Ultralow-Dose Dynamic Expiratory CT and Repeated Imaging Enhance Evaluation for Tracheomalacia.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine if a novel imaging protocol (ultralow-dose dynamic expiratory computed tomography [CT] with repeated imaging) identifies tracheomalacia (TM) more reliably than traditional dynamic tracheal CT. METHODS: We performed a retrospective evaluation of 184 consecutive ultralow-dose dynamic CTs for TM during 2017. The protocol obtains images during 1 inspiration and 2 forced expirations. Tracheal narrowing during both expirations (airway narrowing [percentage] during first dynamic expiration CT [DE1], airway narrowing [percentage] during second dynamic expiration CT [DE2]) was reported as a percentage of inspiratory area. We identified maximum narrowing of each patient's sequence (maximum narrowing [percentage] on either dynamic expiration CT [DEmax] = greatest narrowing of DE1 or DE2) and compared DE1, DE2, and DEmax in individual studies and between patients. Outcomes included frequency of TM, tracheal narrowing, and severity. Reliability was assessed by comparing tracheal area narrowing and TM grade. RESULTS: There was significantly more airway narrowing using 2 expiratory image acquisitions. Average DEmax tracheal area was 12% narrower than DE1 alone and 21% worse than DE2 alone (both P < 0.001). Using DEmax, TM was diagnosed 35% more often than DE1 alone and 31% more often than DE2 alone ( P < 0.001). DEmax identified more severe distribution of TM compared with DE1 or DE2 alone ( P < 0.001). Reliability between DE1 and DE2 was good for tracheal narrowing and moderate for TM grade. The mean effective radiation dose was 2.41 millisievert (mSv) for routine inspiration CT and 0.07 mSv for each dynamic expiration CT (total effective radiation, 2.55 mSv). CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic expiration CT with 2 expiratory image acquisitions enhanced evaluation of TM, minimally increased radiation dose, and should be considered as a noninvasive screening option.

Cancer-related Fatigue in Lung Cancer: A Research Agenda: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Background: Fatigue is the most common symptom among cancer survivors. Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) may occur at any point in the cancer care continuum. Multiple factors contribute to CRF development and severity, including cancer type, treatments, presence of other symptoms, comorbidities, and medication side effects. Clinically, increasing physical activity, enhancing sleep quality, and recognizing sleep disorders are integral to managing CRF. Unfortunately, CRF is infrequently recognized, evaluated, or treated in lung cancer survivors despite more frequent and severe symptoms than in other cancers. Therefore, increased awareness and understanding of CRF are needed to improve health-related quality of life in lung cancer survivors. Objectives: 1) To identify and prioritize knowledge and research gaps and 2) to develop and prioritize research questions to evaluate mechanistic, diagnostic, and therapeutic approaches to CRF among lung cancer survivors. Methods: We convened a multidisciplinary panel to review the available literature on CRF, focusing on the impacts of physical activity, rehabilitation, and sleep disturbances in lung cancer. We used a three-round modified Delphi process to prioritize research questions. Results: This statement identifies knowledge gaps in the 1) detection and diagnostic evaluation of CRF in lung cancer survivors; 2) timing, goals, and implementation of physical activity and rehabilitation; and 3) evaluation and treatment of sleep disturbances and disorders to reduce CRF. Finally, we present the panel's initial 32 research questions and seven final prioritized questions. Conclusions: This statement offers a prioritized research agenda to 1) advance clinical and research efforts and 2) increase awareness of CRF in lung cancer survivors.

Characteristics Associated with Spirometry Guideline Adherence in VA Patients Hospitalized with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND: The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommends at least annual spirometry for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Since spirometry acquisition is variable in clinical practice, identifying characteristics associated with annual spirometry may inform strategies to improve care for patients with COPD. METHODS: We included veterans hospitalized for COPD at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities from 10/2012 to 09/2015. Our primary outcome was spirometry within 1 year of COPD hospitalization. Patient demographics, health factors, and comorbidities as well as practice and geographic variables were identified using Corporate Data Warehouse; provider characteristics were obtained from the Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients. We used logistic regression with a random intercept to account for potential clustering within facilities. RESULTS: Spirometry was completed 1 year before or after hospitalization for 20,683/38,148 (54.2%) veterans across 114 facilities. Patients with spirometry were younger, (mean=67.2 years (standard deviation (SD)=9.3) vs. 69.4 (10.3)), more likely non-white (21.3% vs. 19.7%), and more likely to have comorbidities (p<0.0001 for asthma, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder). Pulmonary clinic visit was most strongly associated with spirometry (odds ratio (OR)=3.14 [95% confidence interval 2.99-3.30]). There was no association for facility complexity. In a secondary analysis including provider-level data (3862 patients), results were largely unchanged. There was no association between primary care provider age, gender, or type (physician vs. advanced practice registered nurse vs. physician assistant) and spirometry. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of high-risk COPD patients, just over half completed spirometry within 1 year of hospitalization. Pulmonary clinic visit was most strongly associated with 1-year spirometry, though provider variables were not. Spirometry completion for high-risk COPD patients remains suboptimal and strategies to improve post-hospitalization care for patients not seen in pulmonary clinic should be developed to ensure guideline concordant care.

"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 ).

Underutilization of Pulmonary Function Testing in Veterans Hospitalized for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbation: Who are We Missing?

Pulmonary function testing (PFT) is required to diagnose chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but is completed for only 30-50% of patients with the disease. We determined patient factors associated with decreased likelihood for PFT acquisition (i.e. underutilization) in the United States Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system.We performed a retrospective analysis of Veterans who survived a VA-based COPD hospitalization between 2012 and 2015. COPD was identified using International Classification of Disease (ICD)-9 codes. Our primary outcome was PFT acquisition, using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes any time prior to the index hospitalization. We compared patients with and without PFTs and used logistic regression to identify associations with PFT underutilization.Of the 48,888 Veterans included, 78% underwent PFTs prior to hospitalization. Patients without PFTs were younger and more likely to be: women (4.2% vs. 3.6%; p = 0.01), nonwhite (22% vs. 19%; p < 0.0001), and current smokers (66% vs 61%; p < 0.0001). PFT acquisition was less likely in Veterans with alcohol and drug use disorders. Using logistic regression, Veterans who were women (Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.17 [95% confidence limit 1.03-1.32]), nonwhite (OR 1.12 [1.06-1.20]), and with a history of alcohol (OR = 1.07 [1.00-1.14]) or drug use disorders (OR = 1.15 [1.06-1.24]) were less likely to undergo PFTs.Though most Veterans hospitalized for COPD had PFTs prior to admission, PFTs are underutilized in Veterans who are: women, younger, nonwhite, and have alcohol or drug use disorders. These groups may be "at-risk" for delayed diagnosis or substandard COPD quality care.

Assessing the Generalizability of the National Lung Screening Trial: Comparison of Patients with Stage 1 Disease.

RATIONALE: The findings of the NLST (National Lung Screening Trial) are the basis for screening high-risk individuals according to age and smoking history. Although screening is covered for eligible Medicare beneficiaries, the generalizability of the NLST in the elderly population has been questioned. OBJECTIVES: Compare outcomes of patients diagnosed with stage 1 non-small cell lung cancer in the NLST to a nationally representative cohort of elderly patients Methods: Analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare and NLST datasets for patients with stage 1 disease aged 65 to 74 years. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Lung cancer-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and 30-, 60-, and 90-day treatment mortality were measured. When compared with the NLST group undergoing surgery for stage 1 non-small cell lung cancer, those in the SEER-Medicare NLST eligible cohort had no difference in adjusted odds ratios for 30-, 60-, and 90-day surgical mortality (P values = 0.97, 0.65, and 0.46, respectively). Although the 5-year cancer-specific survival did not differ between cohorts (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84 NLST vs. SEER-Medicare NLST eligible; P = 0.21), the adjusted HR estimate for all-cause mortality was better in the NLST cohort (HR, 0.71; P < 0.01). For patients who did not receive surgery for early-stage disease (presumably for curative intent), the outcomes were far worse (13.1, 18.9, 23.9%, for 30-, 60-, and 90-day treatment mortality, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients with minimal comorbid conditions meeting the inclusion criteria of the NLST who underwent surgery had excellent postoperative outcomes and similar lung cancer-specific 5-year survivorship. In those with significant comorbidities or those not undergoing surgery, competing causes of death may diminish the benefit, and there is no evidence to recommend screening in this group.

Palliative Care in Lung Cancer: A Review.

Lung cancer patients are at high risk of suffering due to severe and refractory symptoms, concomitant respiratory comorbidity, frequent disease progression, and treatment that can worsen and compromise quality of life. Palliative care (PC) has shown multiple benefits to cancer patients such as better quality of life, higher patient and family satisfaction, improved disease understanding, less symptom burden, fewer depressive symptoms, less aggressive end of life care, and even improved survival with early implementation. For these reasons, multiple societies have recognized PC as an essential component of lung cancer care, and early PC is recommended for patients with metastatic disease or refractory symptoms. Unfortunately, utilization of PC is both low and often near the end of life, increasing risk for suffering. Misconceptions about PC often underlie delayed referral to PC. This review summarizes the literature for utilization of PC in lung cancer and focuses on patient benefits, misconceptions, barriers, and implementation.

Evaluating the accuracy of lung-RADS score extraction from radiology reports: Manual entry versus natural language processing.

INTRODUCTION: Radiology scoring systems are critical to the success of lung cancer screening (LCS) programs, impacting patient care, adherence to follow-up, data management and reporting, and program evaluation. LungCT ScreeningReporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) is a structured radiology scoring system that provides recommendations for LCS follow-up that are utilized (a) in clinical care and (b) by LCS programs monitoring rates of adherence to follow-up. Thus, accurate reporting and reliable collection of Lung-RADS scores are fundamental components of LCS program evaluation and improvement. Unfortunately, due to variability in radiology reports, extraction of Lung-RADS scores is non-trivial, and best practices do not exist. The purpose of this project is to compare mechanisms to extract Lung-RADS scores from free-text radiology reports. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed reports of LCS low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) examinations performed at a multihospital integrated healthcare network in New York State between January 2016 and July 2023. We compared three methods of Lung-RADS score extraction: manual physician entry at time of report creation, manual LCS specialist entry after report creation, and an internally developed, rule-based natural language processing (NLP) algorithm. Accuracy, recall, precision, and completeness (i.e., the proportion of LCS exams to which a Lung-RADS score has been assigned) were compared between the three methods. RESULTS: The dataset includes 24,060 LCS examinations on 14,243 unique patients. The mean patient age was 65 years, and most patients were male (54 %) and white (75 %). Completeness rate was 65 %, 68 %, and 99 % for radiologists' manual entry, LCS specialists' entry, and NLP algorithm, respectively. Accuracy, recall, and precision were high across all extraction methods (>94 %), though the NLP-based approach was consistently higher than both manual entries in all metrics. DISCUSSION: An NLP-based method of LCS score determination is an efficient and more accurate means of extracting Lung-RADS scores than manual review and data entry. NLP-based methods should be considered best practice for extracting structured Lung-RADS scores from free-text radiology reports.

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.

Qualitative interviews for hospitalists addressing lung cancer screening.

Novel strategies are needed to improve low rates of lung cancer screening (LCS) in the US. Seeking to determine hospitalists' perspectives on leveraging hospitalizations to identify patients eligible for LCS, we performed qualitative interviews with eight hospitalists from two hospitals within a large integrated healthcare system. The interviews used semi-structured questions to assess (1) knowledge and practice of general screening and LCS guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), (2) identification of smoking history, and (3) hospitalists' views on how data obtained during hospitalization may be utilized to improve general screening and LCS post hospitalization. We ultimately reached the conclusion that hospitalists would support a dedicated program to identify hospitalized patients eligible for LCS and facilitate testing after discharge. Efforts to identify patients and arrange subsequent screening should be performed by team members outside the inpatient team.

Lung cancer with air lucency: a systematic review and clinical management guide.

Background: Lung cancers with air lucency are poorly understood, often recognized only after substantial progression. Methods: From a systematic review (PubMed and EMBASE, 2000-2022, terms related to cystic, cavitary, bulla, pseudocavitary, bubble-like, date 10-30-2022) 49 studies were selected using broad inclusion criteria (case series of ≥10 cases up to trials and reviews). There was no source of funding. Primary evidence relevant to clinical management issues was assembled. Because data was available only from heterogeneous retrospective case series, meta-analysis and formal risk-of-bias assessment was omitted. A framework was developed to guide clinical management based on the available data. Results: Demographic, smoking and histologic differences suggest that cystic, cavitary and bullous lung cancers with air lucency may be distinct entities; insufficient data leaves it unclear whether this also applies to pseudocavitary (solid) or bubble-like (ground glass) cancers. Annual observation of irregular thin-walled cysts is warranted; a surgical diagnosis (and resection) is justified once a solid component appears because subsequent progression is often rapid with markedly worse outcomes. Bubble-like ground glass lesions should be managed similarly. Cavitary lesions must be distinguished from infection or vasculitis, but generally require needle or surgical biopsy. Pseudocavitary lesions are less well studied; positron emission tomography may be useful in this setting to differentiate scar from malignancy. Further research is needed because these conclusions are based on interpretation of retrospective case series. Conclusions: The aggregate of available evidence suggests a framework for management of suspected lung cancers with air lucency. Greater awareness, earlier detection, and aggressive management once a solid component appears are needed. This review and framework should facilitate further research; questions include whether the suggested entities and proposed management are borne out and should involve clearly defined terms and outcomes related to progression and treatment. In summary, a conceptual understanding is emerging from interpretation of available data about a previously poorly understood topic; this should improve patient outcomes.

Barriers and facilitators to lung cancer screening and follow-up.

Two randomized trials have shown that lung cancer screening (LCS) with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality in patients at high-risk for lung malignancy by identifying early-stage cancers, when local cure and control is achievable. The implementation of LCS in the United States has revealed multiple barriers to preventive cancer care. Rates of LCS are disappointingly low with estimates between 5%-18% of eligible patients screened. Equally concerning, follow-up after baseline screening is far lower than that of clinical trials (44-66% v >90%). To optimize the benefits of LCS, programs must identify and address factors related to LCS participation and follow-up while concurrently recognizing and mitigating barriers. As a relatively new screening test, the most effective processes for LCS are uncertain. Therefore, LCS programs have adopted a wide range of approaches without clearly established best practices to guide them, particularly in rural and resource-limited settings. In this narrative review, we identify barriers and facilitators to LCS, focusing on those studies in non-clinical trial settings - reflecting "real world" challenges. Our goal is to identify effective and scalable LCS practices that will increase LCS participation, improve adherence to follow-up, inform strategies for quality improvement, and support new research approaches.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 1: a guide to decision-making.

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options (lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy, thermal ablation), weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: Based on a systematic review from 2000-2021, evidence regarding relevant outcomes was assembled, with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers. A framework was developed to present this information a format that enhances decision-making at the point of care for individual patients. Results: While patients often cross over several boundaries, the evidence fits into categories of healthy patients, compromised patients, and favorable tumors. In healthy patients with typical (i.e., solid spiculated) lung cancers, the impact on long-term outcomes is the major driver of treatment selection. This is only slightly ameliorated in older patients. In compromised patients increasing frailty accentuates short-term differences and diminishes long-term differences especially when considering non-surgical vs. surgical approaches; nuances of patient selection (technical treatment feasibility, anticipated risk of acute toxicity, delayed toxicity, and long-term outcomes) as well as patient values are increasingly influential. Favorable (less-aggressive) tumors generally have good long-term outcomes regardless of the treatment approach. Discussion: A framework is provided that organizes the evidence and identifies the major drivers of decision-making for an individual patient. This facilitates blending available evidence and clinical judgment in a flexible, nuanced manner that enhances individualized clinical care.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 2: systematic review of evidence regarding resection extent in generally healthy patients.

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options (lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy, thermal ablation), weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after lobectomy, segmentectomy and wedge resection in generally healthy patients is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons with at least some adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved. Results: In healthy patients there is no short-term benefit to sublobar resection vs. lobectomy in randomized and non-randomized comparisons. A detriment in long-term outcomes is demonstrated by adjusted non-randomized comparisons, more marked for wedge than segmentectomy. Quality-of-life data is confounded by the use of video-assisted approaches; evidence suggests the approach has more impact than the resection extent. Differences in pulmonary function tests by resection extent are not clinically meaningful in healthy patients, especially for multi-segmentectomy vs. lobectomy. The margin distance is associated with the risk of recurrence. Conclusions: A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding resection extent in healthy patients with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation on which to build a framework for individualized clinical decision-making.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 3: systematic review of evidence regarding surgery in compromised patients or specific tumors.

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options [lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), thermal ablation], weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after lobectomy, segmentectomy and wedge resection in older patients, patients with limited pulmonary reserve and favorable tumors is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons (NRCs) with adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved. Results: In older patients, perioperative mortality is minimally altered by resection extent and only slightly affected by increasing age; sublobar resection may slightly decrease morbidity. Long-term outcomes are worse after lesser resection; the difference is slightly attenuated with increasing age. Reported short-term outcomes are quite acceptable in (selected) patients with severely limited pulmonary reserve, not clearly altered by resection extent but substantially improved by a minimally invasive approach. Quality-of-life (QOL) and impact on pulmonary function hasn't been well studied, but there appears to be little difference by resection extent in older or compromised patients. Patient selection is paramount but not well defined. Ground-glass and screen-detected tumors exhibit favorable long-term outcomes regardless of resection extent; however solid tumors <1 cm are not a reliably favorable group. Conclusions: A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding resection extent in compromised patients and favorable tumors with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation for a framework for individualized decision-making.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 4: systematic review of evidence involving SBRT and ablation.

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options [lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), thermal ablation], weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after SBRT or thermal ablation vs. resection is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons with at least some adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved. Results: Short-term outcomes are meaningfully better after SBRT than resection. SBRT doesn't affect quality-of-life (QOL), on average pulmonary function is not altered, but a minority of patients may experience gradual late toxicity. Adjusted non-randomized comparisons demonstrate a clinically relevant detriment in long-term outcomes after SBRT vs. surgery. The short-term benefits of SBRT over surgery are accentuated with increasing age and compromised patients, but the long-term detriment remains. Ablation is associated with a higher rate of complications than SBRT, but there is little intermediate-term impact on quality-of-life or pulmonary function tests. Adjusted comparisons show a meaningful detriment in long-term outcomes after ablation vs. surgery; there is less difference between ablation and SBRT. Conclusions: A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy or thermal ablation vs. resection with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation for a framework for individualized decision-making.

Lung Cancer 2020: Epidemiology, Etiology, and Prevention.

Despite advances in our understanding of risk, development, immunologic control, and treatment options for lung cancer, it remains the leading cause of cancer death. Tobacco smoking remains the predominant risk factor for lung cancer development. Nontobacco risk factors include environmental and occupational exposures, chronic lung disease, lung infections, and lifestyle factors. Because tobacco remains the leading risk factor for lung cancer, disease prevention is focused on smoking avoidance and cessation. Other prevention measures include healthy diet choices and maintaining a physically active lifestyle. Future work should focus on smoking cessation campaigns and better understanding disease development and treatment strategies in nonsmokers.

Pulmonary Complications of Immunotherapy.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy represents a paradigm shift in the treatment of patients with locally advanced and metastatic lung cancer. Although immunotherapy generally has a more favorable safety profile when compared with chemotherapy, immune-related adverse events represent important, but incompletely understood, treatment-limiting complications associated with significant morbidity and mortality risk. Current guidelines for diagnosis and management are derived from consensus experience, highlighting that further prospective investigation in this area is needed. As ICI-related pneumonitis is a clinically and radiographically diverse toxidrome, clinical vigilance is important while treating patients with lung cancer.

Sex Differences in Veterans Admitted to the Hospital for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbation.

Rationale: As chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) prevalence in women has outpaced that in men, COPD-related hospitalization and mortality are now higher in women. Presentation, evaluation, and treatment of COPD differ between women and men. Despite higher smoking rates in Veterans, little work has characterized differences in Veterans with COPD by sex. Objectives: To determine risk factors for 30-day readmission among Veterans hospitalized for COPD exacerbations and how they differed by sex. Methods: We performed a retrospective observational analysis of Veterans receiving primary care in Veterans Health Affairs facilities. We included Veterans Administration-based hospitalizations for Veterans with a COPD exacerbation (identified by International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision codes) who survived to discharge between fiscal years 2012 and 2015. Primary outcome was 30-day readmission. Predictors ascertained before hospitalization included smoking status (current, former, never), pulmonary function testing, pulmonary medication prescriptions, and medical and psychiatric comorbidities (identified by International Classification of Disease, ninth revision codes). We created combined and sex-stratified multivariate logistic regression models to identify associations with 30-day readmission. Results: Our sample included 48,888 Veterans (4% women). Compared with men, women Veterans were younger, more likely to be nonwhite, and differed in smoking status. Women were more likely to have asthma, drug use, and several psychiatric comorbidities. Before hospitalization, women were less likely to have pulmonary function testing (76% vs. 78%; P = 0.01) or be treated with antimuscarinic (43% vs. 48%) or combined long-acting bronchodilator/inhaled corticosteroid (61% vs. 64%) inhalers. Women were more likely to receive nicotine-replacement therapy (all P < 0.01). Women had shorter length of stay (median days, 2 vs. 3; P = 0.04) and lower 30-day readmission rate (20% vs. 22%; P = 0.01). In adjusted models including both sexes, age, antimuscarinic use, comorbidities, and diagnosis of drug or alcohol use were associated with readmission; there was no association with sex and readmission risk. In models stratified by sex, associations were similar between women and men. Conclusions: This study suggests differences between women and men hospitalized for COPD regarding presentation, evaluation, and management. Readmission is strongly influenced by comorbidities, suggesting individualized and comprehensive case management may reduce readmission risk for women and men with COPD.

Reviewing Lung Cancer Screening: The Who, Where, When, Why, and How.

Lung cancer screening with annual low-dose computed tomography (CT) decreases lung cancer mortality in high-risk patients, as defined by smoking history (> 30 pack-years) and age (55-74 years). Risks to screening include overdiagnosis, anxiety about indeterminate nodules, and radiation exposure. To be effective, lung cancer screening must combine individualized risk assessment, shared decision-making, smoking cessation, structured reporting, high quality and multi-specialty cancer care, and reliable follow-up; a multidisciplinary approach is crucial. Specialty organizations have outlined both the components of high quality lung cancer screening programs and the proposed metrics that programs should track. Long-term outcomes of lung cancer screening in the general population, further refinement of who to screen, and use of biomarkers for early cancer detection are ongoing research questions.