Defining the road map to a UK national lung cancer screening programme.

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT was recommended by the UK National Screening Committee (UKNSC) in September, 2022, on the basis of data from trials showing a reduction in lung cancer mortality. These trials provide sufficient evidence to show clinical efficacy, but further work is needed to prove deliverability in preparation for a national roll-out of the first major targeted screening programme. The UK has been world leading in addressing logistical issues with lung cancer screening through clinical trials, implementation pilots, and the National Health Service (NHS) England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme. In this Policy Review, we describe the consensus reached by a multiprofessional group of experts in lung cancer screening on the key requirements and priorities for effective implementation of a programme. We summarise the output from a round-table meeting of clinicians, behavioural scientists, stakeholder organisations, and representatives from NHS England, the UKNSC, and the four UK nations. This Policy Review will be an important tool in the ongoing expansion and evolution of an already successful programme, and provides a summary of UK expert opinion for consideration by those organising and delivering lung cancer screenings in other countries.

Patient value: Perspectives from the advocacy community.

All health-care systems are under financial pressure and many have therefore developed value frameworks to assist decision making regarding access to treatment. Unfortunately, many frameworks simply reflect the clinically focused values held by health-care professionals rather than outcomes that also matter to patients. It is difficult to define one single homogeneous set of patient values as these are shaped by social, religious and cultural factors, and health-care environment, as well as many factors such as age, gender, education, family and friends and personal finances. Instead of focusing on an aggregated set of values, frameworks should attempt to incorporate the broader range of outcomes that patients may regard as more relevant. Patient advocates are well placed to advise assessment bodies on how particular therapies will impact the patient population under consideration and should be closely involved in developing value frameworks. In this paper, a group of patient advocates explore the varying definitions of patient value and make positive recommendations for working together to strengthen the patient voice in this area. The authors call on framework developers, the patient advocacy and research communities, the health-care industry and decision-makers to undertake specific actions to ensure patient value is included in current and future value frameworks. This is justified on compassionate and economic grounds: better health outcomes result when patients receive treatment tailored to individual needs. Paying attention to the patient perspective also results in better use of resources-a goal that should appeal to all stakeholders.

Defining a standard set of patient-centred outcomes for lung cancer.

In lung cancer, outcome measurement has been mostly limited to survival. Proper assessment of the value of lung cancer treatments, and the performance of institutions delivering care, requires more comprehensive measurement of standardised outcomes.The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement convened an international, multidisciplinary working group of patient representatives, medical oncologists, surgeons, radiation oncologists, pulmonologists, palliative care specialists, registry experts and specialist nurses to review existing data and practices. Using a modified Delphi method, the group developed a consensus recommendation ("the set") on the outcomes most essential to track for patients with lung cancer, along with baseline demographic, clinical and tumour characteristics (case-mix variables) for risk adjustment.The set applies to patients diagnosed with nonsmall cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer. Our working group recommends the collection of the following outcomes: survival, complications during or within 6 months of treatment and patient-reported domains of health-related quality of life including pain, fatigue, cough and dyspnoea. Case-mix variables were defined to improve interpretation of comparisons.We defined an international consensus recommendation of the most important outcomes for lung cancer patients, along with relevant case-mix variables, and are working to support adoption and reporting of these measures globally.

The State of Lung Cancer Research: A Global Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the leading cause of years of life lost because of cancer and is associated with the highest economic burden relative to other tumor types. Research remains at the cornerstone of achieving improved outcomes of lung cancer. We present the results of a comprehensive analysis of global lung cancer research between 2004 and 2013 (10 years). METHODS: The study used bibliometrics to undertake a quantitative analysis of research output in the 24 leading countries in cancer research internationally on the basis of articles and reviews in the Web of Science (WoS) database. RESULTS: A total of 32,161 lung cancer research articles from 2085 different journals were analyzed. Lung cancer research represented only 5.6% of overall cancer research in 2013, a 1.2% increase since 2004. The commitment to lung cancer research has fallen in most countries apart from China and shows no correlation with lung cancer burden. A review of key research types demonstrated that diagnostics, screening, and quality of life research represent 4.3%, 1.8%, and 0.3% of total lung cancer research, respectively. The leading research types were genetics (20%), systemic therapies (17%), and prognostic biomarkers (16%). Research output is increasingly basic science, with a decrease in clinical translational research output during this period. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings have established that relative to the huge health, social, and economic burden associated with lung cancer, the level of world research output lags significantly behind that of research on other malignancies. Commitment to diagnostics, screening, and quality of life research is much lower than to basic science and medical research. The study findings are expected to provide the requisite knowledge to guide future cancer research programs in lung cancer.

Management of crizotinib therapy for ALK-rearranged non-small cell lung carcinoma: an expert consensus.

Within 4 years of the discovery of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangements in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the ALK inhibitor crizotinib gained US and European approval for the treatment of advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. This was due to the striking response data observed with crizotinib in phase I and II trials in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC, as well as the favorable tolerability and safety profile observed. Recently published phase III data established crizotinib as a new standard of care for this NSCLC molecular subset. A consequence of such rapid approval, however, is the limited clinical experience and relative paucity of information concerning optimal therapy management. In this review, we discuss the development of crizotinib and the clinical relevance of its safety profile, examining crizotinib-associated adverse events in detail and making specific management recommendations. Crizotinib-associated adverse events were mostly mild to moderate in severity in clinical studies, and appropriate monitoring and supportive therapies are considered effective in avoiding the need for dose interruption or reduction in most cases. Therapy management of patients following disease progression on crizotinib is also discussed. Based on available clinical data, it is evident that patients may have prolonged benefit from crizotinib after Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors-defined disease progression, and crizotinib should be continued for as long as the patient derives benefit.

E-cigarettes and cancer patients.

The increasing popularity and availability of electronic cigarettes (i.e., e-cigarettes) in many countries have promoted debate among health professionals as to what to recommend to their patients who might be struggling to stop smoking or asking about e-cigarettes. In the absence of evidence-based guidelines for using e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, some health professionals have urged caution about recommending them due to the limited evidence of their safety and efficacy, while others have argued that e-cigarettes are obviously a better alternative to continued cigarette smoking and should be encouraged. The leadership of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer asked the Tobacco Control and Smoking Cessation Committee to formulate a statement on the use of e-cigarettes by cancer patients to help guide clinical practice. Below is this statement, which we will update periodically as new evidence becomes available.