoma (83%). A minority of patients were employed part-time or full time (38%). Both groups reported low baseline PA (IG mean 37 (Standard deviation (SD) 46) vs UC 59 (SD 56) minutes/week; p = 0.25). The IG increased PA more than UC (mean change IG + 123 (SD 212) vs UC + 35 (SD 103) minutes/week; p = 0.051)). Step count in the IG was not statistically different between baseline (4707 step/day), week 6 (5605; p = 0.16), and week 12 (4606 steps/day; p = 0.87). The intervention improved EORTC role functioning domain (17 points; p = 0.022) with borderline improvement in dyspnea (- 13 points; p = 0.051) compared to UC. In patients with two blood samples (25%), we observed a significant increase in soluble PD-1 (219.8 (SD 54.5) pg/mL; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our pilot trial using a 3-month, home-based, mobile health intervention enrolled over half of eligible patients with stage III and IV NSCLC. The intervention increased PA, and may improve several aspects of QoL. We also identified potential biomarker changes relevant to lung cancer biology. Future research should use a larger sample to examine the effect of exercise on cancer biomarkers, which may mediate the association between PA and QoL.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03352245 ).

Abstract PO-202: Cancer survival differences among Medicare beneficiaries and their younger uninsured counterparts

Purpose: To assess cancer survival differences between uninsured patients younger than age 65 years with their immediate older counterparts age 66-69 years with Medicare coverage. Methods: Data from the National Cancer Data Base were used for this study. The main outcomes were 1-, 2-, and 5-year survival for 16 cancer types in 1,206,821 newly diagnosed patients. We characterized patients by insurance and age categories and used Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test for statistical significance to calculate all-cause 1-, 2-, and 5-year survival rates. The analysis assessed differences between uninsured and insured patients age 60-64 years with those aged 66-69 years with Medicare coverage. Cox proportional hazards models were used to generate hazard ratios (HR) of all-cause mortality. Results: Uninsured patients aged 60-64 years had higher proportion with late stage disease, and lower proportion with receipt of surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy than Medicare beneficiaries aged 66-69 years. Younger uninsured patients had significantly worse 1-, 2-, and 5-year survival overall and by race/ethnicity, comorbidity score, and cancer type compared with their older counterparts with Medicare coverage. In a stratified analysis by cancer type, uninsured younger patients had strikingly lower 1-, 2- and 5- year survival for nearly all 16 cancers compared with older Medicare patients. For instance, the 1-year and 2-year survival differences between younger uninsured and older Medicare +/- private insured patients showed the largest differences of about 20% for patients with lung cancer (adjusted HR (aHR) = 1.42; 95% CI, 1.38-1.47; and aHR = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.33-1.41; respectively). Similarly, 5-year survival rates in uninsured younger patients with colorectal and breast cancer were 8-15% lower compared with older Medicare patients (aHR = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.27-1.41 and aHR = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.44-1.69; respectively). Conclusions: Survival after a diagnosis of cancer is considerably lower in uninsured younger patients age 60-64 years than in older Medicare patients age 66-69 years. Our findings suggest that expanding uniform health insurance coverage to individuals approaching Medicare eligibility age down to the age of 60 could substantially improve cancer survival in the United States.

Citation Format: Helmneh M. Sineshaw, K. Robin Yabroff, Ahmedin Jemal, Gerard A. Silvestri. Cancer survival differences among Medicare beneficiaries and their younger uninsured counterparts [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: Thirteenth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2020 Oct 2-4. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(12 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-202.

Robotic Bronchoscopy for Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions: A Multicenter Pilot and Feasibility Study (BENEFIT)

Background

The diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPL) continues to present clinical challenges. Despite extensive experience with guided bronchoscopy, the diagnostic yield has not improved significantly. Robotic-assisted bronchoscopic platforms have been developed potentially to improve the diagnostic yield for PPL. Presently, limited data exist that evaluate the performance of robotic systems in live human subjects.

Research Question

What is the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted bronchoscopy in patients with PPLs?

Study Design and Methods

This was a prospective, multicenter pilot and feasibility study that used a robotic bronchoscopic system with a mother-daughter configuration in patients with PPL 1 to 5 cm in size. The primary end points were successful lesion localization with the use of radial probe endobronchial ultrasound (R-EBUS) imaging and incidence of procedure related adverse events. Robotic bronchoscopy was performed in patients with the use of direct visualization, electromagnetic navigation, and fluoroscopy. After the use of R-EBUS imaging, transbronchial needle aspiration was performed. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) was used on all cases. Transbronchial needle aspiration alone was sufficient when ROSE was diagnostic; when ROSE was not diagnostic, transbronchial biopsy was performed with the use of the robotic platform, followed by conventional guided bronchoscopic approaches at the discretion of the investigator.

Results

Fifty-five patients were enrolled at five centers. One patient withdrew consent, which left 54 patients for data analysis. Median lesion size was 23 mm (interquartile range, 15 to 29 mm). R-EBUS images were available in 53 of 54 cases. Lesion localization was successful in 51 of 53 patients (96.2%). Pneumothorax was reported in two of 54 of the cases (3.7%); tube thoracostomy was required in one of the cases (1.9 %). No additional adverse events occurred.

Interpretation

This is the first, prospective, multicenter study of robotic bronchoscopy in patients with PPLs. Successful lesion localization was achieved in 96.2% of cases, with an adverse event rate comparable with conventional bronchoscopic procedures. Additional large prospective studies are warranted to evaluate procedure characteristics, such as diagnostic yield.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03727425; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Occurrence of Discussion about Lung Cancer Screening Between Patients and Healthcare Providers in the USA, 2017

Computed tomography lung cancer screening reduces lung cancer mortality. However, screening is underutilized. This study assesses the extent to which providers discuss lung cancer screening with their patients, as a lack of discussion and counseling may serve as a potential cause of low utilization rates. Data from 1667 adults aged 55-80 years sampled in the 2017 Health Information National Trends Survey was utilized. A weighted multivariable logistic regression model was fit with past-year discussion about lung cancer screening with a provider as the outcome. The adjusted odds of discussion were higher for current cigarette smokers compared to non-cigarette smokers (adjusted odds ratio = 3.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75 to 8.74). Despite higher odds, the absolute prevalence was low with only 18% (95% CI, 11.8 to 24.2%) of current adult smokers reporting a past-year discussion. Knowledge of screening from trusted sources of medical information, such as doctors, can increase screening rates and may ultimately reduce lung cancer mortality.

Management of Lung Nodules and Lung Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic: CHEST Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND

The risks from potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and resource reallocation that has occurred to combat the pandemic, have altered the balance of benefits and harms that informed current (pre-COVID-19) guideline recommendations for lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. Consensus statements were developed to guide clinicians managing lung cancer screening programs and patients with lung nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

An expert panel of 24 members, including pulmonologists (n = 17), thoracic radiologists (n = 5), and thoracic surgeons (n = 2), was formed. The panel was provided with an overview of current evidence, summarized by recent guidelines related to lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. The panel was convened by video teleconference to discuss and then vote on statements related to 12 common clinical scenarios. A predefined threshold of 70% of panel members voting agree or strongly agree was used to determine if there was a consensus for each statement. Items that may influence decisions were listed as notes to be considered for each scenario.

RESULTS

Twelve statements related to baseline and annual lung cancer screening (n = 2), surveillance of a previously detected lung nodule (n = 5), evaluation of intermediate and high-risk lung nodules (n = 4), and management of clinical stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 1) were developed and modified. All 12 statements were confirmed as consensus statements according to the voting results. The consensus statements provide guidance about situations in which it was believed to be appropriate to delay screening, defer surveillance imaging of lung nodules, and minimize nonurgent interventions during the evaluation of lung nodules and stage I non-small-cell lung cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

There was consensus that during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is appropriate to defer enrollment in lung cancer screening and modify the evaluation of lung nodules due to the added risks from potential exposure and the need for resource reallocation. There are multiple local, regional, and patient-related factors that should be considered when applying these statements to individual patient care.

Management of Lung Nodules and Lung Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic: CHEST Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND

The risks from potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and resource reallocation that has occurred to combat the pandemic, have altered the balance of benefits and harms that informed current (pre-COVID-19) guideline recommendations for lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. Consensus statements were developed to guide clinicians managing lung cancer screening programs and patients with lung nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

An expert panel of 24 members, including pulmonologists (n = 17), thoracic radiologists (n = 5), and thoracic surgeons (n = 2), was formed. The panel was provided with an overview of current evidence, summarized by recent guidelines related to lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. The panel was convened by video teleconference to discuss and then vote on statements related to 12 common clinical scenarios. A predefined threshold of 70% of panel members voting agree or strongly agree was used to determine if there was a consensus for each statement. Items that may influence decisions were listed as notes to be considered for each scenario.

RESULTS

Twelve statements related to baseline and annual lung cancer screening (n = 2), surveillance of a previously detected lung nodule (n = 5), evaluation of intermediate and high-risk lung nodules (n = 4), and management of clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer (n = 1) were developed and modified. All 12 statements were confirmed as consensus statements according to the voting results. The consensus statements provide guidance about situations in which it was believed to be appropriate to delay screening, defer surveillance imaging of lung nodules, and minimize nonurgent interventions during the evaluation of lung nodules and stage I non-small cell lung cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

There was consensus that during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is appropriate to defer enrollment in lung cancer screening and modify the evaluation of lung nodules due to the added risks from potential exposure and the need for resource reallocation. There are multiple local, regional, and patient-related factors that should be considered when applying these statements to individual patient care.

Association of Cigarette Type and Nicotine Dependence in Patients Presenting for Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Over decades, there have been several alterations to cigarettes, including the addition of filters and flavoring. However, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States.

RESEARCH QUESTION

The aim of this study was to examine the association of type of cigarette on nicotine dependence in the setting of lung cancer screening.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This study is a secondary analysis of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network arm of the National Lung Screening Trial. Tobacco dependence was evaluated by using the Fagerstrӧm Test for Nicotine Dependence, the Heaviness of Smoking Index, and time to first cigarette. Clinical outcomes, including nicotine dependence and tobacco abstinence, were assessed with descriptive statistics and χ² tests, stratified according to cigarette tar level, flavor, and filter. Logistic regression was used to study the influence of variables on smoking abstinence.

RESULTS

More than one-third of individuals presenting for lung cancer screening are highly addicted to nicotine and smoke within 5 min of waking up. Smokers of unfiltered cigarettes were more nicotine dependent compared with filtered cigarette smokers (OR, 1.32; P < .01). Although smokers of light/ultralight cigarettes had lower dependence (OR, 0.76, P < .0001), there was no difference in smoking abstinence compared with regular cigarette smokers. There was no difference in outcomes when comparing smokers of menthol vs unflavored cigarettes.

INTERPRETATION

In a screening population, the type of cigarette smoked is associated with different levels of dependence. Eliciting type of cigarette and time to first cigarette has the potential to allow for tailored tobacco treatment interventions within this context.

Screening Adherence in the Veterans Administration Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project

BACKGROUND

Adherence to annual low-dose CT was 95% in the National Lung Screening Trial and must be replicated to achieve mortality benefit from screening.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How do we determine adherence rates within the Veterans Affairs Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project and identify factors predictive of adherence?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A secondary data analysis of the Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project that was conducted at eight Veterans Affairs medical centers was performed to determine adherence to follow up imaging and to determine factors predictive of adherence.

RESULTS

A total of 2,103 patients were screened. The adherence to screening from baseline scan (T0) to first follow-up scan (T1) was 82.2% and 65.2% from T1 to second follow-up scan (T2). Logistic regression modeling showed that presence of a nodule and the site of lung cancer screening were predictive of adherence. After three rounds of screening, 1,343 patients (64%) who underwent baseline screening underwent both subsequent annual low-dose CT scans; 225 patients (11%) had only one subsequent low-dose CT; 0.4% did not have a T1 scan but did have a T2 scan; 70 patients (3%) died, and 36 patients (1.7%) were diagnosed with lung cancer. There was significant variation in screening adherence across the eight sites, which ranged from 63% to 94% at T1 and 52% to 82% at T2 (P < .05).

INTERPRETATION

Despite a centralized program design with dedicated navigator and registry to assist with adherence to annual lung cancer screening, variations between sites suggest that active follow-up strategies are needed to optimize adherence. For the mortality benefit from lung cancer screening to be recognized, adherence to annual screening must achieve higher rates.

Management of Lung Nodules and Lung Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic: CHEST Expert Panel Report

Background

The risks from potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and resource reallocation that has occurred to combat the pandemic, have altered the balance of benefits and harms that informed current (pre-COVID-19) guideline recommendations for lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. Consensus statements were developed to guide clinicians managing lung cancer screening programs and patients with lung nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Materials and Methods

An expert panel of 24 members, including pulmonologists (n = 17), thoracic radiologists (n = 5), and thoracic surgeons (n = 2), was formed. The panel was provided with an overview of current evidence, summarized by recent guidelines related to lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. The panel was convened by video teleconference to discuss and then vote on statements related to 12 common clinical scenarios. A predefined threshold of 70% of panel members voting agree or strongly agree was used to determine if there was a consensus for each statement. Items that may influence decisions were listed as notes to be considered for each scenario.

Results

Twelve statements related to baseline and annual lung cancer screening (n = 2), surveillance of a previously detected lung nodule (n = 5), evaluation of intermediate and high-risk lung nodules (n = 4), and management of clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer (n = 1) were developed and modified. All 12 statements were confirmed as consensus statements according to the voting results. The consensus statements provide guidance about situations in which it was believed to be appropriate to delay screening, defer surveillance imaging of lung nodules, and minimize nonurgent interventions during the evaluation of lung nodules and stage I non-small cell lung cancer.

Conclusion

There was consensus that during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is appropriate to defer enrollment in lung cancer screening and modify the evaluation of lung nodules due to the added risks from potential exposure and the need for resource reallocation. There are multiple local, regional, and patient-related factors that should be considered when applying these statements to individual patient care.

© 2020 RSNA; The American College of Chest Physicians, published by Elsevier Inc; and The American College of Radiology, published by Elsevier Inc.

Evaluating Lung Cancer Screening Uptake, Outcomes, and Costs in the United States: Challenges With Existing Data and Recommendations for Improvement

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) reported substantial reduction in lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals screened annually with low-dose helical computed tomography (LDCT). As a result, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued a B recommendation for annual LDCT in high-risk individuals, which requires private insurers to cover it without cost-sharing. The Medicare program also covers LDCT for high-risk beneficiaries without cost-sharing. However, the NLST findings may not be generalizable to the community setting because of differences in patients, providers, and practices participating in the NLST. Thus, examining uptake of LDCT screening in community practice is critical, as is evaluating the immediate and downstream outcomes of screening, including false-positive scans, follow-up examinations and adverse events, costs, stage of disease at diagnosis, and survival. This commentary presents an overview of the landscape of the data resources currently available to evaluate the uptake, outcomes, and costs of LDCT screening in the United States. We describe the strengths and limitations of existing data sources, including administrative databases, surveys, and registries. Thereafter, we provide recommendations for improving the data infrastructure pertaining to three overarching research areas: receipt of guideline-consistent screening and follow-up, weighing benefits and harms of screening, and costs of screening.

An Evaluation of Diagnostic Yield From Bronchoscopy: The Impact of Clinical/Radiographic Factors, Procedure Type, and Degree of Suspicion for Cancer

BACKGROUND

Bronchoscopy is commonly used to evaluate suspicious lung lesions. The yield is likely dependent on patient, radiographic, and bronchoscopic factors. Few studies have assessed these factors simultaneously while also including the preprocedure physician-assessed probability of cancer (pCA) when assessing yield.

METHODS

This study is a secondary data analysis from a prospective multicenter trial. Diagnostic yield of standard bronchoscopy with biopsy ± fluoroscopy, endobronchial ultrasound with transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), electromagnetic navigation, and combination bronchoscopies was assessed. Definitions for diagnostic and nondiagnostic bronchoscopies were rigorously predefined. The association of diagnostic yield with individual variables was examined by using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses where appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 687 patients were included from 28 sites. Overall diagnostic yield was 69%; 80% for EBUS, 55% for bronchoscopy with biopsy ± fluoroscopy, 57% for electromagnetic navigation, and 74% for combination procedures (P < .001). Patients with larger, central lesions with adenopathy were significantly more likely to undergo a diagnostic bronchoscopy. Patients with pCA < 10% and 10% to 60% had lower yields (44% and 42%, respectively), whereas pCA > 60% yielded a positive result in 77% (P < .001). In multivariate logistic regression, the use of EBUS-TBNA, larger sized lesions, and central location were significantly associated with a diagnostic bronchoscopy. Seventeen percent of those with a malignant diagnosis and 28% of those with a benign diagnosis required secondary procedures to establish a diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to assess the yield of bronchoscopy according to physician-assessed pCA in a large, prospective multicenter trial. The yield of bronchoscopy varied greatly according to physician suspicion that cancer is present, the patients' clinical/radiographic features, and the type of procedure performed. Of the procedures performed, EBUS-TBNA was the most likely to provide a diagnosis.