Implementing Decision Coaching for Lung Cancer Screening in the Low-Dose Computed Tomography Setting.

PURPOSE: The uptake of shared decision making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) as required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is suboptimal. Alternative models for delivering SDM are needed, such as decision coaching in the low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Replicating Effective Programs framework guided our implementation of decision coaching, which included a patient-facilitated component before screening followed by in-person coaching that addressed the required elements for the SDM visit from CMS. We surveyed two LCS patient cohorts (pre-implementation and implementation of decision coaching) about their knowledge of LCS and perception of the SDM process. We conducted time-motion studies to assess the feasibility of implementing decision coaching and audio recorded clinical encounters from the implementation cohort to assess fidelity of the SDM conversation to the CMS requirements. RESULTS: Compared with the pre-implementation cohort (n = 51), the implementation cohort (n = 30) had greater knowledge of LCS (P < .01) and reported a better SDM process (P = .01). Coaching took 7.6 ± 4.1 minutes and did not increase visit time (P = .72). Coaches addressed an average of 6.4 of 7 SDM elements required by CMS. CONCLUSION: Decision coaching in the LDCT setting provides an opportunity for patients to confirm their screening decision by ensuring that patients are truly informed about the potential harms and benefits of LCS. The decision coaching had excellent fidelity in addressing the required SDM elements from CMS and is feasible.

IASLC Multidisciplinary Recommendations for Pathologic Assessment of Lung Cancer Resection Specimens After Neoadjuvant Therapy.

Currently, there is no established guidance on how to process and evaluate resected lung cancer specimens after neoadjuvant therapy in the setting of clinical trials and clinical practice. There is also a lack of precise definitions on the degree of pathologic response, including major pathologic response or complete pathologic response. For other cancers such as osteosarcoma and colorectal, breast, and esophageal carcinomas, there have been multiple studies investigating pathologic assessment of the effects of neoadjuvant therapy, including some detailed recommendations on how to handle these specimens. A comprehensive mapping approach to gross and histologic processing of osteosarcomas after induction therapy has been used for over 40 years. The purpose of this article is to outline detailed recommendations on how to process lung cancer resection specimens and to define pathologic response, including major pathologic response or complete pathologic response after neoadjuvant therapy. A standardized approach is recommended to assess the percentages of (1) viable tumor, (2) necrosis, and (3) stroma (including inflammation and fibrosis) with a total adding up to 100%. This is recommended for all systemic therapies, including chemotherapy, chemoradiation, molecular-targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or any future novel therapies yet to be discovered, whether administered alone or in combination. Specific issues may differ for certain therapies such as immunotherapy, but the grossing process should be similar, and the histologic evaluation should contain these basic elements. Standard pathologic response assessment should allow for comparisons between different therapies and correlations with disease-free survival and overall survival in ongoing and future trials. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer has an effort to collect such data from existing and future clinical trials. These recommendations are intended as guidance for clinical trials, although it is hoped they can be viewed as suggestion for good clinical practice outside of clinical trials, to improve consistency of pathologic assessment of treatment response.

Multimodality imaging evaluation of esophageal cancer: staging, therapy assessment, and complications.

Esophageal cancer is among the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. The management of patients with esophageal cancer is determined to a large extent by patient performance status, location of the primary cancer, and stage of disease at presentation. Multimodality regimens combining neoadjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy followed by surgery have been increasingly used in suitable candidates with locally advanced cancer. There is substantial morbidity and mortality associated with this treatment strategy, which makes appropriate patient selection important. Endoscopic esophageal ultrasound is the optimal modality to evaluate the local extent of the primary tumor and diagnose locoregional nodal metastasis. Computed tomography is more useful in detecting distant nodal and systemic metastasis. Positron emission tomography/CT is increasingly being used in patient management and improves the accuracy of staging, particularly in the detection of distant nodal and systemic metastatic disease. In this article, we review the role of imaging in the staging, assessment of therapeutic response, and detection of recurrent disease, as well as the evaluation of therapeutic complications in patients with esophageal cancer.

Computed tomography RECIST assessment of histopathologic response and prediction of survival in patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: This study's objectives were to determine whether tumor response measured by computed tomography (CT) and evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) correlated with overall survival (OS) in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgical resection. METHODS: We measured primary tumor size on CT before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 160 NSCLC patients who underwent surgical resection. The relationship between CT-measured response (RECIST) and histopathologic response (≤ 10% viable tumor) and OS were assessed by Kaplan-Meier survival, univariable, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant association between CT-measured response (RECIST) and OS (p = 0.03). However, histopathologic response was a stronger predictor of OS (p = 0.002), with a more pronounced separation of the survival curves when compared with CT-measured response. In multivariable Cox regression analysis, only pathologic stage and histopathologic response were significant predictors of OS. A 41% overall discordance rate was noted between CT RECIST response and histopathologic response. CT RECIST classified as nonresponders a subset of patients with histopathologic response (8 out of 30 points, 27%) who demonstrated prolonged survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: We were unable to show that CT RECIST is a reliable predictor of OS in patients with NSCLC undergoing surgical resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The failure of CT RECIST to predict long-term outcome may be because of the inability of CT imaging to consistently identify patients with histopathologic response. CT RECIST may have only a limited role as an efficacy endpoint after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resectable NSCLC.

Positron emission tomography/computed tomography in lung cancer staging, prognosis, and assessment of therapeutic response.

Positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomographic scanning, using 18F-2-deoxy-D-glucose, complements conventional imaging evaluation of patients with lung cancer. The strength of PET scanning lies in the detection of nodal and extrathoracic metastases. PET scanning is also currently being studied in the assessment of prognosis and therapeutic response and has the potential to alter management of oncologic patients. This review will discuss the role of PET/computed tomographic scanning in the diagnosis, staging, and evaluation of prognosis and treatment response in patients with lung cancer.

Imaging of non-small cell lung cancer of the superior sulcus: part 2: initial staging and assessment of resectability and therapeutic response.

Imaging plays a crucial role in the diagnosis and staging of superior sulcus tumors, assessment of their resectability, determination of the optimal approach to disease management, and evaluation of the response to therapy. Computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and positron emission tomography (PET)/CT contribute important and complementary information. Whereas CT is optimal for depicting bone erosion and for staging of intrathoracic disease, MR imaging is superior for evaluating tumor extension to the intervertebral neural foramina, the spinal cord, and the brachial plexus, primarily because of the higher contrast resolution and multiplanar capability available with MR imaging technology. Use of PET/CT enables the detection of unsuspected nodal and distant metastases. However, imaging has only limited usefulness for evaluating the response of a tumor to induction therapy and detecting local recurrence, and surgical biopsy often is necessary to verify the results of therapy.

The role of integrated computed tomography positron-emission tomography in esophageal cancer: staging and assessment of therapeutic response.

Computed tomography (CT) and endoscopy/endoscopic ultrasonography are usually performed to initially stage patients with esophageal cancer, to determine primary tumor response, and to detect nodal and distant metastases after preoperative therapy. Positron-emission tomography (PET) with [18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose and integrated CT-PET are useful in the initial staging of patients with esophageal cancer as well as in the prediction of pathologic response, disease-free interval, and overall survival after preoperative therapy. Importantly, integrated CT-PET imaging decreases the number of futile attempts at surgical resection, mainly because of the detection of occult distant metastases. The following sections review the use of integrated CT-PET imaging in determining the T, N, and M descriptors of the American Joint Commission on Cancer's 2002 guidelines for pathologic and clinical staging at initial diagnosis and after chemoradiation therapy in those patients being considered for surgical resection.

Esophageal cancer: the role of integrated CT-PET in initial staging and response assessment after preoperative therapy.

Esophageal cancer, an uncommon neoplasm, has been increasing in incidence over the past few decades. Optimal management of patients is determined by the stage of disease at presentation, patient performance status, and location of the primary cancer. Recently, there has been increasing use of multimodality therapy in suitable candidates that employs preoperative chemotherapy and/or radiation followed by surgical resection. This evolving treatment strategy together with the substantial morbidity and mortality associated with esophagectomy makes appropriate patient selection critical. Computed tomography (CT) and endoscopy/endoscopic ultrasonography are usually carried out to initially stage patients with esophageal cancer, to determine primary tumor response, and to detect nodal and distant metastases after preoperative therapy. Positron emission tomography (PET) with [18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose and integrated CT-PET are useful in the initial staging of patients with esophageal cancer and in the prediction of pathologic response, disease-free interval, and overall survival after preoperative therapy. Importantly, integrated CT-PET imaging decreases the number of futile attempts at surgical resection, mainly because of the detection of occult distant metastases. The following sections review the use of integrated CT-PET imaging in determining the T, N, and M descriptors of the American Joint Commission on Cancer's 2002 guidelines for pathologic and clinical staging at initial diagnosis and after chemoradiation therapy in those patients being considered for surgical resection.

Truncation artifact on PET/CT: impact on measurements of activity concentration and assessment of a correction algorithm.

OBJECTIVE: Discrepancy between fields of view (FOVs) in a PET/CT scanner causes a truncation artifact when imaging extends beyond the CT FOV. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the impact of this artifact on measurements of 18F-FDG activity concentrations and to assess a truncation correction algorithm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two phantoms and five patients were used in this study. In the first phantom, three inserts (water, air, bone equivalent) were placed in a water-filled cylinder containing 18F-FDG. In the second phantom study, a chest phantom and a 2-L bottle fitted with a bone insert were used to simulate a patient's torso and arm. Both phantoms were imaged while positioned centrally (baseline) and at the edge of the CT FOV to induce truncation. PET images were reconstructed using attenuation maps from truncated and truncation-corrected CT images. Regions of interest (ROIs) drawn on the inserts, simulated arm, and background water of the baseline truncated and truncation-corrected PET images were compared. In addition, extremity malignancies of five patients truncated on CT images were reconstructed with and without correction and the maximum standard uptake values (SUVs) of the malignancies were compared. RESULTS: Truncation artifact manifests as a rim of high activity concentration at the edge of the truncated CT image with an adjacent low-concentration region peripherally. The correction algorithm minimizes these effects. Phantom studies showed a maximum variation of -5.4% in the truncation-corrected background water image compared with the baseline image. Activity concentration in the water insert was 6.3% higher while that of air and bone inserts was similar to baseline. Extremity malignancies showed a consistent increase in the maximum SUV after truncation correction. CONCLUSION: Truncation affects measurements of 18F-FDG activity concentrations in PET/CT. A truncation-correction algorithm corrects truncation artifacts with small residual error.

Preoperative chemo-radiation-induced ulceration in patients with esophageal cancer: a confounding factor in tumor response assessment in integrated computed tomographic-positron emission tomographic imaging.

HYPOTHESIS: Positron emission tomography can be useful in predicting response of esophageal cancer after preoperative chemo-radiation therapy (CRT). We evaluated the use of integrated computed tomography (CT)-PET among patients with esophageal cancer being considered for resection after CRT. METHODS: Three reviewers blinded to clinical and pathologic staging retrospectively reviewed the CT-PET scans of patients with esophageal cancer after preoperative CRT who underwent esophagectomy. [F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake for residual malignancy was determined by visual analysis and semi-quantitatively when standardized uptake value (SUV) was > or =4. RESULTS: Forty-two patients underwent esophageal resection. Using visual analysis, CT-PET had a sensitivity of 47% and specificity of 58% in detecting residual malignancy. Using semi-quantitative analysis, 19 patients had a SUV > or =4 in the region of the primary esophageal tumor and were interpreted as having residual malignancy (sensitivity 43%, specificity 50%). Of these 19, six had complete pathologic response to CRT. These false-positive results, due to therapy-induced ulceration detected at endoscopy, limit the use of CT-PET alone in detecting residual malignancy. Similarly, sensitivity (25%) and specificity (73%) of endoscopy/biopsy in detecting residual malignancy were poor. However, the accuracy of CT-PET in detecting residual malignancy was improved when combined with endoscopic findings. In the absence of ulceration at endoscopy, 8 of 8 patients with SUV > or =4 after chemo-radiation had residual malignancy at surgery. CONCLUSIONS: CRT-induced ulceration results in false-positive results on CT-PET and precludes accurate detection of residual esophageal tumor. However, CT-PET in combination with endoscopy is useful in identifying patients with a high risk of residual tumor post-CRT.

Bronchioalveolar cell carcinoma: radiologic appearance and dilemmas in the assessment of response.

Bronchioalveolar cell carcinomas (BACs), a subset of primary lung adenocarcinomas, are uncommon. Histologically, they are a diverse group of malignancies. The diagnosis is restricted to adenocarcinomas that grow in a lepidic manner and that have no stromal, vascular, or pleural invasion. Their histologic diversity leads to varied radiologic manifestations that are often indistinguishable from those of other primary non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC). However, typical manifestations, many of which can be attributed to lepidic growth, have been reported. Radiologic manifestations include a solitary peripheral pulmonary nodule, airspace disease, and multiple nodules and a combination of these findings can be present in a single patient. The most common manifestation, a solitary pulmonary nodule, is usually indistinguishable from other primary NSCLC. However, pseudocavitation and air bronchograms within the nodule can be useful in suggesting the correct diagnosis. In addition to aiding in the diagnosis of BAC, radiologic imaging is an important component in the evaluation of the therapeutic efficacy of treatment; serial measurements of tumor size before and after treatment are commonly used to assess response. However, BACs that are consolidative or ground-glass in nature present challenges in tumor-response determination. Other imaging modalities, such as positron emission tomography scanning, may prove helpful in assessing the metabolic response to therapy but have yet to be proven effective.

Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response.

PURPOSE: Response of solid malignancies to therapy is usually determined by serial measurements of tumor size. The purpose of our study was to assess the consistency of measurements performed by readers evaluating lung tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study group was composed of 33 patients with lung tumors more than 1.5 cm. Bidimensional (BD) and unidimensional (UD) measurements were performed on computed tomography (CT) scans according to the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria and the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), respectively. Measurements were performed independently by five thoracic radiologists using printed film and were repeated after 5 to 7 days. Inter- and intraobserver measurement variations were estimated through statistical modeling. RESULTS: There were 40 tumors with an average size of 1.8 to 8.0 cm (mean, 4.1 cm). Analysis of variance showed a significant difference (P <.05) among readers and among the measured nodules for UD and BD measurements. Interobserver misclassification rates were more than intraobserver misclassification rates using either progressive disease or response criteria. The probability of misclassifying a tumor with the WHO criteria or RECIST was greatest with interobserver measurements when criteria for progression (43% BD, 30% UD) were used and lowest with intraobserver measurements when criteria for response (2.5% BD, 3.0% UD) were used. In addition, interobserver misclassification rates were more than intraobserver misclassification rates for both regular and irregular tumors. CONCLUSION: Measurements of lung tumor size on CT scans are often inconsistent and can lead to an incorrect interpretation of tumor response. Consistency can be improved if the same reader performs serial measurements for any one patient.