Follow-Up Imaging Guidelines for Patients with Stage III Unresectable NSCLC: Recommendations Based on the PACIFIC Trial.

The PACIFIC trial showed a survival benefit with durvalumab through five years in stage III unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, optimal use of imaging to detect disease progression remains unclearly defined for this population. An expert working group convened to consider available evidence and clinical experience and develop recommendations for follow-up imaging after concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy (CRT). Voting on agreement was conducted anonymously via online survey. Follow-up imaging was recommended for all suitable patients after CRT completion regardless of whether durvalumab is received. Imaging should occur every 3 months in Year 1, at least every 6 months in Year 2, and at least every 12 months in Years 3-5. Contrast computed tomography was preferred; routine brain imaging was not recommended for asymptomatic patients. The medical oncologist should follow-up during Year 1 of durvalumab therapy, with radiation oncologist involvement if pneumonitis is suspected; medical and radiation oncologists can subsequently alternate follow-up. Some patients can transition to the family physician/community primary care team at the end of Year 2. In Years 1-5, patients should receive information regarding smoking cessation, comorbidity management, vaccinations, and general follow-up care. These recommendations provide guidance on follow-up imaging for patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC whether or not they receive durvalumab consolidation therapy.

Review of Lung Cancer Patient Characteristics and Treatment Strategies in the Pandemic Covid-19 Year.

Introduction: It is estimated that delays in diagnosis due to the COVID-19 pandemic in North Macedonia could result in significant reductions in the number of potentially curative stages in lung cancer patients. Purpose: The aim of this study was to review patient characteristics and treatment strategies of lung cancer patients treated at the University Clinic of Radiotherapy and Oncology (UCRO), during the pre-pandemic year (from 1 of March 2019 to the end of February 2020) and the pandemic year (from 1 of March 2020 to the end of February 2021). Material: We analyzed eligible patients in the course of these two years according to patient characteristics and treatment strategies. Results: We have a record increasing in number of undefined lung cancer patients without any pathological or histological conformation (11% pandemic year compared to 7% in the previous year), and an increased number of stage III and IV NSCLC patients in the pandemic year 449 (87%), in comparison to the pre-pandemic year of 403 (74%) patients. We have found a decreasing number of stage II NSCLC patients in the pandemic year 82 (13%) compared to 141 (26%) patients in the pre-pandemic year. We also note a decreasing number of patients with NSCLC operated on from 218 to 123 in the pandemic group. Due to frequent check-ups for COVID-19, we report an increasing number of early stage IA and stage IB patients, treated only by surgery. Conclusions: The strict screening and admittance criteria put in place by hospitals during the pandemic might have improved the oncology treatment course of lung cancer patients.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Care.

We assessed the impact of COVID-19 on healthcare visits, timing of stage IV NSCLC diagnosis and immunotherapy initiation, and rates of switching to extended dosing schedules of immunotherapies among patients with stage IV NSCLC. This retrospective study examined electronic health record data of adult patients receiving treatment for stage IV NSCLC within The US Oncology Network and Onmark. Endpoints were compared for February-July 2019 (before COVID) vs. February-July 2020 (during COVID). The study found rapid decreases in numbers of patients with clinic/vital visits, immunotherapy initiations, and new diagnoses of stage IV NSCLC during April-May 2020 vs. April-May 2019. The rate of delays of immunotherapy administrations and proportions of patients with such delays increased from February to March of 2020. These patterns may have resulted from the increase in COVID-19 cases during this period and the corresponding quarantine and lockdowns. However, when comparing pre COVID-19 and during COVID-19 for May and after, the differences in delay of immuno-oncology administrations became less marked, likely due to lifting of lockdowns. The rate of switching from shorter to longer dosing schedules increased from May-July 2020. This was mainly attributed to pembrolizumab, likely due to FDA approval of the pembrolizumab 6W dosing schedule in April 2020.

Hypermetabolic lymphadenopathy following the administration of COVID-19 vaccine and immunotherapy in a lung cancer patient: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Given the current climate of the pandemic, lung cancer patients are especially vulnerable to complications from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. As a high-risk population group, these patients are strongly advised to receive coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination in accordance with Center for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines to minimize morbidity and mortality. In recent years, immunotherapy has taken a preeminent role in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer with dramatic improvement in overall survival. Reactive lymphadenopathy following the administration of a coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination can confound the radiographic interpretation of positron emission tomography-computed tomography or computed tomography scans from lung cancer patients receiving immunotherapy. CASE PRESENTATION: Here, we present a case of a 61-year-old Caucasian female and former smoker who developed cervical, hilar, supraclavicular, mediastinal, and left retroauricular lymphadenopathy following her coronavirus disease 2019 booster vaccination. At the time, she had been receiving long-term immunotherapy for the treatment of advanced lung adenocarcinoma. Biopsy was pursued owing to concerns of treatment failure and confirmed recurrent malignancy. CONCLUSION: This case report highlights the importance of lymph node biopsies in lung cancer patients who present with contralateral lymphadenopathy following coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination to rule out tumor recurrence in this deserving patient population.

Antibody Response to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine in Patients With Lung Cancer After Primary Immunization and Booster: Reactivity to the SARS-CoV-2 WT Virus and Omicron Variant.

PURPOSE: To examine COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-induced binding and neutralizing antibody responses in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to SARS-CoV-2 614D (wild type [WT]) strain and variants of concern after the primary 2-dose and booster vaccination. METHODS: Eighty-two patients with NSCLC and 53 healthy volunteers who received SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were included in the study. Blood was collected longitudinally, and SARS-CoV-2-specific binding and neutralizing antibody responses were evaluated by Meso Scale Discovery assay and live virus Focus Reduction Neutralization Assay, respectively. RESULTS: A majority of patients with NSCLC generated binding and neutralizing antibody titers comparable with the healthy vaccinees after mRNA vaccination, but a subset of patients with NSCLC (25%) made poor responses, resulting in overall lower (six- to seven-fold) titers compared with the healthy cohort (P = < .0001). Although patients age > 70 years had lower immunoglobulin G titers (P = < .01), patients receiving programmed death-1 monotherapy, chemotherapy, or a combination of both did not have a significant impact on the antibody response. Neutralizing antibody titers to the B.1.617.2 (Delta), B.1.351 (Beta), and in particular, B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variants were significantly lower (P = < .0001) compared with the 614D (WT) strain. Booster vaccination led to a significant increase (P = .0001) in the binding and neutralizing antibody titers to the WT and Omicron variant. However, 2-4 months after the booster, we observed a five- to seven-fold decrease in neutralizing titers to WT and Omicron viruses. CONCLUSION: A subset of patients with NSCLC responded poorly to the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination and had low neutralizing antibodies to the B.1.1.529 Omicron variant. Booster vaccination increased binding and neutralizing antibody titers to Omicron, but antibody titers declined after 3 months. These data highlight the concern for patients with cancer given the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant.

Development of an Australia and New Zealand Lung Cancer Clinical Quality Registry: a protocol paper.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality, comprising the largest national cancer disease burden in Australia and New Zealand. Regional reports identify substantial evidence-practice gaps, unwarranted variation from best practice, and variation in processes and outcomes of care between treating centres. The Australia and New Zealand Lung Cancer Registry (ANZLCR) will be developed as a Clinical Quality Registry to monitor the safety, quality and effectiveness of lung cancer care in Australia and New Zealand. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patient participants will include all adults >18 years of age with a new diagnosis of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), SCLC, thymoma or mesothelioma. The ANZLCR will register confirmed diagnoses using opt-out consent. Data will address key patient, disease, management processes and outcomes reported as clinical quality indicators. Electronic data collection facilitated by local data collectors and local, state and federal data linkage will enhance completeness and accuracy. Data will be stored and maintained in a secure web-based data platform overseen by registry management. Central governance with binational representation from consumers, patients and carers, governance, administration, health department, health policy bodies, university research and healthcare workers will provide project oversight. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The ANZLCR has received national ethics approval under the National Mutual Acceptance scheme. Data will be routinely reported to participating sites describing performance against measures of agreed best practice and nationally to stakeholders including federal, state and territory departments of health. Local, regional and (bi)national benchmarks, augmented with online dashboard indicator reporting will enable local targeting of quality improvement efforts.

Understanding the lived experience of lung cancer: a European social media listening study.

BACKGROUND: Social media platforms are increasingly being used by stakeholders to generate, access, and share health-related information and experiences. Lung cancer is the most common cancer, impacting > 2 million patients globally. This observational study utilized a social listening approach to analyze social media trends and gain insights into stakeholder perceptions of lung cancer. METHODS: This social media study retrospectively collated data from open access blogs, forums, and social networking sites. Social media posts were collected between June 2019-May 2020 from 14 European countries. Using social media aggregator tools, posts comprising lung cancer and non-small cell lung cancer-specific terms were extracted. Manual and automated relevancy algorithms filtered the extracted information to provide the relevant dataset. This contextualized dataset was further mined to generate the final data for analysis. RESULTS: Of 1360 conversations analyzed, 42% were generated by patients/caregivers and 14% by healthcare professionals (HCPs). A majority of patients were 51-70 years old (approximately 50%) and 91% (n = 500/550) had late-stage cancer. Treatment (35%) and disease awareness (30%) were among the most discussed topic of the patient journey. Although the overall treatment sentiment was neutral, chemotherapy was the treatment type with the highest associated negative sentiment (28%); fewer negative sentiments were associated with immunotherapy (9%) and targeted therapy (2%), due to perceptions of longer survival outcomes and fewer side effects. In conversations that discussed clinical endpoints, "survivability" and "overall survival" (47 and 30%, respectively; n = 539) were most frequently mentioned by stakeholders. HCPs mostly used technical terms, whereas patients and caregivers used colloquial terms such as "getting rid of cancer". Emotional wellness was identified to have a huge impact on quality of life in lung cancer. Delay or treatment cancellations due to COVID-19, lack of effective treatments and funding, and lack of empathy by physicians emerged as the key unmet needs among patients/caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Social listening proved to be an effective tool to explore stakeholders' perceptions and their key unmet needs, typically not available in published literature or databases, and provides HCPs with valuable insights into the distress, doubts, and needs of lung cancer patients and caregivers.

Extended Delay to Treatment for Stage III-IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer and Survival: Balancing Risks During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, patients may encounter lung cancer care delays. Here, we sought to examine the impact of extended treatment delay for stage III-IV non-small-cell lung cancer on patient survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) data, Cox regression analysis with penalized smoothing splines was performed to examine the association between treatment delay and all-cause mortality for stage III-IV lung adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. In the NCDB, propensity score-matched analysis was used to compare cumulative survival in patients who received "early" versus "delayed" treatment (ie, 0-30 vs. 90-120 days following diagnosis). RESULTS: Cox regression analysis of the NLST (n = 392) and NCDB (n = 275,198) cohorts showed a decrease in hazard ratio the longer treatment was delayed. In propensity score-matched analysis, no significant differences in survival were found between early and delayed treatment for patients with stage IIIA, IIIB (T3-4,N2,M0), IIIC, and IV (M1B-C) adenocarcinoma and patients with IIIA, IIIB, IIIC, and IV squamous cell carcinoma (all log-rank P > .05). For patients with stage IIIB (T1-2,N3,M0) and stage IV (M1A) adenocarcinoma, delayed treatment was associated with improved survival (log-rank P = .03, P = .02). The findings were consistent in sensitivity analysis accounting for wait time bias. CONCLUSION: In this national analysis, for patients with stage III-IV adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, an extended treatment delay by 3 to 4 months was not associated with significantly decreased overall survival compared to prompt treatment. These findings can be used to guide decision-making during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Cancer Treatment During COVID-19: Resilience of Individuals With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Versus Community Controls.

BACKGROUND: Among all patients with cancer, those with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience the most distress. Although new therapies are improving survival, it is unknown whether receiving immunotherapy or targeted therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic increases patients' psychological vulnerability. To meet clinical needs, knowledge of patients' COVID-19 perceptions and safety behaviors is essential. Thus, this study compared patients' psychological responses at diagnosis and during COVID-19 and compared patients with similar individuals without cancer during the same period. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced NSCLC enrolled at diagnosis for cohort study participated (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03199651). Those with follow-ups from April 28, 2020, through July 14, 2020 (n=76), were assessed again including COVID-19 measures. Simultaneously, community controls with similar sociodemographics and smoking histories were solicited (n=67). Measures were COVID-19 perceptions (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), social distancing, and depressive (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) and anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7) symptoms. First, analyses evaluated differences in the psychological responses of patients with NSCLC at diagnosis and during COVID-19. Second, patients and controls were contrasted on COVID-19 perceptions, social distancing, and psychological symptoms. RESULTS: The depressive and anxious symptoms of patients with NSCLC were greater at diagnosis (P<.02) than during COVID-19, approximately 1 year later. Patients with NSCLC and controls did not differ in terms of sociodemographics, except those with NSCLC were more racially diverse and older, and had greater smoking history (P<.03). Groups did not differ regarding concern, understanding, or perceived control over COVID-19 (P>.406). Notably, controls anticipated the COVID threat would last longer, practiced more social distancing, were more concerned about family (P<.04), and reported worse psychological symptoms (P<.023). With less depression and anxiety, patients with NSCLC viewed COVID-19 as a shorter-term threat and had fewer COVID-19-related worries than did controls. For controls, COVID-19 was more salient, heightening worries and psychological symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Despite multiple health stressors, patients with NSCLC demonstrated resilience when receiving cancer treatment during COVID-19. Nonetheless, this population remains psychologically vulnerable, requiring support at diagnosis and thereafter.

Defining comprehensive biomarker-related testing and treatment practices for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Results of a survey of U.S. oncologists.

BACKGROUND: An ASCO taskforce comprised of representatives of oncology clinicians, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (NLCRT), LUNGevity, the GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer, and the ROS1ders sought to: characterize U.S. oncologists' biomarker ordering and treatment practices for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); ascertain barriers to biomarker testing; and understand the impact of delays on treatment decisions. METHODS: We deployed a survey to 2374 ASCO members, targeting U.S. thoracic and general oncologists. RESULTS: We analyzed 170 eligible responses. For non-squamous NSCLC, 97% of respondents reported ordering tests for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF. Testing for MET, RET, and NTRK was reported to be higher among academic versus community providers and higher among thoracic oncologists than generalists. Most respondents considered 1 (46%) or 2 weeks (52%) an acceptable turnaround time, yet 37% usually waited three or more weeks to receive results. Respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to defer treatment until results were reviewed (63%). Community and generalist respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to initiate non-targeted treatment while awaiting results. Respondents <5 years out of training were more likely to cite their concerns about waiting for results as a reason for not ordering biomarker testing (42%, vs. 19% with ≥6 years of experience). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents reported high biomarker testing rates in patients with NSCLC. Treatment decisions were impacted by test turnaround time and associated with practice setting and physician specialization and experience.

Postoperative Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced NSCLC: Implications for Shifting to Conformal, High-Risk Fields.

BACKGROUND: To examine the effect of radiotherapy field size on survival outcomes and patterns of recurrence in patients treated with postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 216 patients with T1-4 N1-2 NSCLC following surgery and PORT using whole mediastinum (WM) or high-risk (HR) nodal fields from 1998 to 2015. Survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariable analyses were conducted using Cox proportional hazards modeling for outcomes and logistic regression analysis for treatment toxicities. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 28 months (interquartile range [IQR] 13-75 months) and 38 months (IQR 19-73 months) for WM (n = 131) and HR (n = 84) groups, respectively. Overall survival (OS) was not significantly different between groups (median OS: HR 49 vs. WM 32 months; P = .08). There was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS), freedom from locoregional recurrence (LRR), or freedom from distant metastasis (P > .2 for all). Field size was not associated with OS, PFS, or LRR (P > .40 for all). LRR rates were 20% for HR and 26% for WM groups (P = .30). There was no significant difference in patterns of initial site of LRR between groups (P > .1). WM fields (OR 3.73, P = .001) and concurrent chemotherapy (odds ratio 3.62, P = .001) were associated with grade ≥2 toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Locoregional control and survival rates were similar between PORT groups; an improved toxicity profile was observed in the HR group. Results from an ongoing prospective randomized clinical trial will provide further insight into the consequences of HR PORT fields.

Current status of diagnosis and treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the current status of diagnosis and treatment of Chinese patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and the expert recommendation of the therapeutic regimens during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and to analyze and summarize relevant rules. METHODS: Under the planning and coordination of the Lung Cancer Group of the Chinese Thoracic Society, we performed an online questionnaire survey among experts in lung cancer and patients with NSCLC. Convenience sampling was adopted for questionnaire survey of experts, and random sampling was adopted for questionnaire survey of patients. After collecting and sorting out the questionnaire, a descriptive analysis of the data was performed. RESULTS: Within 24 h from the distribution of questionnaires to the deadline, a total of 808 and 321 valid questionnaires from patients and experts were collected across China, respectively. There were 83.81% of the experts performed moderately and strongly anti-tumor therapy for patients with NSCLC during the COVID-19 pandemic. 76.6% of patients mainly receive online public welfare treatment, and the patient satisfaction rate reached up to 64.97%. For driver gene-positive patients with advanced NSCLC and non-COVID-19, 82.87% of the experts recommended first-line simple targeted therapy, and 12.77% of the experts recommended targeted therapy with oral anti-angiogenic drugs. For patients who were unable to return to the hospital for treatment and showed resistance to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy, 92.21% of the experts recommended oral anti-angiogenic drugs as the third-line home-based therapy and above. For patients with advanced NSCLC combined with COVID-19, 98.76% and 95.95% of the experts recommended discontinuation of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: During COVID-19, most Chinese patients with NSCLC were still able to receive timely diagnosis and treatment either by online public welfare consultation or at nearby hospitals.

Novel Program Offering Remote, Asynchronous Subspecialist Input in Thoracic Oncology: Early Experience and Insights Gained During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: AccessHope is a program developed initially by City of Hope to provide remote subspecialist input on cancer care for patients as a supplemental benefit for specific payers or employers. The leading platform for this work has been an asynchronous model of review of medical records followed by a detailed assessment of past and current management along with discussion of potential future options in a report sent to the local oncologist. This summary describes an early period of development and growth of this service, focusing on cases of lung cancer, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Cases were primarily identified by a trigger list of cancer diagnoses that included non-small-cell lung cancer and small-cell lung cancer. After medical records were obtained, a summary narrative was provided to a thoracic oncology specialist who wrote a case review sent to the local physician, followed by a direct discussion with the recipient. We focused on feasibility as measured by case volumes, the rates of concordance between the subspecialist reviewer with the local team, and cost savings from recommended changes, using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: From April 2019 to November 2020, 110 cases were reviewed: 55% male, median age 62.5 years (range, 33-92 years); 82% non-small-cell lung cancer (12% stage I or II, 16% stage III, and 57% stage IV), and 17% small-cell lung cancer (4% limited and 14% extensive). Median turnaround time for report send-out was 5.0 days. The review agreed with local management in 79 (72%) cases and disagreed in 31 (28%) cases; notably, specific additional recommendations were associated with evidence-based anticipated improvements in efficacy in 76 cases (69%) and improvement in potential for cure in 14 cases (13%). Recommendations leading to cost savings were identified in 14 cases (13%), translating to a projected cost savings of $19,062 (USD) per patient for the entire cohort of patient cases reviewed. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate the feasibility of completing a rapid turnaround of cases of lung cancer either patient-initiated for review or prospectively triggered by diagnosis and stage. This program of asynchronous second opinions identified evidence-based management changes affecting current treatment in 28% and potential improvements to improve care in 92% of patients, along with cost savings realized by eliminating low-value interventions.

Severity of COVID-19 in patients with lung cancer: evidence and challenges.

Cancer patients are highly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infections due to frequent contacts with the healthcare system, immunocompromised state from cancer or its therapies, supportive medications such as steroids and most importantly their advanced age and comorbidities. Patients with lung cancer have consistently been reported to suffer from an increased risk of death compared with other cancers. This is possibly due to the combination of specific pathophysiological aspects, including underlying pulmonary compromise due to smoking history and the increased specific pressures on respiratory healthcare services caused by the related pandemic. Rationally and safely treating patients with lung cancer during the pandemic has become a continuous challenge over the last year. Deciding whether to offer, modify, postpone or even cancel treatments for this particular patient's population has become the crucial recurrent dilemma for lung cancer professionals. Chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted agents represent distinct risks factors in the context of COVID-19 that should be balanced with the short-term and long-term consequences of delaying cancer care. Despite the rapid and persistent trend of the pandemic, declared by WHO on March 11, 2020, and still ongoing at the time of writing (January 2021), various efforts were made by oncologists worldwide to understand the impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer. Adapted recommendations of our evidence-based practice guidelines have been developed for all stakeholders. Different small and large-scale registries, such as the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) and Thoracic Cancers International COVID-19 Collaboration quickly collected data, supporting cancer care decisions under the challenging circumstance created by the COVID-19 pandemic. Several recommendations were developed as guidance for prioritizing the various aspects of lung cancer care in order to mitigate the adverse effects of the COVID-19 healthcare crisis, potentially reducing the morbidity and mortality of our patients from COVID-19 and from cancer. These recommendations helped inform decisions about treatment of established disease, continuation of clinical research and lung cancer screening. In this review, we summarize available evidence regarding the direct and indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on lung cancer care and patients.

Italian survey on the clinical management of non-small cell lung cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: A lesson for the second wave.

This study investigated the clinical management of non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients during the first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in Italy. A 29-questions survey was sent to 95 Italian thoracic oncologists, with 77 % of them declaring significant changes in the outpatients management and treatment. The results of this survey pointed out a significant delay of lung cancer diagnosis along with a relevant reduction of patients' accrual within clinical trials. Telemedicine emerged as a valid support for patient-healthcare interactions. Therapeutic indications followed the guidelines for adjuvant chemotherapy and concurrent chemo-radiation. Clinical indications to first-line therapies were largely confirmed, while major changes regarded the selection of second line treatment options as well as the management of elderly population. This work may represent a valid source of information to improve the clinical management of NSCLC patients during second wave of COVID-19 pandemic.

A qualitative study of online support communities for lung cancer survivors on targeted therapies.

BACKGROUND: Due to recent treatment advances, people who have non-small cell lung cancer with oncogenic alterations are an important new group of cancer survivors. Little is known about lung cancer online support communities. This research was guided by two primary questions: (1) How do these lung cancer survivors engage in online support communities? and (2) What are the psychological, social, and physical impacts of such engagement? METHODS: Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with patients with advanced lung cancer (N = 40) to learn about their experiences with the illness. We used qualitative thematic analysis, inductive and deductive, as outlined by Carspecken. We adapted the framework for studying online communities developed by Zhang and colleagues to examine engagement with and impacts of involvement in online lung cancer support communities. RESULTS: Participants described engaging in the online community through (1) initializing communication through asking questions or sharing resources, (2) responding to others comments or inquiries, or (3) simply observing/reading others posts. Participation had physical, psychological, or social impacts, with benefits (e.g., empowerment) and risks (e.g., feelings of jealousy or misinformation) in each domain. Participants used various strategies to mitigate negative impacts, such as distancing oneself as needed. CONCLUSIONS: Online lung cancer support communities provide support, camaraderie, and specialized health information. However, there are also risks of online engagement, such as social comparison or accessing misinformation. Understanding the utility of online support communities for lung cancer survivors on targeted therapies and further addressing their risks are urgent tasks, especially in the post-COVID era.

Development of a Model to Estimate the Association Between Delay in Cancer Treatment and Local Tumor Control and Risk of Metastases.

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to treatment delays for many patients with cancer. While published guidelines provide suggestions on which cases are appropriate for treatment delay, there are no good quantitative estimates on the association of delays with tumor control or risk of new metastases. Objectives: To develop a simplified mathematical model of tumor growth, control, and new metastases for cancers with varying doubling times and metastatic potential and to estimate tumor control probability (TCP) and metastases risk as a function of treatment delay interval. Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytical model describes a quantitative model for 3 tumors (ie, head and neck, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancers). Using accepted ranges of tumor doubling times and metastatic development from the clinical literature from 2001 to 2020, estimates of tumor growth, TCP, and new metastases were analyzed for various treatment delay intervals. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk estimates for potential decreases in local TCP and increases in new metastases with each interval of treatment delay. Results: For fast-growing head and neck tumors with a 2-month treatment delay, there was an estimated 4.8% (95% CI, 3.4%-6.4%) increase in local tumor control risk and a 0.49% (0.47%-0.51%) increase in new distal metastases risk. A 6-month delay was associated with an estimated 21.3% (13.4-30.4) increase in local tumor control risk and a 6.0% (5.2-6.8) increase in distal metastases risk. For intermediate-growing colorectal tumors, there was a 2.1% (0.7%-3.5%) increase in local tumor control risk and a 2.7% (2.6%-2.8%) increase in distal metastases risk at 2 months and a 7.6% (2.2%-14.2%) increase in local tumor control risk and a 24.7% (21.9%-27.8%) increase in distal metastases risk at 6 months. For slower-growing lung tumors, there was a 1.2% (0.0%-2.8%) increase in local tumor control risk and a 0.19% (0.18%-0.20%) increase in distal metastases risk at 2 months, and a 4.3% (0.0%-10.6%) increase in local tumor control risk and a 1.9% (1.6%-2.2%) increase in distal metastases risk at 6 months. Conclusions and Relevance: This study proposed a model to quantify the association of treatment delays with local tumor control and risk of new metastases. The detrimental associations were greatest for tumors with faster rates of proliferation and metastasis. The associations were smaller, but still substantial, for slower-growing tumors.

Infections and Immunotherapy in Lung Cancer: A Bad Relationship?

Infectious diseases represent a relevant issue in lung cancer patients. Bacterial and viral infections might influence the patients' prognosis, both directly affecting the immune system and indirectly impairing the outcome of anticancer treatments, mainly immunotherapy. In this analysis, we aimed to review the current evidence in order to clarify the complex correlation between infections and lung cancer. In detail, we mainly explored the potential impact on immunotherapy outcome/safety of (1) bacterial infections, with a detailed focus on antibiotics; and (2) viral infections, discriminating among (a) human immune-deficiency virus (HIV), (b) hepatitis B/C virus (HBV-HCV), and (c) Sars-Cov-2. A series of studies suggested the prognostic impact of antibiotic therapy administration, timing, and exposure ratio in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, probably through an antibiotic-related microbiota dysbiosis. Although cancer patients with HIV, HBV, and HCV were usually excluded from clinical trials evaluating immunotherapy, some retrospective and prospective trials performed in these patient subgroups reported similar results compared to those described in not-infected patients, with a favorable safety profile. Moreover, patients with thoracic cancers are particularly at risk of COVID-19 severe outcomes and mortality. Few reports speculated about the prognostic implications of anticancer therapy, including immunotherapy, in lung cancer patients with concomitant Sars-Cov-2 infection, showing, to date, inconsistent results. The correlation between infectious diseases and immunotherapy remains to be further explored and clarified in the context of dedicated trials. In clinical practice, the accurate and prompt multidisciplinary management of lung cancer patients with infections should be encouraged in order to select the best treatment options for these patients, avoiding unexpected toxicities, while maintaining the anticancer effect.

Consensus statement: summary of the Quebec Lung Cancer Network recommendations for prioritizing patients with thoracic cancers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: The emergence of covid-19 has the potential to change the way in which the health care system can accommodate various patient populations and might affect patients with non-covid-19 problems. The Quebec Lung Cancer Network, which oversees thoracic oncology services in the province of Quebec under the direction of the Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux, convened to develop recommendations to deal with the potential disruption of services in thoracic oncology in the province of Quebec. The summary provided here has been adapted from the original document posted on the Programme québécois du cancer Web site at: https://www.msss.gouv.qc.ca/professionnels/documents/coronavirus-2019-ncov/PJ1_Recommandations_oncologie-thoracique-200415.pdf. Methods: Plans to optimize the health care system and potentially to prioritize services were discussed with respect to various levels of activity. For each level-of-activity scenario, suggestions were made for the services and treatments to prioritize and for those that might have to be postponed, as well as for potential alternatives to care. Results: The principal recommendation is that the cancer centre executive committee and the multidisciplinary tumour board always try to find a solution to maintain standard-of-care therapy for all patients with thoracic tumours, using novel approaches to treatment and the adoption of a network approach to care, as needed. Conclusions: The effect of the covid-19 pandemic on the health care system remains unpredictable and requires that cancer teams unite and offer the most efficient and innovative therapies to all patients under the various conditions that might be forced upon them.