Statistical Methods to Examine Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Surgical Literature: A Review and Recommendations for Improvement.

OBJECTIVE: We characterized the quality of statistical methods for studies of racial and ethnic disparities in the surgical-relevant literature during 2021-2022. BACKGROUND: Hundreds of scientific papers are published each year describing racial and ethnic disparities in surgical access, quality, and outcomes. The content and design quality of this literature has never been systematically reviewed. METHODS: We searched for 2021-2022 studies focused on describing racial and/or ethnic disparities in surgical or perioperative access, process quality, or outcomes. Identified studies were characterized in terms of three methodological criteria: 1) adjustment for variables related to both race/ethnicity and outcomes, including social determinants of health (SDOH); 2) accounting for clustering of patients within hospitals or other subunits ("providers") and; 3) distinguishing within- and between-provider effects. RESULTS: We identified 224 papers describing racial and/or ethnic differences. Of the 38 single institution studies, 24 (63.2%) adjusted for at least one SDOH variable. Of the 186 multisite studies, 113 (60.8%) adjusted for at least one SDOH variable, and 43 (23.1%) accounted for clustering of patients within providers using appropriate statistical methods. Only 10 (5.4%) of multi-institution studies made efforts to examine how much of overall disparities were driven by within versus between provider effects. CONCLUSIONS: Most recently published papers on racial and ethnic disparities in the surgical literature do not meet these important statistical design criteria and therefore may risk inaccuracy in the estimation of group differences in surgical access, quality, and outcomes. The most potent leverage points for these improvements are changes to journal publication guidelines and policies.

The performance status gap in immunotherapy for frail patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: In advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy is often preferred over intensive ICI treatment for frail patients and those with poor performance status (PS). Among those with poor PS, the additional effect of frailty on treatment selection and mortality is unknown. METHODS: Patients in the veterans affairs national precision oncology program from 1/2019-12/2021 who received first-line ICI for advanced NSCLC were followed until death or study end 6/2022. Association of an electronic frailty index with treatment selection was examined using logistic regression stratified by PS. We also examined overall survival (OS) on intensive treatment using Cox regression stratified by PS. Intensive treatment was defined as concurrent use of platinum-doublet chemotherapy and/or dual checkpoint blockade and non-intensive as ICI monotherapy. RESULTS: Of 1547 patients receiving any ICI, 66.2% were frail, 33.8% had poor PS (≥ 2), and 25.8% were both. Frail patients received less intensive treatment than non-frail patients in both PS subgroups (Good PS: odds ratio [OR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51 - 0.88; Poor PS: OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 - 1.10). Among 731 patients receiving intensive treatment, frailty was associated with lower OS for those with good PS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.53, 95% CI 1.2 - 1.96), but no association was observed with poor PS (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.67 - 1.58). CONCLUSION: Frail patients with both good and poor PS received less intensive treatment. However, frailty has a limited effect on survival among those with poor PS. These findings suggest that PS, not frailty, drives survival on intensive treatment.

Optimizing Lung Cancer Screening With Risk Prediction: Current Challenges and the Emerging Role of Biomarkers.

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice.Lung cancer screening has been demonstrated to reduce lung cancer mortality, but its benefits must be weighed against the potential harms of unnecessary procedures, false-positive radiological findings, and overdiagnosis. Individuals at highest risk of lung cancer are more likely to maximize benefits while minimizing harm from screening. Although current lung cancer screening guidelines recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) only consider age and smoking history for screening eligibility, National Comprehensive Cancer Network and other society guidelines recommend screening on the basis of individualized risk assessment including family history, environmental exposures, and presence of chronic lung disease. Risk prediction models have been developed to integrate various risk factors into an individualized risk prediction score. Previous evidence showed that risk prediction model-based screening eligibility could improve sensitivity for detecting lung cancer cases without reducing specificity. Furthermore, recent advances in lung cancer biomarkers have enhanced the performance of risk prediction in identifying lung cancer cases relative to the USPSTF criteria. These risk prediction models can be used to guide shared decision-making discussions before proceeding with lung cancer screening. This study aims to provide a concise overview of these prediction models and the emerging role of biomarker testing in risk prediction to facilitate conversations with patients. The goal was to assist clinicians in assessing individual patient risk, leading to more informed decision making.

Machine learning-based natural language processing to extract PD-L1 expression levels from clinical notes.

Introduction: PD-L1 expression is used to determine oncology patients' response to and eligibility for immunologic treatments; however, PD-L1 expression status often only exists in unstructured clinical notes, limiting ability to use it in population-level studies. Methods: We developed and evaluated a machine learning based natural language processing (NLP) tool to extract PD-L1 expression values from the nationwide Veterans Affairs electronic health record system. Results: The model demonstrated strong evaluation performance across multiple levels of label granularity. Mean precision of the overall PD-L1 positive label was 0.859 (sd, 0.039), recall 0.994 (sd, 0.013), and F1 0.921 (0.024). When a numeric PD-L1 value was identified, the mean absolute error of the value was 0.537 on a scale of 0 to 100. Conclusion: We presented an accurate NLP method for deriving PD-L1 status from clinical notes. By reducing the time and manual effort needed to review medical records, our work will enable future population-level studies in cancer immunotherapy.

Risk factors for immune checkpoint inhibitor-related pneumonitis in non-small cell lung cancer.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have led to dramatic improvements in survival a subset of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, they have been shown to cause life-threatening toxicity such as immune checkpoint inhibitor-related pneumonitis (CIP). Our previous studies have shown that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and circulating cytokines are associated with clinical outcomes in NSCLC patients receiving ICIs. However, the relationship between these factors and the development of CIP is unclear. In this study, we retrospectively assessed NSCLC patients receiving ICIs to identify CIP risk factors. Methods: This retrospective cohort study reviewed medical records of NSCLC patients receiving ICIs targeting programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) or its ligand PD-L1 between March 2017 and December 2020 at Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University. CIP was diagnosed by the treating investigator. Clinical characteristics and baseline plasma cytokines were collected. Logistic regression was used to compare clinical characteristics and circulating cytokine levels between patients with and without CIP to identify CIP risk factors. Results: Of 164 NSCLC patients who received ICIs, CIP developed in 20 cases (12.2%). The presence of COPD [odds ratio (OR), 7.194; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.130 to 45.798; P=0.037] and PD-L1 expression of ≥50% (OR, 7.184; 95% CI: 1.154 to 44.721; P=0.035) were independently associated with a higher incidence of CIP, whereas a higher baseline level of interleukin-8 (IL-8) was associated with a lower incidence of CIP (OR, 0.758; 95% CI: 0.587 to 0.978; P=0.033). The independent risk factors from final multivariate analysis were incorporated into a nomogram to predict the incidence of CIP. The nomogram model receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve had a good predictive accuracy of 0.883 (95% CI: 0.806 to 0.959). Conclusions: Increased risk of CIP independently associated with history of COPD, tumor PD-L1 expression ≥50%, and low baseline IL-8 level. The nomogram may hold promise for CIP risk assessment in the administration of ICIs.

Association of COVID-19 Vaccination With SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Patients With Cancer: A US Nationwide Veterans Affairs Study.

Importance: Patients with cancer are at increased risk for severe COVID-19, but it is unknown whether SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is effective for them. Objective: To determine the association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infections among a population of Veterans Affairs (VA) patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective, multicenter, nationwide cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and infection among patients in the VA health care system from December 15, 2020, to May 4, 2021. All adults with solid tumors or hematologic cancer who received systemic cancer-directed therapy from August 15, 2010, to May 4, 2021, and were alive and without a documented SARS-CoV-2 positive result as of December 15, 2020, were eligible for inclusion. Each day between December 15, 2020, and May 4, 2021, newly vaccinated patients were matched 1:1 with unvaccinated or not yet vaccinated controls based on age, race and ethnicity, VA facility, rurality of home address, cancer type, and treatment type/timing. Exposures: Receipt of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. A proxy for vaccine effectiveness was defined as 1 minus the risk ratio of SARS-CoV-2 infection for vaccinated individuals compared with unvaccinated controls. Results: A total of 184 485 patients met eligibility criteria, and 113 796 were vaccinated. Of these, 29 152 vaccinated patients (median [IQR] age, 74.1 [70.2-79.3] years; 95% were men; 71% were non-Hispanic White individuals) were matched 1:1 to unvaccinated or not yet vaccinated controls. As of a median 47 days of follow-up, 436 SARS-CoV-2 infections were detected in the matched cohort (161 infections in vaccinated patients vs 275 in unvaccinated patients). There were 17 COVID-19-related deaths in the vaccinated group vs 27 COVID-19-related deaths in the unvaccinated group. Overall vaccine effectiveness in the matched cohort was 58% (95% CI, 39% to 72%) starting 14 days after the second dose. Patients who received chemotherapy within 3 months prior to the first vaccination dose were estimated to have a vaccine effectiveness of 57% (95% CI, -23% to 90%) starting 14 days after the second dose vs 76% (95% CI, 50% to 91%) for those receiving endocrine therapy and 85% (95% CI, 29% to 100%) for those who had not received systemic therapy for at least 6 months prior. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, COVID-19 vaccination was associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 infection rates in patients with cancer. Some immunosuppressed subgroups may remain at early risk for COVID-19 despite vaccination, and consideration should be given to additional risk reduction strategies, such as serologic testing for vaccine response and a third vaccine dose to optimize outcomes.

Changes in Cancer Management due to COVID-19 Illness in Patients with Cancer in Northern California.

PURPOSE: The response to the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the management of patients with cancer. In this pooled retrospective analysis, we describe changes in management patterns for patients with cancer diagnosed with COVID-19 in two academic institutions in the San Francisco Bay Area. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult and pediatric patients diagnosed with COVID-19 with a current or historical diagnosis of malignancy were identified from the electronic medical record at the University of California, San Francisco, and Stanford University. The proportion of patients undergoing active cancer management whose care was affected was quantified and analyzed for significant differences with regard to management type, treatment intent, and the time of COVID-19 diagnosis. The duration and characteristics of such changes were compared across subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 131 patients were included, of whom 55 were undergoing active cancer management. Of these, 35 of 55 (64%) had significant changes in management that consisted primarily of delays. An additional three patients not undergoing active cancer management experienced a delay in management after being diagnosed with COVID-19. The decision to change management was correlated with the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, with more delays identified in patients treated with palliative intent earlier in the course of the pandemic (March/April 2020) compared with later (May/June 2020) (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.03 to 17.3; P = .0497). This difference was not seen among patients treated with curative intent during the same timeframe. CONCLUSION: We found significant changes in the management of cancer patients with COVID-19 treated with curative and palliative intent that evolved over time. Future studies are needed to determine the impact of changes in management and treatment on cancer outcomes for patients with cancer and COVID-19.