The evolution of non-small cell lung cancer metastases in TRACERx.

Metastatic disease is responsible for the majority of cancer-related deaths1. We report the longitudinal evolutionary analysis of 126 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumours from 421 prospectively recruited patients in TRACERx who developed metastatic disease, compared with a control cohort of 144 non-metastatic tumours. In 25% of cases, metastases diverged early, before the last clonal sweep in the primary tumour, and early divergence was enriched for patients who were smokers at the time of initial diagnosis. Simulations suggested that early metastatic divergence more frequently occurred at smaller tumour diameters (less than 8 mm). Single-region primary tumour sampling resulted in 83% of late divergence cases being misclassified as early, highlighting the importance of extensive primary tumour sampling. Polyclonal dissemination, which was associated with extrathoracic disease recurrence, was found in 32% of cases. Primary lymph node disease contributed to metastatic relapse in less than 20% of cases, representing a hallmark of metastatic potential rather than a route to subsequent recurrences/disease progression. Metastasis-seeding subclones exhibited subclonal expansions within primary tumours, probably reflecting positive selection. Our findings highlight the importance of selection in metastatic clone evolution within untreated primary tumours, the distinction between monoclonal versus polyclonal seeding in dictating site of recurrence, the limitations of current radiological screening approaches for early diverging tumours and the need to develop strategies to target metastasis-seeding subclones before relapse.

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.

Assessing eligibility for lung cancer screening using parsimonious ensemble machine learning models: A development and validation study.

BACKGROUND: Risk-based screening for lung cancer is currently being considered in several countries; however, the optimal approach to determine eligibility remains unclear. Ensemble machine learning could support the development of highly parsimonious prediction models that maintain the performance of more complex models while maximising simplicity and generalisability, supporting the widespread adoption of personalised screening. In this work, we aimed to develop and validate ensemble machine learning models to determine eligibility for risk-based lung cancer screening. METHODS AND FINDINGS: For model development, we used data from 216,714 ever-smokers recruited between 2006 and 2010 to the UK Biobank prospective cohort and 26,616 high-risk ever-smokers recruited between 2002 and 2004 to the control arm of the US National Lung Screening (NLST) randomised controlled trial. The NLST trial randomised high-risk smokers from 33 US centres with at least a 30 pack-year smoking history and fewer than 15 quit-years to annual CT or chest radiography screening for lung cancer. We externally validated our models among 49,593 participants in the chest radiography arm and all 80,659 ever-smoking participants in the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Screening Trial. The PLCO trial, recruiting from 1993 to 2001, analysed the impact of chest radiography or no chest radiography for lung cancer screening. We primarily validated in the PLCO chest radiography arm such that we could benchmark against comparator models developed within the PLCO control arm. Models were developed to predict the risk of 2 outcomes within 5 years from baseline: diagnosis of lung cancer and death from lung cancer. We assessed model discrimination (area under the receiver operating curve, AUC), calibration (calibration curves and expected/observed ratio), overall performance (Brier scores), and net benefit with decision curve analysis. Models predicting lung cancer death (UCL-D) and incidence (UCL-I) using 3 variables-age, smoking duration, and pack-years-achieved or exceeded parity in discrimination, overall performance, and net benefit with comparators currently in use, despite requiring only one-quarter of the predictors. In external validation in the PLCO trial, UCL-D had an AUC of 0.803 (95% CI: 0.783, 0.824) and was well calibrated with an expected/observed (E/O) ratio of 1.05 (95% CI: 0.95, 1.19). UCL-I had an AUC of 0.787 (95% CI: 0.771, 0.802), an E/O ratio of 1.0 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.07). The sensitivity of UCL-D was 85.5% and UCL-I was 83.9%, at 5-year risk thresholds of 0.68% and 1.17%, respectively, 7.9% and 6.2% higher than the USPSTF-2021 criteria at the same specificity. The main limitation of this study is that the models have not been validated outside of UK and US cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: We present parsimonious ensemble machine learning models to predict the risk of lung cancer in ever-smokers, demonstrating a novel approach that could simplify the implementation of risk-based lung cancer screening in multiple settings.

Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on lung cancer survival in England: an analysis of the rapid cancer registration dataset.

Early changes in lung cancer care can affect survival. Given the decrease in diagnosis during lockdowns, we calculated their impact on survival using National Lung Cancer Audit data. Percentage survival and HRs for death were compared between 2019 and lockdown periods of 2020. Decreased survival was observed from the first national lockdown onwards and within 90 days of diagnosis. HRs were highest for people diagnosed at the end of 2020 at 1.26 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.32) for death within 90 days and 1.51 (95% CI 1.42 to 1.60) for death between 91 and 270 days. Further work is needed on measures to mitigate this impact.

Ninety-day mortality following lung cancer surgery: outcomes from the English national clinical outcomes audit.

Accurately explaining perioperative mortality and risk to patients is an essential part of shared decision making. In the case of lung cancer surgery, the currently available multivariable mortality prediction tools perform poorly, and could mislead patients. Using data from 2004 to 2012, this group has previously produced data tables for 90-day postoperative mortality, to be used as a communication aid in the consenting process. Using National Lung Cancer Clinical Outcomes audit data from 2017 to 2018, we have produced updated early mortality tables, to reflect current thoracic surgery practice.

Association between time-to-treatment and outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: National targets for timely diagnosis and management of a potential cancer are driven in part by the perceived risk of disease progression during avoidable delays. However, it is unclear to what extent time-to-treatment impacts prognosis for patients with non-small cell lung cancer, with previous reviews reporting mixed or apparently paradoxical associations. This systematic review focuses on potential confounders in order to identify particular patient groups which may benefit most from timely delivery of care. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for publications between January 2012 and October 2020, correlating timeliness in secondary care pathways to patient outcomes. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO (the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; ID 99239). Prespecified factors (demographics, performance status, histology, stage and treatment) are examined through narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Thirty-seven articles were included. All but two were observational. Timely care was generally associated with a worse prognosis in those with advanced stage disease (6/8 studies) but with better outcomes for patients with early-stage disease treated surgically (9/12 studies). In one study, patients with squamous cell carcinoma referred for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy benefited more from timely care, compared with patients with adenocarcinoma. One randomised controlled trial supported timeliness as being advantageous in those with stage I-IIIA disease. CONCLUSION: There are limitations to the available evidence, but observed trends suggest timeliness to be of particular importance in surgical candidates. In more advanced disease, survival trends are likely outweighed by symptom burden, performance status or clinical urgency dictating timeliness of treatment.

Telephone risk-based eligibility assessment for low-dose CT lung cancer screening.

Eligibility for lung cancer screening (LCS) requires assessment of lung cancer risk, based on smoking history alongside demographic and medical factors. Reliance on individual face-to-face eligibility assessment risks inefficiency and costliness. The SUMMIT Study introduced a telephone-based lung cancer risk assessment to guide invitation to face-to-face LCS eligibility assessment, which significantly increased the proportion of face-to-face attendees eligible for LCS. However, levels of agreement between phone screener and in-person responses were lower in younger individuals and minority ethnic groups. Telephone-based risk assessment is an efficient way to optimise selection for LCS appointments but requires further iteration to ensure an equitable approach.

The role of computer-assisted radiographer reporting in lung cancer screening programmes.

OBJECTIVES: Successful lung cancer screening delivery requires sensitive, timely reporting of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans, placing a demand on radiology resources. Trained non-radiologist readers and computer-assisted detection (CADe) software may offer strategies to optimise the use of radiology resources without loss of sensitivity. This report examines the accuracy of trained reporting radiographers using CADe support to report LDCT scans performed as part of the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT). METHODS: In this observational cohort study, two radiographers independently read all LDCT performed within LSUT and reported on the presence of clinically significant nodules and common incidental findings (IFs), including recommendations for management. Reports were compared against a 'reference standard' (RS) derived from nodules identified by study radiologists without CADe, plus consensus radiologist review of any additional nodules identified by the radiographers. RESULTS: A total of 716 scans were included, 158 of which had one or more clinically significant pulmonary nodules as per our RS. Radiographer sensitivity against the RS was 68-73.7%, with specificity of 92.1-92.7%. Sensitivity for detection of proven cancers diagnosed from the baseline scan was 83.3-100%. The spectrum of IFs exceeded what could reasonably be covered in radiographer training. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the complexity of LDCT reporting requirements, including the limitations of CADe and the breadth of IFs. We are unable to recommend CADe-supported radiographers as a sole reader of LDCT scans, but propose potential avenues for further research including initial triage of abnormal LDCT or reporting of follow-up surveillance scans. KEY POINTS: • Successful roll-out of mass screening programmes for lung cancer depends on timely, accurate CT scan reporting, placing a demand on existing radiology resources. • This observational cohort study examines the accuracy of trained radiographers using computer-assisted detection (CADe) software to report lung cancer screening CT scans, as a potential means of supporting reporting workflows in LCS programmes. • CADe-supported radiographers were less sensitive than radiologists at identifying clinically significant pulmonary nodules, but had a low false-positive rate and good sensitivity for detection of confirmed cancers.

COVID-19 and the multidisciplinary care of patients with lung cancer: an evidence-based review and commentary.

Delivering lung cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant and ongoing challenges. There is a lack of published COVID-19 and lung cancer evidence-based reviews, including for the whole patient pathway. We searched for COVID-19 and lung cancer publications and brought together a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders to review and comment on the evidence and challenges. A rapid review of the literature was undertaken up to 28 October 2020, producing 144 papers, with 113 full texts screened. We focused on new primary data collection (qualitative or quantitative evidence) and excluded case reports, editorials and commentaries. Following exclusions, 15 published papers were included in the review and are summarised. They included one qualitative paper and 14 quantitative studies (surveys or cohort studies), with a total of 2295 lung cancer patients data included (mean study size 153 patients; range 7-803). Review of current evidence and commentary included awareness and help-seeking; lung cancer screening; primary care assessment and referral; diagnosis and treatment in secondary care, including oncology and surgery; patient experience and palliative care. Cross-cutting themes and challenges were identified using qualitative methods for patients, healthcare professionals and service delivery, with a clear need for continued studies to guide evidence-based decision-making.

Navigating Diagnostic and Treatment Decisions in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Expert Commentary on the Multidisciplinary Team Approach.

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately one in five cancer-related deaths, and management requires increasingly complex decision making by health care professionals. Many centers have therefore adopted a multidisciplinary approach to patient care, using the expertise of various specialists to provide the best evidence-based, personalized treatment. However, increasingly complex disease staging, as well as expanded biomarker testing and multimodality management algorithms with novel therapeutics, have driven the need for multifaceted, collaborative decision making to optimally guide the overall treatment process. To keep up with the rapidly evolving treatment landscape, national-level guidelines have been introduced to standardize patient pathways and ensure prompt diagnosis and treatment. Such strategies depend on efficient and effective communication between relevant multidisciplinary team members and have both improved adherence to treatment guidelines and extended patient survival. This article highlights the value of a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and staging, treatment decision making, and adverse event management in NSCLC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This review highlights the value of a multidisciplinary approach to the diagnosis and staging of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and makes practical suggestions as to how multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) can be best deployed at individual stages of the disease to improve patient outcomes and effectively manage common adverse events. The authors discuss how a collaborative approach, appropriately leveraging the diverse expertise of NSCLC MDT members (including specialist radiation and medical oncologists, chest physicians, pathologists, pulmonologists, surgeons, and nursing staff) can continue to ensure optimal per-patient decision making as treatment options become ever more specialized in the era of biomarker-driven therapeutic strategies.

Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Testing Targeted Invitation Materials.

Rationale: Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, particularly by current smokers of a low socioeconomic position, compromises effectiveness and equity.Objectives: To compare the effect of a targeted, low-burden, and stepped invitation strategy versus control on uptake of hospital-based Lung Health Check appointments offering LDCT screening.Methods: In a two-arm, blinded, between-subjects, randomized controlled trial, 2,012 participants were selected from 16 primary care practices using these criteria: 1) aged 60 to 75 years, 2) recorded as a current smoker within the last 7 years, and 3) no prespecified exclusion criteria contraindicating LDCT screening. Both groups received a stepped sequence of preinvitation, invitation, and reminder letters from their primary care practitioner offering prescheduled appointments. The key manipulation was the accompanying leaflet. The intervention group's leaflet targeted psychological barriers and provided low-burden information, mimicking the concept of the U.K. Ministry of Transport's annual vehicle test ("M.O.T. For Your Lungs").Measurements and Main Results: Uptake was 52.6%, with no difference between intervention (52.3%) and control (52.9%) groups in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.16) or adjusted (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.17) analyses. Current smokers were less likely to attend (adjusted OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86) than former smokers. Socioeconomic deprivation was significantly associated with lower uptake for the control group only (P < 0.01).Conclusions: The intervention did not improve uptake. Regardless of trial arm, uptake was considerably higher than previous clinical and real-world studies, particularly given that the samples were predominantly lower socioeconomic position smokers. Strategies common to both groups, including a Lung Health Check approach, could represent a minimum standard.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101) and registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study (N21774741).

Effect of delays in the 2-week-wait cancer referral pathway during the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survival in the UK: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 lockdown, referrals via the 2-week-wait urgent pathway for suspected cancer in England, UK, are reported to have decreased by up to 84%. We aimed to examine the impact of different scenarios of lockdown-accumulated backlog in cancer referrals on cancer survival, and the impact on survival per referred patient due to delayed referral versus risk of death from nosocomial infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. METHODS: In this modelling study, we used age-stratified and stage-stratified 10-year cancer survival estimates for patients in England, UK, for 20 common tumour types diagnosed in 2008-17 at age 30 years and older from Public Health England. We also used data for cancer diagnoses made via the 2-week-wait referral pathway in 2013-16 from the Cancer Waiting Times system from NHS Digital. We applied per-day hazard ratios (HRs) for cancer progression that we generated from observational studies of delay to treatment. We quantified the annual numbers of cancers at stage I-III diagnosed via the 2-week-wait pathway using 2-week-wait age-specific and stage-specific breakdowns. From these numbers, we estimated the aggregate number of lives and life-years lost in England for per-patient delays of 1-6 months in presentation, diagnosis, or cancer treatment, or a combination of these. We assessed three scenarios of a 3-month period of lockdown during which 25%, 50%, and 75% of the normal monthly volumes of symptomatic patients delayed their presentation until after lockdown. Using referral-to-diagnosis conversion rates and COVID-19 case-fatality rates, we also estimated the survival increment per patient referred. FINDINGS: Across England in 2013-16, an average of 6281 patients with stage I-III cancer were diagnosed via the 2-week-wait pathway per month, of whom 1691 (27%) would be predicted to die within 10 years from their disease. Delays in presentation via the 2-week-wait pathway over a 3-month lockdown period (with an average presentational delay of 2 months per patient) would result in 181 additional lives and 3316 life-years lost as a result of a backlog of referrals of 25%, 361 additional lives and 6632 life-years lost for a 50% backlog of referrals, and 542 additional lives and 9948 life-years lost for a 75% backlog in referrals. Compared with all diagnostics for the backlog being done in month 1 after lockdown, additional capacity across months 1-3 would result in 90 additional lives and 1662 live-years lost due to diagnostic delays for the 25% backlog scenario, 183 additional lives and 3362 life-years lost under the 50% backlog scenario, and 276 additional lives and 5075 life-years lost under the 75% backlog scenario. However, a delay in additional diagnostic capacity with provision spread across months 3-8 after lockdown would result in 401 additional lives and 7332 life-years lost due to diagnostic delays under the 25% backlog scenario, 811 additional lives and 14 873 life-years lost under the 50% backlog scenario, and 1231 additional lives and 22 635 life-years lost under the 75% backlog scenario. A 2-month delay in 2-week-wait investigatory referrals results in an estimated loss of between 0·0 and 0·7 life-years per referred patient, depending on age and tumour type. INTERPRETATION: Prompt provision of additional capacity to address the backlog of diagnostics will minimise deaths as a result of diagnostic delays that could add to those predicted due to expected presentational delays. Prioritisation of patient groups for whom delay would result in most life-years lost warrants consideration as an option for mitigating the aggregate burden of mortality in patients with cancer. FUNDING: None.

Post-treatment survival difference between lobectomy and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy in stage I non-small cell lung cancer in England.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 15%-20% of all non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases present with stage I disease. Surgical resection traditionally offers the best chance of a cure but some patients will not have this treatment due to older age, comorbidities or personal choice. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has become an established curative intent treatment option for patients who are not selected for or do not choose surgery. The aim of this study is to compare survival at 90 days, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years for patients who received either lobectomy or SABR. METHODS: We used data from the 2015 National Lung Cancer Audit database and linked with Hospital Episode Statistics and the radiotherapy dataset to identify patients with NSCLC stage IA-IB and performance status (PS) 0-2 who underwent surgery or SABR treatment. We assessed the likelihood of death at 90 days, 6 months, 1 year and 2 year after diagnosis and procedure date to observe survival between two patient groups. RESULTS: We identified 2373 patients in our cohort, 476 of whom had SABR. The median difference between date of diagnosis and date of treatment for surgery patients was 17 days while for SABR patients it was 73 days. Increasing age and worsening PS were associated with having SABR rather than surgery. Survival between the two treatment modalities was similar early on but by 1-year people who had surgery did better than those who had SABR (adjusted ORs 2.12, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.31). This difference persisted at 2 years and when the analysis was restricted to patients aged <80 years and with PS 0 or 1 and stage IA only. CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that patients who have lobectomy have a better survival compared with SABR patients; however, we found considerable delays in patients receiving SABR which may contribute to poorer long-term outcomes with this treatment option. Reducing these delays should be a key focus in development and reorganisation of services.

Lung Screen Uptake Trial: results from a single lung cancer screening round.

The Lung Screen Uptake Trial tested a novel invitation strategy to improve uptake and reduce socioeconomic and smoking-related inequalities in lung cancer screening (LCS) participation. It provides one of the first UK-based 'real-world' LCS cohorts. Of 2012 invited, 1058 (52.6%) attended a 'lung health check'. 768/996 (77.1%) in the present analysis underwent a low-dose CT scan. 92 (11.9%) and 33 (4.3%) participants had indeterminate pulmonary nodules requiring 3-month and 12-month surveillance, respectively; 36 lung cancers (4.7%) were diagnosed (median follow-up: 1044 days). 72.2% of lung cancers were stage I/II and 79.4% of non-small cell lung cancer had curative-intent treatment.

Comorbidity prevalence among cancer patients: a population-based cohort study of four cancers.

BACKGROUND: The presence of comorbidity affects the care of cancer patients, many of whom are living with multiple comorbidities. The prevalence of cancer comorbidity, beyond summary metrics, is not well known. This study aims to estimate the prevalence of comorbid conditions among cancer patients in England, and describe the association between cancer comorbidity and socio-economic position, using population-based electronic health records. METHODS: We linked England cancer registry records of patients diagnosed with cancer of the colon, rectum, lung or Hodgkin lymphoma between 2009 and 2013, with hospital admissions records. A comorbidity was any one of fourteen specific conditions, diagnosed during hospital admission up to 6 years prior to cancer diagnosis. We calculated the crude and age-sex adjusted prevalence of each condition, the frequency of multiple comorbidity combinations, and used logistic regression and multinomial logistic regression to estimate the adjusted odds of having each condition and the probability of having each condition as a single or one of multiple comorbidities, respectively, by cancer type. RESULTS: Comorbidity was most prevalent in patients with lung cancer and least prevalent in Hodgkin lymphoma patients. Up to two-thirds of patients within each of the four cancer patient cohorts we studied had at least one comorbidity, and around half of the comorbid patients had multiple comorbidities. Our study highlighted common comorbid conditions among the cancer patient cohorts. In all four cohorts, the odds of having a comorbidity and the probability of multiple comorbidity were consistently highest in the most deprived cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer healthcare guidelines may need to consider prominent comorbid conditions, particularly to benefit the prognosis of the most deprived patients who carry the greater burden of comorbidity. Insight into patterns of cancer comorbidity may inform further research into the influence of specific comorbidities on socio-economic inequalities in receipt of cancer treatment and in short-term mortality.

Impact of organisation and specialist service delivery on lung cancer outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Data from the National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) often show variation in outcomes between lung cancer units which are not entirely explained by case mix. We explore the association between the organisation of services and patient outcome. METHODS: Details of service provision were collected via an electronic survey in June 2017. An overall organisational score derived from eleven key service factors from national lung cancer commissioning guidance was calculated for each organisation. The results for each hospital were linked to their patient outcome results from the 2015 NLCA cases. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to link the organisational score to patient outcomes. RESULTS: Lung cancer unit organisational audit scores varied from 0 to 11. Thirty-eight (29%) units had a score of 0-4, 64 (50%) had a score of 5-7 and 27 (21%) had a score of 8-11. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that, compared with an organisational score of 0-4, patients seen at units with a score of 8-11 had higher 1-year survival (adjusted OR (95% CI)=2.30 (1.04 to 5.08), p<0.001), higher curative-intent treatment rate (adjusted OR (95% CI)=1.62 (1.26 to 2.09), p<0.001) and greater likelihood of receiving treatment within 62 days (adjusted OR (95% CI)=1.49 (1.20 to 1.86), p<0.001). CONCLUSION: National variation in the provision of services and workforce remain. We provide evidence that adherence to the national lung commissioning guidance has the potential to improve patient outcomes within the current service structure.

Association between age, deprivation and specific comorbid conditions and the receipt of major surgery in patients with non-small cell lung cancer in England: A population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated socioeconomic disparities and the role of the main prognostic factors in receiving major surgical treatment in patients with lung cancer in England. METHODS: Our study comprised 31 351 patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer in England in 2012. Data from the national population-based cancer registry were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and National Lung Cancer Audit data to obtain information on stage, performance status and comorbidities, and to identify patients receiving major surgical treatment. To describe the association between prognostic factors and surgery, we performed two different analyses: one using multivariable logistic regression and one estimating cause-specific hazards for death and surgery. In both analyses, we used multiple imputation to deal with missing data. RESULTS: We showed strong evidence that the comorbidities 'congestive heart failure', 'cerebrovascular disease' and 'chronic obstructive pulmonary disease' reduced the receipt of surgery in early stage patients. We also observed gender differences and substantial age differences in the receipt of surgery. Despite accounting for sex, age at diagnosis, comorbidities, stage at diagnosis, performance status and indication of having had a PET-CT scan, the socioeconomic differences persisted in both analyses: more deprived people had lower odds and lower rates of receiving surgery in early stage lung cancer. DISCUSSION: Comorbidities play an important role in whether patients undergo surgery, but do not completely explain the socioeconomic difference observed in early stage patients. Future work investigating access to and distance from specialist hospitals, as well as patient perceptions and patient choice in receiving surgery, could help disentangle these persistent socioeconomic inequalities.

Evaluation of cardiovascular risk in a lung cancer screening cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) offers an opportunity to impact both lung cancer and coronary heart disease mortality through detection of coronary artery calcification (CAC). Here, we explore the value of CAC and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment in LCS participants in the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, current and ex-smokers aged 60-75 were invited to a 'lung health check'. Data collection included a CVD risk assessment enabling estimation of 10 year CVD risk using the QRISK2 score. Participants meeting the required lung cancer risk underwent an ungated, non-contrast LDCT. Descriptive data, bivariate associations and a multivariate analysis of predictors of statin use are presented. RESULTS: Of 1005 individuals enrolled, 680 were included in the final analysis. 421 (61.9%) had CAC present and in 49 (7.2%), this was heavy. 668 (98%) of participants had a QRISK2≥10% and QRISK2 was positively associated with increasing CAC grade (OR 4.29 (CI 0.93 to 19.88) for QRISK2=10%-20% and 12.29 (CI 2.68 to 56.1) for QRISK2≥20% respectively). Of those who qualified for statin primary prevention (QRISK2≥10%), 56.8% did not report a history of statin use. In the multivariate analysis statin use was associated with age, body mass index and history of hypertension and diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: LCS offers an important opportunity for instituting CVD risk assessment in all LCS participants irrespective of the presence of LDCT-detected CAC. Further studies are needed to determine whether CAC could enhance uptake and adherence to primary preventative strategies.

Immune Checkpoint Blockade for Advanced NSCLC: A New Landscape for Elderly Patients.

The therapeutic scenario for elderly patients with advanced NSCLC has been limited to radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Recently, a novel therapeutic approach based on targeting the immune-checkpoints has showed noteworthy results in advanced NSCLC. PD1/PD-L1 pathway is co-opted by tumor cells through the expression of PD-L1 on the tumor cell surface and on cells within the microenvironment, leading to suppression of anti-tumor cytolytic T-cell activity by the tumor. The success of immune-checkpoints inhibitors in clinical trials led to rapid approval by the FDA and EMA. Currently, data regarding efficacy and safety of ICIs in older subjects is limited by the poor number of elderly recruited in clinical trials. Careful assessment and management of comorbidities is essential to achieve better outcomes and limit the immune related adverse events in elderly NSCLC patients.

Variable radiological lung nodule evaluation leads to divergent management recommendations.

Radiological evaluation of incidentally detected lung nodules on computed tomography (CT) influences management. We assessed international radiological variation in 1) pulmonary nodule characterisation; 2) hypothetical guideline-derived management; and 3) radiologists' management recommendations.107 radiologists from 25 countries evaluated 69 CT-detected nodules, recording: 1) first-choice composition (solid, part-solid or ground-glass, with percentage confidence); 2) morphological features; 3) dimensions; 4) recommended management; and 5) decision-influencing factors. We modelled hypothetical management decisions on the 2005 and updated 2017 Fleischner Society, and both liberal and parsimonious interpretations of the British Thoracic Society 2015 guidelines.Overall agreement for first-choice nodule composition was good (Fleiss' κ=0.65), but poorest for part-solid nodules (weighted κ 0.62, interquartile range 0.50-0.71). Morphological variables, including spiculation (κ=0.35), showed poor-to-moderate agreement (κ=0.23-0.53). Variation in diameter was greatest at key thresholds (5 mm and 6 mm). Agreement for radiologists' recommendations was poor (κ=0.30); 21% disagreed with the majority. Although agreement within the four guideline-modelled management strategies was good (κ=0.63-0.73), 5-10% of radiologists would disagree with majority decisions if they applied guidelines strictly.Agreement was lowest for part-solid nodules, while significant measurement variation exists at important size thresholds. These variations resulted in generally good agreement for guideline-modelled management, but poor agreement for radiologists' actual recommendations.