The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Lung Cancer Staging Project: Proposals for Revision of the Classification of Residual Tumor After Resection for the Forthcoming (Ninth) Edition of the TNM Classification of Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The goal of surgical resection is to completely remove a cancer; it is useful to have a system to describe how well this was accomplished. This is captured by the residual tumor (R) classification, which is separate from the TNM classification that describes the anatomic extent of a cancer independent of treatment. The traditional R-classification designates as R0 a complete resection, as R1 a macroscopically complete resection but with microscopic tumor at the surgical margin, and as R2 a resection that leaves gross tumor behind. For lung cancer, an additional category encompasses situations in which the presence of residual tumor is uncertain. METHODS: This paper represents a comprehensive review of evidence regarding these R categories and the descriptors thereof, focusing on studies published after the year 2000 and with adjustment for potential confounders. RESULTS: Consistent discrimination between complete, uncertain, and incomplete resection is revealed with respect to overall survival. Evidence regarding specific descriptors is generally somewhat limited and only partially consistent; nevertheless, the data suggest retaining all descriptors but with clarifications to address ambiguities. CONCLUSION: On the basis of this review, the R-classification for the ninth edition of stage classification of lung cancer is proposed to retain the same overall framework and descriptors, with more precise definitions of descriptors. These refinements should facilitate application and further research.

The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) Staging Project for Lung Cancer: Recommendation to Introduce Spread Through Air Spaces as a Histologic Descriptor in the Ninth Edition of the TNM Classification of Lung Cancer. Analysis of 4061 Pathologic Stage I NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Spread through air spaces (STAS) consists of lung cancer tumor cells that are identified beyond the edge of the main tumor in the surrounding alveolar parenchyma. It has been reported by meta-analyses to be an independent prognostic factor in the major histologic types of lung cancer, but its role in lung cancer staging is not established. METHODS: To assess the clinical importance of STAS in lung cancer staging, we evaluated 4061 surgically resected pathologic stage I R0 NSCLC collected from around the world in the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer database. We focused on whether STAS could be a useful additional histologic descriptor to supplement the existing ones of visceral pleural invasion (VPI) and lymphovascular invasion (LVI). RESULTS: STAS was found in 930 of 4061 of the pathologic stage I NSCLC (22.9%). Patients with tumors exhibiting STAS had a significantly worse recurrence-free and overall survival in both univariate and multivariable analyses involving cohorts consisting of all NSCLC, specific histologic types (adenocarcinoma and other NSCLC), and extent of resection (lobar and sublobar). Interestingly, STAS was independent of VPI in all of these analyses. CONCLUSIONS: These data support our recommendation to include STAS as a histologic descriptor for the Ninth Edition of the TNM Classification of Lung Cancer. Hopefully, gathering these data in the coming years will facilitate a thorough analysis to better understand the relative impact of STAS, LVI, and VPI on lung cancer staging for the Tenth Edition TNM Stage Classification.

Completeness of Resection and Long-Term Survival of Patients Undergoing Resection for Pathologic T3 NSCLC: An International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, tumors with different histopathologic characteristics and oncologic outcomes comprise the T3 category of the eight edition TNM classification for lung cancers. To better understand the T3 category, we evaluated completeness of resection and long-term survival in patients undergoing resection for T3 NSCLC. METHODS: The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer 1999 to 2010 database was queried for patients with pathologic T3N0M0 NSCLC who underwent lobectomy or pneumonectomy. The primary outcome evaluated was overall survival (OS) stratified by T3 descriptors and completeness of resection. RESULTS: Of 1448 patients with T3N0M0 tumors, 1187 (82.0%) had a single descriptor defining them as T3. T3 tumors with chest wall infiltration (CWI) or parietal pleura infiltration (PL3) had the highest rates of incomplete resection (9.8% and 8.4%, respectively), and those classified as T3 by size only had the lowest rate of incomplete resection (2.9%). Individual T3 descriptors were associated with significant differences in OS (p = 0.005). When tumors with similar survival and complete resection rates were grouped, patients with T3 tumors characterized by size or the presence of a separate nodule (SN) in the same lobe had better 5-year OS than patients with tumors characterized by PL3 or CWI (size/SN 60% versus CWI/PL3 53%, p = 0.017) independent of completeness of resection. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in 5-year OS were associated with size, SN, PL3, or CWI T3 descriptors. Subdividing pathologic T3N0M0 tumors according to the presence or absence of CWI or PL3 may increase the prognostic accuracy of tumor staging.

Brief Report: Increasing Prevalence of Ground-Glass Nodules and Semisolid Lung Lesions on Outpatient Chest Computed Tomography Scans.

Introduction: The increased use of cross-sectional imaging frequently identifies a growing number of lung nodules that require follow-up imaging studies and physician consultations. We report here the frequency of finding a ground-glass nodule (GGN) or semisolid lung lesion (SSL) in the past decade within a large academic health system. Methods: A radiology system database review was performed on all outpatient adult chest computed tomography (CT) scans between 2013 and 2022. Radiology reports were searched for the terms "ground-glass nodule," "subsolid," and "semisolid" to identify reports with findings potentially concerning for an adenocarcinoma spectrum lesion. Results: A total of 175,715 chest CT scans were performed between 2013 and 2022, with a steadily increasing number every year from 10,817 in 2013 to 21,916 performed in the year 2022. Identification of GGN or SSL on any outpatient CT increased from 5.9% in 2013 to 9.2% in 2022, representing a total of 2019 GGN or SSL reported on CT scans in 2022. The percentage of CT scans with a GGN or SSL finding increased during the study period in men and women and across all age groups above 50 years old. Conclusions: The total number of CT scans performed and the percentage of chest CT scans with GGN or SSL has more than doubled between 2013 and 2022; currently, 9% of all chest CT scans report a GGN or SSL. Although not all GGN or SSL radiographic findings represent true adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions, they are a growing burden to patients and health systems, and better methods to risk stratify radiographic lesions are needed.

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.

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.

The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Staging Project: Methods and Guiding Principles for the Development of the Ninth Edition TNM Classification.

INTRODUCTION: Stage classification provides a consistent and concise nomenclature about the anatomic extent of the cancer. This is a fundamental cornerstone in the management of patients; it enables reporting results and facilitates comparing one treatment to another and judging how closely clinical trial results apply to an individual patient. A nomenclature must be relatively static; however, periodical refinement is needed to adjust to a changing landscape of clinical relevance. Changes must be well justified and thoughtfully developed to maintain the ability to communicate clearly and facilitate comparisons across time. METHODS: For thoracic malignancies (lung, pleura, thymus, and esophagus), the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) has leveraged its worldwide multidisciplinary reach, permitting a sophisticated approach to this process. Refinement of stage classification for the ninth edition of TNM is underway; this article describes the approach adopted by the IASLC Staging and Prognostic Factors Committee. RESULTS: Key guiding principles include the ability to maintain communication over time, a classification that discriminates homogeneous cohorts of tumors consistently across the world in multiple settings, treatment approaches, and patient characteristics, including clinical relevance and practical applicability. The IASLC has again assembled a large international database to permit multifaceted analysis. Providing confidence that the classification performs consistently in multiple settings, treatments, and patients requires consistent discrimination in multiple subset analyses. Although observed outcomes of patients in the 2011 to 2019 database are essential, considerations about how the classification will be used are also important to ensure clinical relevance and applicability. CONCLUSIONS: The strategy developed by the Staging and Prognostic Factors Committee is carefully designed to provide useful refinements to the stage classification of thoracic malignancies for the ninth edition of TNM classification of cancers.

Surgical resection of Masaoka stage III thymic epithelial tumours with great vessels involvement: a retrospective multicentric analysis from the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons thymic database.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyse the outcomes of an international cohort of patients affected by Masaoka stage III thymic epithelial tumours with vascular involvement and treated by surgery. METHODS: Study design was the observational multicentre retrospective cohort study. Data were extracted from the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons thymic database; additional variables were collected. Inclusion criteria were as follows: stage III (Masaoka-Koga) thymic epithelial tumours; surgery with radical intention; clinical or pathological great vessels involvement; and radiologically suspected or diagnosed intraoperatively. Outcome items were analysed. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients submitted to surgery from 2001 to 2017 fulfilled inclusion criteria. Thymoma and thymic carcinoma patients did not differ for demographics and clinical characteristics. The majority of great vessel treated were superior vena cava or innominate veins (72.3%). Eleven patients (16.9%) had postoperative cardiopulmonary complications; vascular stenosis was observed in 3 patients (4.6%). The multivariable Cox analysis for disease-free survival showed an increased hazard of recurrence for thymic carcinoma (hazard ratio = 3.59; 95% confidence interval: 1.66-7.78, P = 0.001). The 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-year overall survival rates were 0.86, 0.84, 0.81, and 0.53, respectively. There was no significant difference in overall survival according to resection status or between thymoma and thimic carcinoma. The univariable Cox regression model did not show an increased hazard of death for myasthenic patients considering all resection status and for patients who received neoadjuvant therapy. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that clinical outcomes of patients treated for stage III thymic epithelial tumours with vascular involvement are satisfactory suggesting to increase the confidence in dealing with these complex surgeries. Complete resection should be achieved, even though extensive vascular reconstructions are required.

Executive Summary: Screening for Lung Cancer: Chest Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part because of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, and increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not. METHODS: Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, and key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached. RESULTS: The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in seven graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus statements. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can impact this balance.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part because of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, and increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not. METHODS: Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, and key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses were performed when enough evidence was available. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached. RESULTS: The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in seven graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus statements. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can impact this balance.

Thymomectomy plus total thymectomy versus simple thymomectomy for early-stage thymoma without myasthenia gravis: a European Society of Thoracic Surgeons Thymic Working Group Study.

OBJECTIVES: Resection of thymic tumours including the removal of both the tumour and the thymus gland (thymothymectomy; TT) is the procedure of choice and is recommended in most relevant articles in the literature. Nevertheless, in recent years, some authors have suggested that resection of the tumour (simple thymomectomy; ST) may suffice from an oncological standpoint in patients with early-stage thymoma who do not have myasthenia gravis (MG) (non-MG). The goal of our study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of ST versus TT in non-MG early-stage thymomas using the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons thymic database. METHODS: A total of 498 non-MG patients with pathological stage I thymoma were included in the study. TT was performed in 466 (93.6%) of 498 patients who had surgery with curative intent; ST was done in 32 (6.4%). The completeness of resection, the rate of complications, the 30-day mortality, the overall recurrence and the freedom from recurrence were compared. We performed crude and propensity score-adjusted comparisons by surgical approach (ST vs TT). RESULTS: TT showed the same rate of postoperative complications, 30-day mortality and postoperative length of stay as ST. The 5-year overall survival rate was 89% in the TT group and 55% in the ST group. The 5-year freedom from recurrence was 96% in the TT group and 79% in the ST group. CONCLUSION: Patients with early-stage thymoma without MG who have a TT show significantly better freedom from recurrence than those who have an ST, without an increase in postoperative morbidity rate.