Acquiring tissue for advanced lung cancer diagnosis and comprehensive biomarker testing: A National Lung Cancer Roundtable best-practice guide.

Advances in biomarker-driven therapies for patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) both provide opportunities to improve the treatment (and thus outcomes) for patients and pose new challenges for equitable care delivery. Over the last decade, the continuing development of new biomarker-driven therapies and evolving indications for their use have intensified the importance of interdisciplinary communication and coordination for patients with or suspected to have lung cancer. Multidisciplinary teams are challenged with completing comprehensive and timely biomarker testing and navigating the constantly evolving evidence base for a complex and time-sensitive disease. This guide provides context for the current state of comprehensive biomarker testing for NSCLC, reviews how biomarker testing integrates within the diagnostic continuum for patients, and illustrates best practices and common pitfalls that influence the success and timeliness of biomarker testing using a series of case scenarios.

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.

Premalignant Progression in the Lung: Knowledge Gaps and Novel Opportunities for Interception of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Rationale: Despite significant advances in precision treatments and immunotherapy, lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death worldwide. To reduce incidence and improve survival rates, a deeper understanding of lung premalignancy and the multistep process of tumorigenesis is essential, allowing timely and effective intervention before cancer development. Objectives: To summarize existing information, identify knowledge gaps, formulate research questions, prioritize potential research topics, and propose strategies for future investigations into the premalignant progression in the lung. Methods: An international multidisciplinary team of basic, translational, and clinical scientists reviewed available data to develop and refine research questions pertaining to the transformation of premalignant lung lesions to advanced lung cancer. Results: This research statement identifies significant gaps in knowledge and proposes potential research questions aimed at expanding our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the progression of premalignant lung lesions to lung cancer in an effort to explore potential innovative modalities to intercept lung cancer at its nascent stages. Conclusions: The identified gaps in knowledge about the biological mechanisms of premalignant progression in the lung, together with ongoing challenges in screening, detection, and early intervention, highlight the critical need to prioritize research in this domain. Such focused investigations are essential to devise effective preventive strategies that may ultimately decrease lung cancer incidence and improve patient outcomes.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Lung cancer in women.

Lung cancer in women is a modern epidemic and represents a global health crisis. Cigarette smoking remains the most important risk factor for lung cancer in all patients and, among women globally, rates of smoking continue to increase. Although some data exist supporting sex-based differences across the continuum of lung cancer, there is currently a dearth of research exploring the differences in risk, biology, and treatment outcomes in women. Consequently, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable recognizes the urgent need to promote awareness and future research that will close the knowledge gaps regarding lung cancer in women. To this end, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable Task Group on Lung Cancer in Women convened a summit undertaking the following to: (1) summarize existing evidence and identify knowledge gaps surrounding the epidemiology, risk factors, biologic differences, and outcomes of lung cancer in women; (2) develop and prioritize research topics and questions that address research gaps and advance knowledge to improve quality of care of lung cancer in women; and (3) propose strategies for future research. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in women, and, despite comparatively lower exposures to occupational and environmental carcinogens compared with men, disproportionately higher lung cancer rates in women who ever smoked and women who never smoked call for increased awareness and research that will close the knowledge gaps regarding lung cancer in women.

Tobacco and COPD: presenting the World Health Organization (WHO) Tobacco Knowledge Summary.

The WHO recently published a Tobacco Knowledge Summary (TKS) synthesizing current evidence on tobacco and COPD, aiming to raise awareness among a broad audience of health care professionals. Furthermore, it can be used as an advocacy tool in the fight for tobacco control and prevention of tobacco-related disease. This article builds on the evidence presented in the TKS, with a greater level of detail intended for a lung-specialist audience. Pulmonologists have a vital role to play in advocating for the health of their patients and the wider population by sharing five key messages: (1) Smoking is the leading cause of COPD in high-income countries, contributing to approximately 70% of cases. Quitting tobacco is an essential step toward better lung health. (2) People with COPD face a significantly higher risk of developing lung cancer. Smoking cessation is a powerful measure to reduce cancer risk. (3) Cardiovascular disease, lung cancer and type-2 diabetes are common comorbidities in people with COPD. Quitting smoking not only improves COPD management, but also reduces the risk of developing these coexisting conditions. (4) Tobacco smoke also significantly impacts children's lung growth and development, increasing the risk of respiratory infections, asthma and up to ten other conditions, and COPD later in life. Governments should implement effective tobacco control measures to protect vulnerable populations. (5) The tobacco industry's aggressive strategies in the marketing of nicotine delivery systems and all tobacco products specifically target children, adolescents, and young adults. Protecting our youth from these harmful tactics is a top priority.

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.

Research Priorities for Interventions to Address Health Disparities in Lung Nodule Management: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Background: Lung nodules are common incidental findings, and timely evaluation is critical to ensure diagnosis of localized-stage and potentially curable lung cancers. Rates of guideline-concordant lung nodule evaluation are low, and the risk of delayed evaluation is higher for minoritized groups. Objectives: To summarize the existing evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and prioritize research questions related to interventions to reduce disparities in lung nodule evaluation. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee was convened to review the evidence and identify key knowledge gaps in four domains: 1) research methodology, 2) patient-level interventions, 3) clinician-level interventions, and 4) health system-level interventions. A modified Delphi approach was used to identify research priorities. Results: Key knowledge gaps included 1) a lack of standardized approaches to identify factors associated with lung nodule management disparities, 2) limited data evaluating the role of social determinants of health on disparities in lung nodule management, 3) a lack of certainty regarding the optimal strategy to improve patient-clinician communication and information transmission and/or retention, and 4) a paucity of information on the impact of patient navigators and culturally trained multidisciplinary teams. Conclusions: This statement outlines a research agenda intended to stimulate high-impact studies of interventions to mitigate disparities in lung nodule evaluation. Research questions were prioritized around the following domains: 1) need for methodologic guidelines for conducting research related to disparities in nodule management, 2) evaluating how social determinants of health influence lung nodule evaluation, 3) studying approaches to improve patient-clinician communication, and 4) evaluating the utility of patient navigators and culturally enriched multidisciplinary teams to reduce disparities.

Increasing Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening Among Emergency Department Patients: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Lung cancer screening (LCS) decreases lung cancer mortality. Emergency department (ED) patients are at disproportionately high risk for lung cancer. The ED, therefore, is an optimal environment for interventions to promote LCS. OBJECTIVES: Demonstrate the operational feasibility of identifying ED patients in need of LCS, referring them to LCS services, deploying a text message intervention to promote LCS, and conducting follow-up to determine LCS uptake. METHODS: We conducted a randomized clinical trial to determine the feasibility and provide estimates of the preliminary efficacies of 1) basic referral for LCS and 2) basic referral plus a text messaging intervention, grounded in behavioral change theory, to promote uptake of LCS among ED patients. Participants aged 50 to 80, identified as eligible for LCS, were randomized to study arms and followed up at 150 days to assess interval LCS uptake (primary outcome), barriers to screening, and perceptions of the study interventions. RESULTS: A total of 303 patients were surveyed, with 198 identified as eligible for LCS and subsequently randomized. Results indicated that 24% of participants with follow-up data received LCS (11% of the total randomized sample). Rates of screening at follow-up were similar across study arms. The intervention significantly improved normative perceptions of LCS (p = 0.015; Cohen's d = 0.45). CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of ED-based interventions to increase uptake of LCS among ED patients. A scalable ED-based intervention that increases LCS uptake could reduce lung cancer mortality.

Characteristics of Persons Screened for Lung Cancer in the United States : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2013, making approximately 8 million Americans eligible for screening. The demographic characteristics and adherence of persons screened in the United States have not been reported at the population level. OBJECTIVE: To define sociodemographic characteristics and adherence among persons screened and entered into the American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry (LCSR). DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: United States, 2015 to 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Persons receiving a baseline LDCT for LCS from 3625 facilities reporting to the LCSR. MEASUREMENTS: Age, sex, and smoking status distributions (percentages) were computed among persons who were screened and among respondents in the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) who were eligible for screening. The prevalence between the LCSR and the NHIS was compared with prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% CIs. Adherence to annual screening was defined as having a follow-up test within 11 to 15 months of an initial LDCT. RESULTS: Among 1 159 092 persons who were screened, 90.8% (n = 1 052 591) met the USPSTF eligibility criteria. Compared with adults from the NHIS who met the criteria (n = 1257), screening recipients in the LCSR were older (34.7% vs. 44.8% were aged 65 to 74 years; PR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.20 to 1.39]), more likely to be female (41.8% vs. 48.1%; PR, 1.15 [CI, 1.08 to 1.23]), and more likely to currently smoke (52.3% vs. 61.4%; PR, 1.17 [CI, 1.11 to 1.23]). Only 22.3% had a repeated annual LDCT. If follow-up was extended to 24 months and more than 24 months, 34.3% and 40.3% were adherent, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Underreporting of LCS and missing data may skew demographic characteristics of persons reported to be screened. Underreporting of adherence may result in underestimates of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Approximately 91% of persons who had LCS met USPSTF eligibility criteria. In addition to continuing to target all eligible adults, men, those who formerly smoked, and younger eligible patients may be less likely to be screened. Adherence to annual follow-up screening was poor, potentially limiting screening effectiveness. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Addressing Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Healthcare Access. An Official American Thoracic Society Statement.

Background: There are well-documented disparities in lung cancer outcomes across populations. Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to reduce lung cancer mortality, but for this benefit to be realized by all high-risk groups, there must be careful attention to ensuring equitable access to this lifesaving preventive health measure.Objectives: To outline current knowledge on disparities in eligibility criteria for, access to, and implementation of LCS, and to develop an official American Thoracic Society statement to propose strategies to optimize current screening guidelines and resource allocation for equitable LCS implementation and dissemination.Methods: A multidisciplinary panel with expertise in LCS, implementation science, primary care, pulmonology, health behavior, smoking cessation, epidemiology, and disparities research was convened. Participants reviewed available literature on historical disparities in cancer screening and emerging evidence of disparities in LCS.Results: Existing LCS guidelines do not consider racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and sex-based differences in smoking behaviors or lung cancer risk. Multiple barriers, including access to screening and cost, further contribute to the inequities in implementation and dissemination of LCS.Conclusions: This statement identifies the impact of LCS eligibility criteria on vulnerable populations who are at increased risk of lung cancer but do not meet eligibility criteria for screening, as well as multiple barriers that contribute to disparities in LCS implementation. Strategies to improve the selection and dissemination of LCS in vulnerable groups are described.

Knowledge Gaps and Research Priorities in Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-related Pneumonitis. An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Rationale: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer care but are associated with unique adverse events, including potentially life-threatening pneumonitis. The diagnosis of ICI-pneumonitis is increasing; however, the biological mechanisms, clinical and radiologic features, and the diagnosis and management have not been well defined.Objectives: To summarize evidence, identify knowledge and research gaps, and prioritize topics and propose methods for future research on ICI-pneumonitis.Methods: A multidisciplinary group of international clinical researchers reviewed available data on ICI-pneumonitis to develop and refine research questions pertaining to ICI-pneumonitis.Results: This statement identifies gaps in knowledge and develops potential research questions to further expand knowledge regarding risk, biologic mechanisms, clinical and radiologic presentation, and management of ICI-pneumonitis.Conclusions: Gaps in knowledge of the basic biological mechanisms of ICI-pneumonitis, coupled with a precipitous increase in the use of ICIs alone or combined with other therapies, highlight the importance in triaging research priorities for ICI-pneumonitis.

Incorporating Coexisting Chronic Illness into Decisions about Patient Selection for Lung Cancer Screening. An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to reduce the risk of lung cancer death in healthy individuals, but the impact of coexisting chronic illnesses on LCS outcomes has not been well defined. Consideration of the complex relationship between baseline risk of lung cancer, treatment-related harms, and risk of death from competing causes is crucial in determining the balance of benefits and harms of LCS. OBJECTIVES: To summarize evidence, identify knowledge and research gaps, prioritize topics, and propose methods for future research on how best to incorporate comorbidities in making decisions regarding LCS. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of international clinicians and researchers reviewed available data on the effects of comorbidities on LCS outcomes, focusing on the juxtaposition of lung cancer risk and competing risks of death, consideration of benefits and risks in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, communication of risk, and treatment of screen-detected lung cancer. RESULTS: This statement identifies gaps in knowledge regarding how comorbidities and competing causes of death impact outcomes in LCS, and we have developed questions to help guide future research efforts to better inform patient selection, education, and implementation of LCS. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need for further research that can help guide clinical decision-making with patients who may not benefit from LCS owing to coexisting chronic illness. This statement establishes a research framework to address essential questions regarding how to incorporate and communicate risks of comorbidities into patient selection and decisions regarding LCS.

Opinions and Practices of Lung Cancer Screening by Physician Specialty.

BACKGROUND In response to the National Lung Screening Trial, numerous professional organizations published guidelines recommending annual lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for high-risk patients. Prior studies found that physician attitudes and knowledge about lung cancer screening directly impacts the number of screening exams ordered.METHODS In 2015, we surveyed 34 pulmonologists and 186 primary care providers (PCPs) to evaluate opinions and practices of lung cancer screening in a large academic medical center. We compared PCP and pulmonologist responses using t-tests and χ2 tests.RESULTS The overall survey response rate was 40% (39% for PCPs and 50% for pulmonologists). Pulmonologists were more likely than PCPs to report lung cancer screening as beneficial for patients (88.2% versus 37.7%, P < .0001) and as being cost-effective (47.1% versus 14.3%, P = .02). More pulmonologists (76%) reported ordering a LDCT for screening in the past 12 months compared to PCPs (41%, P = .012). Pulmonologists and PCPs reported similar barriers to referring patients for lung cancer screening, including patient costs (82.4% versus 77.8%), potential for emotional harm (58.8% versus 58.3%), high false positive rate (47.1% versus 69.4%), and likelihood for medical complications (47.1% versus 59.7%).LIMITATIONS Our results are generalizable to academic medical centers and responses may be susceptible to recall bias, non-response bias, and social desirability bias.CONCLUSION We found significant differences in opinions and practices between PCPs and pulmonologists regarding lung cancer screening referrals and perceived benefits. As lung cancer screening continues to emerge in clinical practice, it is important to understand these differences across provider specialty to ensure screening is implemented and offered to patients appropriately.

An official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians policy statement: implementation of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening programs in clinical practice.

RATIONALE: Annual low-radiation-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals and is now recommended by multiple organizations. However, LDCT screening is complex, and implementation requires careful planning to ensure benefits outweigh harms. Little guidance has been provided for sites wishing to develop and implement lung cancer screening programs. OBJECTIVES: To promote successful implementation of comprehensive LDCT screening programs that are safe, effective, and sustainable. METHODS: The American Thoracic Society (ATS) and American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) convened a committee with expertise in lung cancer screening, pulmonary nodule evaluation, and implementation science. The committee reviewed the evidence from systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines, surveys, and the experience of early-adopting LDCT screening programs and summarized potential strategies to implement LDCT screening programs successfully. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We address steps that sites should consider during the main three phases of developing an LDCT screening program: planning, implementation, and maintenance. We present multiple strategies to implement the nine core elements of comprehensive lung cancer screening programs enumerated in a recent ACCP/ATS statement, which will allow sites to select the strategy that best fits with their local context and workflow patterns. Although we do not comment on cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening, we outline the necessary costs associated with starting and sustaining a high-quality LDCT screening program. CONCLUSIONS: Following the strategies delineated in this policy statement may help sites to develop comprehensive LDCT screening programs that are safe and effective.

Knowledge and beliefs about lung cancer screening among Black individuals at high risk: a qualitative approach.

Background: Despite its efficacy in reducing lung cancer (LC)-specific mortality by 20%, screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in eligible groups remains low (5-16%). Black individuals are more commonly affected by LC than other racial/ethnic groups in the United States (U.S.) but less likely to undergo LC screening (LCS). Our study aimed to explore the knowledge and beliefs of Black individuals at high risk regarding LCS. Methods: Black individuals (n=17) who met the 2021 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) LCS eligibility criteria were recruited in upstate New York. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted, audio recorded, and transcribed to explore knowledge and beliefs that could influence the uptake of LCS. A qualitative thematic analysis method was used to identify and analyze themes within the data. Results: We identified principal themes about LC and LCS. Although most participants reported that smoking was the major risk factor for LC, some participants placed more emphasis on other factors as the major risk factors for LC and de-emphasized the role of smoking. Most participants were not aware that screening for LC existed. Several barriers and facilitators for LCS were identified. Conclusions: Awareness about LCS among Black individuals is low. Addressing barriers may help increase LCS rates among Black individuals, ultimately reducing their LC mortality. The findings from our study have important implications in designing more effective interventions involving community health workers and healthcare clinicians to increase LCS uptake among Black individuals at high risk.

Comparing characteristics of individuals screened for lung cancer with 2021 versus 2013 USPSTF recommendations.

We conducted a cross-sectional multi-center study to compare the demographics, clinical characteristics, and lung cancer screening (LCS) results among those eligible for LCS per 2013 vs 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations. Statistical tests are two-sided, with p < .05 considered statistically significant. Among 17,702 screened individuals (85.2% 2013 Eligible, 14.8% 2021 Newly Eligible), a higher proportion of those screened per 2021 vs 2013 criteria were female (56.1% vs 48.1%, p < .0001) and non-Hispanic Black (19.3% vs 13.4%, p < .0001). The risk of developing and dying from lung cancer per 1000 was statistically significantly higher among those eligible per 2013 vs 2021 criteria. A higher proportion of LCS exams had an increased suspicion of lung cancer in the 2013 vs 2021 criteria groups. Our data suggest that, as intended, updated 2021 USPSTF recommendations are leading to a higher proportion of LCS exams among non-Hispanic Black individuals and women.