Risk model-based management for second primary lung cancer among lung cancer survivors through a validated risk prediction model.

BACKGROUND: Recent therapeutic advances and screening technologies have improved survival among patients with lung cancer, who are now at high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). Recently, an SPLC risk-prediction model (called SPLC-RAT) was developed and validated using data from population-based epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials, but real-world validation has been lacking. The predictive performance of SPLC-RAT was evaluated in a hospital-based cohort of lung cancer survivors. METHODS: The authors analyzed data from 8448 ever-smoking patients diagnosed with initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) in 1997-2006 at Mayo Clinic, with each patient followed for SPLC through 2018. The predictive performance of SPLC-RAT and further explored the potential of improving SPLC detection through risk model-based surveillance using SPLC-RAT versus existing clinical surveillance guidelines. RESULTS: Of 8448 IPLC patients, 483 (5.7%) developed SPLC over 26,470 person-years. The application of SPLC-RAT showed high discrimination area under the receiver operating characteristics curve: 0.81). When the cohort was stratified by a 10-year risk threshold of ≥5.6% (i.e., 80th percentile from the SPLC-RAT development cohort), the observed SPLC incidence was significantly elevated in the high-risk versus low-risk subgroup (13.1% vs. 1.1%, p < 1 × 10-6 ). The risk-based surveillance through SPLC-RAT (≥5.6% threshold) outperformed the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines with higher sensitivity (86.4% vs. 79.4%) and specificity (38.9% vs. 30.4%) and required 20% fewer computed tomography follow-ups needed to detect one SPLC (162 vs. 202). CONCLUSION: In a large, hospital-based cohort, the authors validated the predictive performance of SPLC-RAT in identifying high-risk survivors of SPLC and showed its potential to improve SPLC detection through risk-based surveillance. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Lung cancer survivors have a high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). However, no evidence-based guidelines for SPLC surveillance are available for lung cancer survivors. Recently, an SPLC risk-prediction model was developed and validated using data from population-based epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials, but real-world validation has been lacking. Using a large, real-world cohort of lung cancer survivors, we showed the high predictive accuracy and risk-stratification ability of the SPLC risk-prediction model. Furthermore, we demonstrated the potential to enhance efficiency in detecting SPLC using risk model-based surveillance strategies compared to the existing consensus-based clinical guidelines, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Complications of Outpatient Chest Tube Management for Prolonged Air Leaks After Pulmonary Surgery.

PURPOSE: Air leaks are common after pulmonary surgery. Prolonged air leaks (PALs) may persist through discharge and often are managed with one-way valve devices (OWD). We sought to determine the course and complications of patients discharged with OWDs, risk factors for complications, and to evaluate the utility of clamp trials before chest tube (CT) removal. METHODS: Single-institution, retrospective review of patients discharged with a OWD after pulmonary surgery between 2008 and 2022. Charts were examined for the presence of complications and CT duration. Differences in CT duration were compared by using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULT: Sixty-four of 1917 (3.3%) pulmonary surgeries resulted in OWD use. Twelve of 64 (19%) patients discharged with a OWD suffered a complication. Nine of 64 (14%) had a CT-related readmission, and seven of 64 (11%) required PAL intervention. Patients sustaining a complication demonstrated longer CT durations before complication compared with duration in patients without complications, with median days of 13 [IQR 6-21] vs. 7 [IQR 6-12], p = 0.04). Five (7.8%) OWD patients developed an empyema; only one (20%) occurred before a CT duration of 14 days. Sixteen of 64 (25%) patients underwent a clamp trial before CT removal. One of ten (10%) failed even with no air leak present, whereas one of six (17%) failed with a present/questionable air leak. CONCLUSIONS: One-way valve device use has a substantial complication rate, and chest tube duration is a risk factor. In-hospital interventions might benefit patients with larger leaks that likely require prolonged OWD use. Because clamp trials occasionally fail, we contend that a clamp trial is the safest course before CT removal.

Combined Breast and Lung Cancer Screening Among Dual-Eligible Women: A Descriptive Study.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is consistently the leading cause of cancer death among women in the United States, yet lung cancer screening (LCS) rates remain low. By contrast, screening mammography rates are reliably high, suggesting that screening mammography can be a "teachable moment" to increase LCS uptake among dual-eligible women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective survey study conducted at two academic institutions. Patients undergoing screening mammography were evaluated for LCS eligibility and offered enrollment in a pilot dual-cancer screening program. A series of surveys was administered to characterize participants' knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes about LCS before and after undergoing dual screening. Data were descriptively summarized. RESULTS: Between August 2022 and July 2023, 54 LCS-eligible patients were enrolled. The study cohort was 100% female and predominantly White (81%), with a median age of 57 y and median of 36 pack-y of smoking. Survey results showed that 98% felt they were at risk for lung cancer, with most (80%) motivated by early detection of potential cancer. Regarding screening barriers, 58% of patients lacked knowledge about LCS eligibility and 47% reported concerns about screening cost. Prior to undergoing LCS, 87% of patients expressed interest in combined breast and lung screening. Encouragingly, after LCS, 84% were likely or very likely to undergo dual screening again and 93% found the shared decision-making visit helpful or very helpful. CONCLUSIONS: Pairing breast and LCS is a feasible, acceptable intervention that, along with increasing patient and provider education about LCS, can increase LCS uptake and reduce lung cancer mortality.

Impact of Delaying Surgery After Chemoradiation on Outcomes for Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Performing selective esophagectomy for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma may spare patients morbidity, but delayed surgery may infer higher risks. This study evaluated the impact of length of time between chemoradiation and esophagectomy on perioperative outcomes and long-term survival. METHODS: The impact of surgical timing, stratified by surgery performed < 180 and ≥ 180 days from starting radiation, on perioperative outcomes and survival in patients treated with chemoradiation and esophagectomy for cT1N + M0 and cT2-4, any N, M0 squamous cell carcinoma of the mid-distal esophagus in the National Cancer Database (2006-2016) was evaluated with logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox proportional-hazards methods, and propensity-matched analysis. RESULTS: Median time between starting radiation and esophagectomy in 1641 patients was 93 (IQR 81-114) days. Most patients (96.8%, n = 1589) had surgery within 180 days of starting radiation, while 52 patients (3.2%) had delayed surgery. Black race and clinical T stage were associated with delayed surgery. Rates of pathologic upstaging, downstaging, complete response, and positive margins were not significantly different between the groups. Patients with delayed surgery had increased major morbidity as measured by a composite of length of hospital stay, readmission, and 30-day mortality [42.3% (22/52) vs 22.3% (355/1589), p = 0.001]. However, delayed surgery was not associated with a significant difference in survival in both univariate [5-year survival 32.8% (95% CI 21.1-50.7) vs 47.3% (44.7-50.1), p = 0.19] and multivariable analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 1.23 (0.85-1.78), p = 0.26]. CONCLUSIONS: Delaying surgery longer than 180 days after starting chemoradiation for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is associated with worse perioperative outcomes but not long-term survival.

Characterization of Epidural Analgesia Interruption and Associated Outcomes After Esophagectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Interruption of thoracic epidural analgesia may impact the postoperative course following esophagectomy. This study investigates the incidence and causes of epidural interruption in esophagectomy patients along with associated postoperative outcomes. METHODS: This single-institution retrospective analysis examined patients undergoing esophagectomy who received a thoracic epidural catheter from 2016 to 2020. Patients were stratified according to whether epidural catheter infusion was interrupted or not postoperatively. Outcomes were compared between the two groups, and predictors of epidural interruption and postoperative complications were estimated using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 168 patients who received a thoracic epidural before esophagectomy, 60 (35.7%) required epidural interruption and 108 (64.3%) did not. Interruption commonly occurred on postoperative day 1 and was due to hypotension 80% of the time. Heart failure (10.0% versus 0.9%, P = 0.009), atrial fibrillation (20.0% versus 3.7%, P = 0.002), preoperative opioid use (30.0% versus 16.7%, P = 0.043), and higher American Society of Anesthesiology classification (88.4% versus 70.4%, P = 0.008) were more prevalent in the epidural interruption cohort. The female gender was associated with epidural interruption on multivariable logistic regression (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.45, P = 0.039). Patients in the epidural interruption cohort had a higher incidence of delirium (30.5% versus 13.9%, P = 0.010), sepsis (13.6% versus 3.7%, P = 0.028), and severe anastomotic leak (18.3% versus 7.4%, P = 0.032). On adjusted analysis, heart disease (AOR 4.26, P = 0.027), BMI <18.5 (AOR 9.83, P = 0.031), and epidural interruption due to hypotension (AOR 3.51, P = 0.037) were associated with severe anastomotic leak. CONCLUSIONS: Early epidural interruption secondary to hypotension in esophagectomy patients may be a harbinger of postoperative complications such as sepsis and severe anastomotic leak. Patients requiring epidural interruption due to hypotension should have a low threshold for additional workup and early intervention.

Perioperative Outcomes After Combined Esophagectomy and Lung Resection.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of concomitant lung resection during esophagectomy on short-term outcomes is not well characterized. This study tests the hypothesis that lung resection at the time of esophagectomy is not associated with increased perioperative morbidity or mortality. METHODS: Perioperative outcomes for esophageal cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy alone (EA) were compared to patients who had concurrent esophagectomy and lung resection (EL) using the NSQIP database between 2006-2017. Predictors of morbidity and mortality, including combined surgery, were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among the 6,225 study patients, 6,068 (97.5%) underwent EA and 157 (2.5%) underwent EL. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Operating time for EL was longer than EA (median 416 versus 371 minutes, P < 0.01). Median length of stay was 10 d for both groups. Perioperative mortality was not significantly different between EL and EA patients (5.1% versus 2.8%, P = 0.08). EL patients had higher rates of postoperative pneumonia (22.3% versus 16.2%, P = 0.04) and sepsis (11.5% versus 7.1%, P = 0.03), however major complication rates overall were similar (40.8% versus 35.3%, P = 0.16). Combining lung resection with esophagectomy was not independently associated with increased postoperative morbidity (AOR 1.21 [95% CI 0.87-1.69]) or mortality (AOR 1.63 [95% CI 0.74-3.58]). CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent lung resection during esophagectomy is not associated with increased mortality or overall morbidity, but is associated with higher rates of pneumonia beyond esophagectomy alone. Surgeons considering combined lung resection with esophagectomy should carefully evaluate the patient's risk for pulmonary complications and pursue interventions preoperatively to optimize respiratory function.

Cancer diagnoses and survival rise as 65-year-olds become Medicare-eligible.

BACKGROUND: A Medicare effect has been described to account for increased health care utilization occurring at the age of 65 years. The existence of such an effect in cancer care, where it would be most likely to reduce mortality, has been unclear. METHODS: Patients aged 61 to 69 years who were diagnosed with lung, breast, colon, or prostate cancer from 2004 to 2016 were identified with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database and were dichotomized on the basis of eligibility for Medicare (61-64 vs 65-69 years). With age-over-age (AoA) percent change calculations, trends in cancer diagnoses and staging were characterized. After matching, uninsured patients who were 61 to 64 years old (pre-Medicare group) were compared with insured patients who were 65 to 69 years old (post-Medicare group) with respect to cancer-specific mortality. RESULTS: In all, 134,991 patients were identified with lung cancer, 175,558 were identified with breast cancer, 62,721 were identified with colon cancer, and 238,823 were identified with prostate cancer. The AoA growth in the number of cancer diagnoses was highest at the age of 65 years in comparison with all other ages within the decade for all 4 cancers (P < .01, P < .001, P < .01, and P < .001, respectively). In a comparison of diagnoses at the age of 65 years with those in the 61- to 64-year-old cohort, the greatest difference for all 4 cancers was seen in stage I. In matched analyses, the 5-year cancer-specific mortality was worse for lung (86.3% vs 78.5%; P < .001), breast (32.7% vs 11.0%; P < .001), colon (57.1% vs 35.6%; P < .001), and prostate cancer (16.9% vs 4.8%; P < .001) in the uninsured pre-Medicare group than the insured post-Medicare group. CONCLUSIONS: The age threshold of 65 years for Medicare eligibility is associated with more cancer diagnoses (particularly stage I), and this results in lower long-term cancer-specific mortality for all cancers studied. LAY SUMMARY: Contributing to the current debate regarding Medicare for all, this study shows that the expansion of Medicare would improve cancer outcomes for the near elderly.

Strong for Surgery: Association Between Bundled Risk Factors and Outcomes After Major Elective Surgery in the VA Population.

BACKGROUND: Strong for Surgery (S4S) is a public health campaign focused on optimizing patient health prior to surgery by identifying evidence-based modifiable risk factors. The potential impact of S4S bundled risk factors on outcomes after major surgery has not been previously studied. This study tested the hypothesis that a higher number of S4S risk factors is associated with an escalating risk of complications and mortality after major elective surgery in the VA population. METHODS: The Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) database was queried for patients who underwent major non-emergent general, thoracic, vascular, urologic, and orthopedic surgeries between the years 2008 and 2015. Patients with complete data pertaining to S4S risk factors, specifically preoperative smoking status, HbA1c level, and serum albumin level, were stratified by number of positive risk factors, and perioperative outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A total of 31,285 patients comprised the study group, with 16,630 (53.2%) patients having no S4S risk factors (S4S0), 12,323 (39.4%) having one (S4S1), 2,186 (7.0%) having two (S4S2), and 146 (0.5%) having three (S4S3). In the S4S1 group, 60.3% were actively smoking, 35.2% had HbA1c > 7, and 4.4% had serum albumin < 3. In the S4S2 group, 87.8% were smokers, 84.8% had HbA1c > 7, and 27.4% had albumin < 3. Major complications, reoperations, length of stay, and 30-day mortality increased progressively from S4S0 to S4S3 groups. S4S3 had the greatest adjusted mortality risk (adjusted odds radio [AOR] 2.56, p = 0.04) followed by S4S2 (AOR 1.58, p = 0.02) and S4S1 (AOR 1.34, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: In the VA population, patients who had all three S4S risk factors, namely active smoking, suboptimal nutritional status, and poor glycemic control, had the greatest risk of postoperative mortality compared to patients with fewer S4S risk factors.

Imaging surveillance and survival for surgically resected non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The importance of imaging surveillance after treatment for lung cancer is not well characterized. We examined the association between initial guideline recommended imaging surveillance and survival among early-stage resected non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data (1995-2010). Surgically resected patients, with stage I and II NSCLC, were categorized by imaging received during the initial surveillance period (4-8 mo) after surgery. Primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary treatment interventions were examined as intermediary outcomes. RESULTS: Most (88%) patients had at least one outpatient clinic visit, and 24% received an initial computerized tomography (CT) during the first surveillance period. Five-year survival by initial surveillance imaging was 61% for CT, 58% for chest radiography, and 60% for no imaging. After adjustment, initial CT was not associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-1.14). On subgroup analysis, restricted to patients with demonstrated initial postoperative follow-up, CT was associated with a lower overall risk of death for stage I patients (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.98), but not for stage II (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.71-1.42). There was no significant difference in rates of secondary interventions predicted by type of initial imaging surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Initial surveillance CT is not associated with improved overall or lung cancer-specific survival among early-stage NSCLC patients undergoing surgical resection. Stage I patients with early follow-up may represent a subpopulation that benefits from initial surveillance although this may be influenced by healthy patient selection bias.

Management of centrally located non-small-cell carcinoma.

Treatment optimization for centrally located lung cancers requires special considerations for determining resectability and patient selection. Evaluation involves an experienced multidisciplinary team performing careful clinical and invasive-disease staging to identify the best management approach and ascertain the need for multimodality therapy. Preoperative imaging alone is often inaccurate in its ability to determine whether the patient is at an advanced clinical T stage that might preclude curative surgical resection. Therefore, other modalities are often necessary to complete the clinical staging. In the absence of irrefutable evidence of unresectability, however, surgical exploration should be undertaken with curative intent. Long-term outcomes can be favorable in select patients, and most of the procedures, including complex reconstructions, can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality.

Randomized controlled trials in lung cancer surgery: How are we doing?

Objective: Randomized control trials are considered the highest level of evidence, yet the scalability and practicality of implementing randomized control trials in the thoracic surgical oncology space are not well described. The aim of this study is to understand what types of randomized control trials have been conducted in thoracic surgical oncology and ascertain their success rate in completing them as originally planned. Methods: The ClinicalTrials.gov database was queried in April 2023 to identify registered randomized control trials performed in patients with lung cancer who underwent surgery (by any technique) as part of their treatment. Results: There were 68 eligible randomized control trials; 33 (48.5%) were intended to examine different perioperative patient management strategies (eg, analgesia, ventilation, drainage) or to examine different intraoperative technical aspects (eg, stapling, number of ports, port placement, ligation). The number of randomized control trials was relatively stable over time until a large increase in randomized control trials starting in 2016. Forty-four of the randomized control trials (64.7%) were open-label studies, 43 (63.2%) were conducted in a single facility, 66 (97.1%) had 2 arms, and the mean number of patients enrolled per randomized control trial was 236 (SD, 187). Of 21 completed randomized control trials (31%), the average time to complete accrual was 1605 days (4.4 years) and average time to complete primary/secondary outcomes and adverse events collection was 2125 days (5.82 years). Conclusions: Given the immense investment of resources that randomized control trials require, these findings suggest the need to scrutinize future randomized control trial proposals to assess the likelihood of successful completion. Future study is needed to understand the various contributing factors to randomized control trial success or failure.

Clinical impact of EGFR and KRAS mutations in surgically treated unifocal and multifocal lung adenocarcinoma.

Background: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) are the two most common oncogenic drivers in lung adenocarcinoma, and their roles still need further exploration. Here we aimed to compare the clinical impact of EGFR and KRAS mutations on disease progression in resected unifocal and multifocal lung adenocarcinoma. Methods: Clinicopathologic and genomic data were collected for patients who underwent resection of lung adenocarcinoma from 2008 to 2022 at Stanford University Hospital. Retrospective review was performed in 241 patients whose tumors harbored EGFR (n=150, 62.2%) or KRAS (n=91, 37.8%) mutations. Clinical outcome was analyzed with special attention to the natural history of secondary nodules in multifocal cases wherein the dominant tumor had been resected. Results: We confirm that compared with EGFR mutations, patients with KRAS mutations had more smokers, larger tumor size, higher TNM stage, higher positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) standard uptake value max, higher tumor mutation burden, and worse disease-free survival and overall survival on univariate analysis. For patients with multifocal pulmonary nodules, the median follow-up of unresected secondary nodules was 55 months. Secondary nodule progression-free survival (SNPFS) was significantly worse for patients with KRAS mutations than those with EGFR mutations (mean 40.3±6.6 vs. 67.7±6.5 months, P=0.004). Univariate analysis showed tumor size, tumor morphology, pathologic TNM stage, and KRAS mutations were significantly associated with SNPFS, while multivariate analysis showed only KRAS mutations were independently associated with worse SNPFS (hazard ratio 1.752, 95% confidence interval: 1.017-3.018, P=0.043). Conclusions: Resected lung adenocarcinomas with KRAS mutations have more aggressive clinicopathological features and confer worse prognosis than those with EGFR mutations. Secondary pulmonary nodules in multifocal cases with dominant KRAS-mutant tumors have more rapid progression of the secondary nodules.

Impacts of Positive Margins and Surgical Extent on Outcomes After Early-Stage Lung Cancer Resection.

BACKGROUND: Sublobar resection of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is increasingly considered appropriate but may compromise margins compared with lobectomy. This study evaluated resection extent, margin status, and survival in patients with clinical stage I NSCLC. METHODS: Patients with clinical T1-2 N0 M0 NSCLC in the National Cancer Database (2006-2020) who were treated with primary surgery were compared stratified by margin status. The potential benefit of radiation was explored in subgroup analysis of patients who underwent sublobar resection with positive margins. RESULTS: Positive margins occurred in 5089 (2.8%) of 181,824 patients and were more common in sublobar resections compared with lobectomy (4.3% vs 2.4%; P < .001). Sublobar resection had the strongest association with positive margins in multivariable analysis (odds ratio, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.91-2.23; P < .001). Patients with positive margins were more likely to undergo both adjuvant chemotherapy (16% vs 13%; P < .001) and radiation (17% vs 1%; P < .001) but had worse survival in univariate analysis (44.0% 5-year overall survival vs 69.2%; P < .001) and multivariable Cox analysis (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.63-1.78; P < .001) in the entire cohort, as well as in a univariate subset analysis of lobectomy (46.9% vs 70.4%; P < .001) and sublobar resection (37.5% vs 64.1%; P < .001). Postoperative radiation for patients who underwent sublobar resection with positive margins did not improve 5-year overall survival (36.3% for irradiated patients vs 38.3% for nonirradiated patients; P = .57), and patients who underwent sublobar resection with positive margins who were treated with radiation had survival inferior to that of patients who underwent lobectomy with negative margins. CONCLUSIONS: Positive margins occur more frequently after sublobar resection of clinical stage I NSCLC compared with lobectomy. Patients with positive margins have worse survival than patients who undergo complete resection and are not rescued by postoperative radiation.

Lepidic-Type Lung Adenocarcinomas: Is It Safe to Observe for Growth Before Treating?

BACKGROUND: Lepidic-type adenocarcinomas (LPAs) can be multifocal, and treatment is often deferred until growth is observed. This study investigated the potential downside of that strategy by evaluating the relationship of nodal involvement with tumor size and survival. METHODS: The impact of tumor size on lymph node involvement and survival was evaluated for National Cancer Database patients who underwent surgery without induction therapy as primary treatment for cT1-3 N0 M0 histologically confirmed LPA from 2006 to 2019 by using logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox analyses. RESULTS: Positive nodes occurred in 442 of 8286 patients (5.3%). The incidence of having positive nodes approximately doubled with each 1-cm increment increase in size. Patients with positive nodes were more likely to have larger tumors (27 mm vs 20 mm, P < .001) and clinical ≥T2 disease (40.7% vs 26.8%, P < .001) compared with node-negative patients. However, tumor size was the only significant independent predictor of having positive nodal disease in logistic regression analysis, and this association grew stronger with each incremental centimeter increase in size. Patients with positive nodes were more likely to undergo adjuvant radiotherapy (23.5% vs 1.1%, P < .001) and chemotherapy (72.9% vs 7.9%, P < .001), and expectedly, had worse survival compared with the node-negative group in univariate (5-year overall survival, 50.9% vs 81.1%, P < .001) and multivariable (hazard ratio, 2.56; 95% CI, 2.14-3.05; P < .001) analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Nodal involvement is relatively uncommon in early-stage LPAs but steadily increases with tumor size and is associated with dramatically worse survival. These data can be used to inform treatment decisions when evaluating LPA patients.

The Impact of Immunotherapy Use in Stage IIIA (T1-2N2) NSCLC: A Nationwide Analysis.

Introduction: Multiple clinical trials have revealed the benefit of immunotherapy (IO) for NSCLC, including unresectable stage III disease. Our aim was to investigate the impact of IO use on treatment and outcomes of potentially resectable stage IIIA NSCLC in a broader nationwide patient cohort. Methods: We queried the National Cancer Database (2004-2019) for patients with stage IIIA (T1-2N2) NSCLC. Treatment and survival were evaluated with descriptive statistics, logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards modeling. Results: Overall, 5.5% (3777 of 68,335) of patients received IO. IO use was uncommon until 2017, but by 2019, it was given to 40.1% (1544 of 2308) of stage IIIA patients. The increased use of IO after 2017 was associated with increased definitive chemoradiation treatment (54.2% [6800 of 12,535] from years 2017 to 2019 versus 46.9% [26,251 of 55,914] from 2004 to 2016, p < 0.001) and less use of surgery (18.1% [2266 of 12,535] from years 2017 to 2019 versus 22.0% [12,300 of 55,914] from 2004 to 2016, p < 0.001). IO treatment was associated with significantly better 5-year survival in the entire cohort (36.9% versus 23.4%, p < 0.001) and the subsets of patients treated with chemoradiation (37.2% versus 22.7%, p < 0.001) and surgery (48.6% versus 44.3%, p < 0.001). Pneumonectomy use decreased with increased IO treatment (5.1% of surgical patients [116 of 2266] from years 2017 to 2019 versus 9.2% [1127 of 12,300] from 2004 to 2016, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Increased use of IO was associated with a change in treatment patterns and improved survival for patients with stage IIIA(N2) NSCLC.

What Is an Adequate Margin During Sublobar Resection of ≤3 cm N0 Subsolid Lung Adenocarcinomas?

BACKGROUND: Sublobar resection offers noninferior survival vs lobectomy for ≤2 cm non-small cell lung cancer and is commonly used for subsolid tumors. Although data exist for solid tumors, the minimum adequate margin of resection for subsolid adenocarcinomas remains unclear. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of 1101 adenocarcinoma resections at our institution from 2006 to 2022. Inclusion criteria were tumors ≤3 cm with ≥10% radiographic ground glass, excised by sublobar resection. Exclusions were positive nodes or positive or unreported margin. The primary outcome was the rate of local recurrence (LR) at multiple thresholds of margin distance. The relationship between margin distance and solid component size was also explored. RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were met by 194 patients. Median (interquartile range) tumor diameter and margin distance were 12 mm (9-17 mm) and 10 mm (5-17 mm), respectively. Median follow-up was 42.5 months. There was a progressive increase in LR with diminishing margin (0.1-cm decrements) from 1.5 cm to 0.5 cm. The difference in the rate of LR between "over" (n = 143) and "under" (n = 51) was most significant at 0.5 cm (8 of 51 [15.7%] vs 6 of 143 [4.2%]; P = .01) but did not reach α adjusted for multiple comparisons. On Cox regression for LR-free survival, margin ≤0.5 cm (P = .19) and solid component percentage (P = .14) trended to significance. Combining these using a ratio of margin distance-to-solid component size, a ratio of ≤1 showed a significantly higher rate of LR (7 [14.3%] vs 2 [2.0%], P = .009). Treatment of LRs provided at least intermediate-term survival in 87% of recurrences (median postrecurrence follow-up was 44 months). CONCLUSIONS: During sublobar resection of subsolid lung adenocarcinomas, a margin distance-to-solid component size ratio of >1.0 appears to be a more reliable factor than margin distance alone to minimize local recurrence. Local recurrence, however, may not impact survival in patients with subsolid adenocarcinomas if timely treatment is administered.

Harnessing Opportunity: Pilot Intervention to Improve Lung Cancer Screening for Women Undergoing Breast Screening Mammography.

Introduction: The screening mammogram could be a "teachable moment" to improve lung cancer screening (LCS) uptake. The aim of our project was to combine patient self-referral with eligibility identification by providers as a two-pronged approach to increase rates of LCS among eligible women. Methods: LCS education materials were created to stimulate patient education and encourage self-referral. Chart review of patients scheduled for screening mammography was performed to identify patients who met LCS criteria. The primary outcome was rate of acceptance of targeted interventions as measured by qualitative survey material and rate of LCS uptake. Results: Between August 2022 and August 2023, 116 patients were identified by providers for potential eligibility for LCS and 34 patients (29.3%) deemed eligible based on the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force 2021 guidelines. There were 19 patients (56%) who completed LCS with three patients (16%) with screen-detected nodules that led to further workup. Post-implementation qualitative survey results reveal that 100% of the participants rated their shared decision-making visit experience as "very helpful" and 67% responded "very likely" to seek simultaneous breast and LCS in the future. Informational materials were rated as 80% favorable among all respondents; however, the rate of self-referral alone was 0%. The combined rates of eligible patients lost to follow-up or refusal was 24%. Conclusion: The self-referral aspect of the intervention revealed that patients are unlikely to self-refer for LCS. Nevertheless, patients undergoing screening mammograms individually identified for LCS were very responsive to learning more about dual screening.

Barriers to Completing Low Dose Computed Tomography Scan for Lung Cancer Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality in high-risk individuals by detecting the disease at an earlier stage. This study aims to assess the barriers to completing LDCT in a cohort of patients who were determined eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS). METHODS: We performed a single institution, mixed methods, cross-sectional study of patients who had a LDCT ordered from July to December 2022. We then completed phone surveys with patients who did not complete LDCT to assess knowledge, attitude, and perceptions toward LCS. RESULTS: We identified 380 patients who met inclusion criteria, including 331 (87%) who completed LDCT and 49 (13%) who did not. Patients who completed a LDCT and those who did not were similar regarding age, sex, race, primary language, household income, body mass index, median pack years, and quit time. Positive predictors of LDCT completion were: meeting USPSTF guidelines (97.9% vs 81.6%), being married (58.3% vs 44.9%), former versus current smokers (55% vs 41.7%), personal history of emphysema (60.4% vs 42.9%), and family history of lung cancer (13.9% vs 4.1%) (all P < .05). Of the patients who participated in the phone survey, only 7% of respondents thought they were high risk for developing lung cancer despite attending a shared decision-making visit and only 10% wanted to re-schedule their LDCT. CONCLUSION: There exist barriers to completing LDCT even after patients are identified as eligible and complete a shared decision-making visit secondary to knowledge barriers, misperceptions, and patient disinterest.