The Impact of the Availability of Immunotherapy on Patterns of Care in Stage III NSCLC: A Dutch Multicenter Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment patterns in stage III NSCLC can vary considerably between countries. The PACIFIC trial reported improvements in progression-free and overall survival with adjuvant durvalumab after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). We studied treatment decision-making by three Dutch regional thoracic multidisciplinary tumor boards between 2015 and 2019, to identify changes in practice when adjuvant durvalumab became available. METHODS: Details of patients presenting with stage III NSCLC were retrospectively collected. Both CCRT and multimodality schemes incorporating planned surgery were defined as being radical-intent treatment (RIT). RESULTS: Of 855 eligible patients, most (95%) were discussed at a thoracic multidisciplinary tumor board, which recommended a RIT in 63% (n = 510). Only 52% (n = 424) of the patients finally received a RIT. Predictors for not recommending RIT were age greater than or equal to 70 years, WHO performance score greater than or equal to 2, Charlson comorbidity index greater than or equal to 2 (excluding age), forced expiratory volume in 1 second less than 80% of predicted value, N3 disease, and period of diagnosis. Between 2015 to 2017 and 2018 to 2019, the proportion of patients undergoing CCRT increased from 34% to 42% (p = 0.02) and use of sequential chemoradiotherapy declined (21%-16%, p = 0.05). Rates of early toxicity and 1-year mortality were comparable for both periods. After 2018, 57% of the patients who underwent CCRT (90 of 159) received adjuvant durvalumab. CONCLUSIONS: After publication of the PACIFIC trial, a significant increase was observed in the use of CCRT for patients with stage III NSCLC with rates of early toxicity and mortality being unchanged. Since 2018, 57% of the patients undergoing CCRT went on to receive adjuvant durvalumab. Nevertheless, approximately half of the patients were still considered unfit for a RIT.

Perceptions of involvement in advance care planning and emotional functioning in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: Advance Care Planning (ACP) is positively associated with the quality of care, but its impact on emotional functioning is ambiguous. This study investigated the association between perceptions of ACP involvement and emotional functioning in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: This study analyzed baseline data of 1,001 patients of the eQuiPe study, a prospective, longitudinal, multicenter, observational study on quality of care and quality of life in patients with advanced cancer in the Netherlands. Patients with metastatic solid cancer were asked to participate between November 2017 and January 2020. Patients' perceptions of ACP involvement were measured by three self-administered statements. Emotional functioning was measured by the EORTC-QLQ-C30. A linear multivariable regression analysis was performed while taking gender, age, migrant background, education, marital status, and symptom burden into account. RESULTS: The majority of patients (87%) reported that they were as much involved as they wanted to be in decisions about their future medical treatment and care. Most patients felt that their relatives (81%) and physicians (75%) were familiar with their preferences for future medical treatment and care. A positive association was found between patients' perceptions of ACP involvement and their emotional functioning (b=0.162, p<0.001, 95%CI[0.095;0.229]) while controlling for relevant confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions of involvement in ACP are positively associated with emotional functioning in patients with advanced cancer. Future studies are needed to further investigate the effect of ACP on emotional functioning. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR6584 Date of registration: 30 June 2017 IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Patients' emotional functioning might improve from routine discussions regarding goals of future care. Therefore, integration of ACP into palliative might be promising.

Factors influencing multi-disciplinary tumor board recommendations in stage III non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment patterns in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) vary considerably between countries, for reasons that are not well understood. We studied factors influencing treatment decision-making at thoracic multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDT's) and outcome for patients treated between 2015-2017, at a regional network comprising 5 hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Details of all patients, including comorbidities, with stage III NSCLC were collected in an ethics-approved database. Weekly MDT's were conducted. The preferred radical intent treatments (RIT) for suitable patients were assumed to be concurrent chemoradiotherapy and/or surgery and other therapies were non-radical intent treatments (n-RIT). RESULTS: Of 197 patients identified, 95 % were discussed at an MDT. RIT were recommended in 61 % of patients, but only 48 % finally received RIT. The estimated median OS was significantly better for patients undergoing RIT (28.3 months, CI-95 % 17.3-39.3), versus those who did not (11.2 months, CI-95 % 8.0-14.3). Patient age ≥70 years and a WHO-PS ≥2 were the most important predictors of not recommending RIT. Deaths due to progressive lung cancer within 2 years were observed in 36, 26 and 29 % of patients who received RIT, sequential chemoradiotherapy or radical radiotherapy. Corresponding comorbidity related deaths within 2 years were 3, 12 and 38 %. CONCLUSION: A large number of patients who underwent MDT review were considered too old or not fit for RIT. More effective and better tolerated systemic treatments are required for patients presenting with stage III NSCLC.

What Goals Do Patients and Oncologists Have When Starting Medical Treatment for Metastatic Lung Cancer?

BACKGROUND: Metastatic lung cancer is an incurable disease that can be treated with systemic therapy. These treatments might prolong survival and reduce symptoms, but they may also cause serious adverse effects. We studied the treatment goals of patients with metastasized lung cancer and their oncologists before starting systemic therapy, concordance between patients' and oncologists' goals, and feasibility of these goals. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This research was conducted between November 2016 and April 2018 in 1 academic and 5 nonacademic hospitals across the Netherlands. A total of 266 patients with metastatic lung cancer and their prescribing oncologists (n = 23) filled out a questionnaire about their treatment goals and the estimated feasibility of these goals before treatment was started. Additional interviews were conducted with patients and oncologists. RESULTS: Patients and oncologists reported quality of life (respectively, 45% and 72%), life prolongation (45% and 55%), decrease in tumor size (39% and 66%), and cure (19% and 2%) as treatment goals. The interviews showed that the latter appeared to be often as motivation to stay alive. Concordances between patients' and oncologists' treatment goals were low (ranging from 24% to 33%). Patients had slightly higher feasibility scores than oncologists (6.8 vs. 5.8 on a 10-point scale). Educational level, age, religious views, and performance status of patients were associated with treatment goals. CONCLUSION: Patients and oncologists set various goals for the treatment they receive/prescribe. Low concordance might exist because different goals are set or because the patient misunderstands something. Clear communication about treatment goals should be integrated into clinical care.