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

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

"All boats will rise": Physicians' perspectives on multidisciplinary lung cancer care in a community-based hospital setting.

PURPOSE: We explored the perceived strengths, barriers to implementation, and suggestions for sustainable implementation of a multidisciplinary model within a community-based hospital system from the physicians' perspectives. METHODS: We conducted 9 focus groups with 37 physicians involved in the care of lung cancer patients. Grounded theory methodology guided the identification of recurrent themes that emerged from the qualitative data analysis. RESULTS: The majority of study participants agreed that the multidisciplinary model could benefit patients by promoting high quality, efficient, and well-coordinated care. Co-location, financial disincentives, and time constraints were identified as major deterrents to full participation in a multidisciplinary clinic. Other perceived challenges were the integration of a multidisciplinary care model into the existing healthcare system, maintenance of referral streams, and designation of the physician primarily responsible for a patient's care. Educating physicians about the availability of a multidisciplinary clinic, establishing efficient processes for initial consultations, implementing technology for virtual participation, and using a nurse navigator with reliable closed-loop communication were suggested to improve the implementation of the multidisciplinary model. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians generally agreed that the multidisciplinary model could improve lung cancer care, but they perceived significant personal, institutional, and system-level barriers that need to be addressed for its successful implementation in a community healthcare setting.

Reducing Bottlenecks to Improve the Efficiency of the Lung Cancer Care Delivery Process: A Process Engineering Modeling Approach to Patient-Centered Care.

The process of lung cancer care from initial lesion detection to treatment is complex, involving multiple steps, each introducing the potential for substantial delays. Identifying the steps with the greatest delays enables a focused effort to improve the timeliness of care-delivery, without sacrificing quality. We retrospectively reviewed clinical events from initial detection, through histologic diagnosis, radiologic and invasive staging, and medical clearance, to surgery for all patients who had an attempted resection of a suspected lung cancer in a community healthcare system. We used a computer process modeling approach to evaluate delays in care delivery, in order to identify potential 'bottlenecks' in waiting time, the reduction of which could produce greater care efficiency. We also conducted 'what-if' analyses to predict the relative impact of simulated changes in the care delivery process to determine the most efficient pathways to surgery. The waiting time between radiologic lesion detection and diagnostic biopsy, and the waiting time from radiologic staging to surgery were the two most critical bottlenecks impeding efficient care delivery (more than 3 times larger compared to reducing other waiting times). Additionally, instituting surgical consultation prior to cardiac consultation for medical clearance and decreasing the waiting time between CT scans and diagnostic biopsies, were potentially the most impactful measures to reduce care delays before surgery. Rigorous computer simulation modeling, using clinical data, can provide useful information to identify areas for improving the efficiency of care delivery by process engineering, for patients who receive surgery for lung cancer.

A comparison of 12-gene colon cancer assay gene expression in African American and Caucasian patients with stage II colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: African American (AA) colon cancer patients have a worse prognosis than Caucasian (CA) colon cancer patients, however, reasons for this disparity are not well understood. To determine if tumor biology might contribute to differential prognosis, we measured recurrence risk and gene expression using the Oncotype DX® Colon Cancer Assay (12-gene assay) and compared the Recurrence Score results and gene expression profiles between AA patients and CA patients with stage II colon cancer. METHODS: We retrieved demographic, clinical, and archived tumor tissues from stage II colon cancer patients at four institutions. The 12-gene assay and mismatch repair (MMR) status were performed by Genomic Health (Redwood City, California). Student's t-test and the Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to compare Recurrence Score data and gene expression data from AA and CA patients (SAS Enterprise Guide 5.1). RESULTS: Samples from 122 AA and 122 CA patients were analyzed. There were 118 women (63 AA, 55 CA) and 126 men (59 AA, 67 CA). Median age was 66 years for AA patients and 68 for CA patients. Age, gender, year of surgery, pathologic T-stage, tumor location, the number of lymph nodes examined, lymphovascular invasion, and MMR status were not significantly different between groups (p = 0.93). The mean Recurrence Score result for AA patients (27.9 ± 12.8) and CA patients (28.1 ± 11.8) was not significantly different and the proportions of patients with high Recurrence Score values (≥41) were similar between the groups (17/122 AA; 15/122 CA). None of the gene expression variables, either single genes or gene groups (cell cycle group, stromal group, BGN1, FAP, INHBA1, Ki67, MYBL2, cMYC and GADD45B), was significantly different between the racial groups. After controlling for clinical and pathologic covariates, the means and distributions of Recurrence Score results and gene expression profiles showed no statistically significant difference between patient groups. CONCLUSION: The distribution of Recurrence Score results and gene expression data was similar in a cohort of AA and CA patients with stage II colon cancer and similar clinical characteristics, suggesting that tumor biology, as represented by the 12-gene assay, did not differ between patient groups.

The impact of a novel lung gross dissection protocol on intrapulmonary lymph node retrieval from lung cancer resection specimens.

Although thorough pathologic nodal staging provides the greatest prognostic information in patients with potentially curable non-small cell lung cancer, N1 nodal metastasis is frequently missed. We tested the impact of corrective intervention with a novel pathology gross dissection protocol on intrapulmonary lymph node retrieval. This study is a retrospective review of consecutive lobectomy, or greater, lung resection specimens over a period of 15 months before and 15 months after training pathologist's assistants on the novel dissection protocol. One hundred forty one specimens were examined before and 121 specimens after introduction of the novel dissection protocol. The median number of intrapulmonary lymph nodes retrieved increased from 2 to 5 (P<.0001), and the 75th to 100th percentile range of detected intrapulmonary lymph node metastasis increased from 0 to 5 to 0 to 17 (P=.0003). In multivariate analysis, the extent of resection, examination period (preintervention or postintervention), and pathologic N1 (vs N0) status were most strongly associated with a higher number of intrapulmonary lymph nodes examined. A novel pathology dissection protocol is a feasible and effective means of improving the retrieval of intrapulmonary lymph nodes for examination. Further studies to enhance dissemination and implementation of this novel pathology dissection protocol are warranted.

Size and histologic characteristics of lymph node material retrieved from tissue discarded after routine pathologic examination of lung cancer resection specimens.

Redissection of discarded lung resection specimens after routine pathology examination reveals missed lymph node metastasis. We sought to determine if size can be used to grossly select lymph nodes for microscopic examination. This is a prospective cohort study of lymph nodes retrieved from discarded lung resection specimens. The association between size and histologic characteristics of retrieved material was compared by the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. We retrieved 1094 grossly 'lymph node-like" tissue from 112 remnant lung resection specimens, of which 345 (32%) proved not to be lymph nodes and 71 (9%) of 749 lymph nodes had metastasis. Metastasis was present in discarded nodes in 26 (23%) of 112 patients. The non-lymph node tissue was significantly smaller than lymph nodes (P < .0001); lymph nodes with metastases were significantly larger than those without metastases (P < .0001). However, there was significant size overlap between the 3 types of grossly lymph node-like tissue. Thirty-two percent of nodes with metastasis were less than 1 cm; 15% of patients had at least 1 lymph node less than 1 cm with metastasis. The size difference between lymph nodes with and without metastasis is clinically unhelpful because of broad overlap. Size is insufficiently discriminatory and cannot be relied on to select materials for histologic examination. A third of grossly retrieved material was non-lymph node tissue. This probably occurs during routine pathologic examination and likely contributes to the low N1 lymph node count.

Two Interventions on Pathologic Nodal Staging in a Population-Based Lung Cancer Resection Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Despite its prognostic importance, poor pathologic nodal staging of lung cancer prevails. We evaluated the impact of 2 interventions to improve pathologic nodal staging. METHODS: We implemented a lymph node specimen collection kit to improve intraoperative lymph node collection (surgical intervention) and a novel gross dissection method for intrapulmonary node retrieval (pathology intervention) in nonrandomized stepped-wedge fashion, involving 12 hospitals and 7 pathology groups. We used standard statistical methods to compare surgical quality and survival of patients who had neither intervention (group 1), pathology intervention only (group 2), surgical intervention only (group 3), and both interventions (group 4). RESULTS: Of 4019 patients from 2009 to 2021, 50%, 5%, 21%, and 24%, respectively, were in groups 1 to 4. Rates of nonexamination of lymph nodes were 11%, 9%, 0%, and 0% and rates of nonexamination of mediastinal lymph nodes were 29%, 35%, 2%, and 2%, respectively, in groups 1 to 4 (P < .0001). Rates of attainment of American College of Surgeons Operative Standard 5.8 were 22%, 29%, 72%, and 85%; and rates of International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer complete resection were 14%, 21%, 53%, and 61% (P < .0001). Compared with group 1, adjusted hazard ratios for death were as follows: group 2, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.76-1.15); group 3, 0.91 (0.78-1.03); and group 4, 0.75 (0.64-0.87). Compared with group 2, group 4 adjusted hazard ratio was 0.72 (0.57-0.91); compared with group 3, it was 0.83 (0.69-0.99). These relationships remained after exclusion of wedge resections. CONCLUSIONS: Combining a lymph node collection kit with a novel gross dissection method significantly improved pathologic nodal evaluation and survival.

Prevalence of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor and Programmed Death-Ligand 1 testing in a population-based lung cancer surgical resection cohort from 2018-2022.

BACKGROUND: Biomarker-directed therapy requires biomarker testing. We assessed the patterns of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) and Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PDL1) testing in a non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) resection cohort. We hypothesized that testing would increase but be unevenly distributed across patient-, provider- and institution-level demographics. METHODS: We examined the population-based Mid-south Quality of Surgical Resection (MS-QSR) cohort of NSCLC resections. We evaluated the proportions receiving EGFR and PDL1 testing before and after approval of biomarker-directed adjuvant therapy (2018-2020 versus 2021-2022). We used association tests and logistic regression to compare factors. RESULTS: From 2018-2022, 1687 patients had NSCLC resection across 12 MS-QSR institutions: 1045 (62%) from 2018-2020; and 642 (38%) from 2021-2022. From 2018-2020 11% had EGFR testing, versus 38% in 2021-2022 (56% in those meeting ADAURA trial inclusion criteria, p<0.0001). From 2018-2020, 8% had PDL1 testing, versus 20% in 2021-2022 (p<0.0001). EGFR testing did not significantly differ by age (p=0.07), sex (p=0.99), race (p=0.33), or smoking history (p=0.28); PDL1 testing did not differ significantly by age (p=0.47), sex (p=0.41), race (p=0.51), or health insurance (p=0.07). Testing was significantly less likely in non-teaching and non-Commission on Cancer-accredited hospitals and after resection by cardiothoracic or general surgeons (versus dedicated thoracic surgeons) (all p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: EGFR and PDL1 testing increased after approval of biomarker-directed adjuvant therapies. However, testing rates were still suboptimal and differed by institutional and provider-level factors. IMPACT: The association of institutional, pathologist, and surgeon characteristics with differences in testing demonstrate the need for more standardization in testing processes.

Assessing Patient Readiness for an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Symptom Management Intervention in a Multisite Study.

PURPOSE: While the use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) in routine clinical practice is increasing, barriers to patient engagement limit adoption. Studies have focused on technology access as a key barrier, yet other characteristics may also confound readiness to use ePROs including patients' confidence in using technology and confidence in asking clinicians questions. METHODS: To assess readiness to use ePROs, adult patients from six US-based health systems who started a new oncology treatment or underwent a cancer-directed surgery were invited to complete a survey that assessed access to and confidence in the use of technology, ease of asking clinicians questions about health, and symptom management self-efficacy. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression models were fit to assess the association between technology confidence, ease of asking questions, and symptom management self-efficacy. RESULTS: We contacted 3,212 individuals, and 1,043 (33%) responded. The median age was 63 years, 68% were female, and 75% reported having access to patient portals. Over 80% had two or more electronic devices. Most patients reported high technology confidence, higher ease of asking clinicians questions, and high symptom management self-efficacy (n = 692; 66%). Patients with high technology confidence also reported higher ease of asking nurses about their health (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 4.58 [95% CI, 2.36 to 8.87]; P ≤ .001). Those who reported higher ease of asking nurses questions were more likely to report higher confidence in managing symptoms (AOR, 30.54 [95% CI, 12.91 to 72.30]; P ≤ .001). CONCLUSION: Patient readiness to use ePROs likely depends on multiple factors, including technology and communication confidence, and symptom management self-efficacy. Future studies should assess interventions to address these factors.

Incidentally Detected Lung Cancer in Persons Too Young or Too Old for Lung Cancer Screening in a Mississippi Delta Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer risk in screening age-ineligible persons with incidentally detected lung nodules is poorly characterized. We evaluated lung cancer risk in two age-ineligible Lung Nodule Program (LNP) cohorts. METHODS: Prospective observational study comparing 2-year cumulative lung cancer diagnosis risk, lung cancer characteristics, and overall survival between low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening participants aged 50 to 80 years and LNP participants aged 35 to younger than 50 years (young) and older than 80 years (elderly). RESULTS: From 2015 to 2022, lung cancer was diagnosed in 329 (3.43%), 39 (1.07%), and 172 (6.87%) LDCT, young, and elderly LNP patients, respectively. The 2-year cumulative incidence was 3.0% (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 2.6%-3.4%) versus 0.79% (CI: 0.54%-1.1%) versus 6.5% (CI: 5.5%-7.6%), respectively, but lung cancer diagnosis risk was similar between young LNP and Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) 1 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.88 [CI: 0.50-1.56]) and Lung-RADS 2 (aHR = 1.0 [0.58-1.72]). Elderly LNP risk was greater than Lung-RADS 3 (aHR = 2.34 [CI: 1.50-3.65]), but less than 4 (aHR = 0.28 [CI: 0.22-0.35]). Lung cancer was stage I or II in 62.92% of LDCT versus 33.33% of young (p = 0.0003) and 48.26% of elderly (p = 0.0004) LNP cohorts; 16.72%, 41.03%, and 29.65%, respectively, were diagnosed at stage IV. The aggregate 5-year overall survival rates were 57% (CI: 48-67), 55% (CI: 39-79), and 24% (CI: 15-40) (log-rank p < 0.0001). Results were similar after excluding persons with any history of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: LNP modestly benefited persons too young or old for screening. Differences in clinical characteristics and outcomes suggest differences in biological characteristics of lung cancer in these three patient cohorts.

Program-Based Lung Cancer Care: A Prospective Observational Tumor Registry Linkage Study.

Introduction: Low-dose computed tomography screening (LDCT) and lung nodule programs (LNP) promote early lung cancer detection, improve survival; Multidisciplinary Care Programs (MDC) promote guideline-concordant care. The impact of such program-based care on "real-world" lung cancer survival is unquantified. We evaluated outcomes of lung cancer care delivered through structured programs in a community health care system. Methods: We conducted a cohort study linking institutional prospective observational LDCT, LNP and MDC databases with Tumor Registry of Baptist Cancer Center facilities. We categorized all patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 2011 and 2021 into program-based care versus non-program-based care cohorts. We compared patient characteristics, stage distribution, treatment modalities, survival and mortality in each pathway of care. Results: Of 12,148 patients, 237, 1,165, 1,140 and 9,606 were diagnosed through the LDCT, LNP, MDC or no program, respectively; non-program-based care sequentially diminished from 96.3% to 66.5%, diagnosis through LDCT increased from 0.5% to 7.1%, LNP from 3.5% to 20.8%; and MDC alone decreased from a high of 12.8% in 2014 to 5.6% in 2021. Program-based care was associated with earlier stage (p < 0.001), higher surgical resection rates (p < 0.001), greater use of adjuvant therapy (p < 0.001), better aggregate and stage-stratified survival (p < 0.001), and lower all-cause and lung cancer-specific mortality (p < 0.001). Recipients of non-program-based care were considerably less likely to receive lung cancer treatment; results remained consistent when patients receiving no treatment were excluded. Conclusions: Program-based care was associated with substantially better survival. Increasing access to program-based care should be explored as a matter of urgent public policy.

Strategies for Implementing an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes-Based Symptom Management Program Across Six Cancer Centers.

Background: Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO)-based symptom management improves cancer patients' outcomes. However, implementation of ePROs is challenging, requiring technical resources for integration into clinical systems, substantial buy-in from clinicians and patients, novel workflows to support between-visit symptom management, and institutional investment. Methods: The SIMPRO Research Consortium developed eSyM, an electronic health record-integrated, ePRO-based symptom management program for medical oncology and surgery patients and deployed it at six cancer centers between August 2019 and April 2022 in a type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized stepped-wedge study. Sites documented implementation strategies monthly using REDCap, itemized them using the Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) list and mapped their target barriers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to inform eSyM program enhancement, facilitate inter-consortium knowledge sharing and guide future deployment efforts. Results: We documented 226 implementation strategies: 35 'foundational' strategies were applied consortium-wide by the coordinating center and 191 other strategies were developed by individual sites. We consolidated these 191 site-developed strategies into 64 unique strategies (i.e., removed duplicates) and classified the remainder as either 'universal', consistently used by multiple sites (N=29), or 'adaptive', used only by individual sites (N=35). Universal strategies were perceived as having the highest impact; they addressed eSyM clinical preparation, training, engagement of patients/clinicians, and program evaluation. Across all documented SIMPRO strategies, 44 of the 73 ERIC strategies were addressed and all 5 CFIR barriers were addressed. Conclusion: Methodical collection of theory-based implementation strategies fostered the identification of universal, high-impact strategies that facilitated adoption of a novel care-delivery intervention by patients, clinicians, and institutions. Attention to the high-impact strategies identified in this project could support implementation of ePROs as a component of routine cancer care at other institutions.

Effects of a change in recall period on reporting severe symptoms: an analysis of a pragmatic multisite trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal methods for deploying electronic patient-reported outcomes to manage symptoms in routine oncologic practice remain uncertain. The electronic symptom management (eSyM) program asks chemotherapy and surgery patients to self-report 12 common symptoms regularly. Feedback from nurses and patients led to changing the recall period from the past 7 days to the past 24 hours. METHODS: Using questionnaires submitted during the 16 weeks surrounding the recall period change, we assessed the likelihood of reporting severe or moderate and severe symptoms across 12 common symptoms and separately for the 5 most prevalent symptoms. Interrupted time-series analyses modeled the effects of the change using generalized linear mixed-effects models. Surgery and chemotherapy cohorts were analyzed separately. Study-wide effects were estimated using a meta-analysis method. RESULTS: In total, 1692 patients from 6 institutions submitted 7823 eSyM assessments during the 16 weeks surrounding the recall period change. Shortening the recall period was associated with lower odds of severe symptom reporting in the surgery cohort (odds ratio = 0.65, 95% confidence interval = 0.46 to 0.93; P = .02) and lower odds of moderate and severe symptom reporting in the chemotherapy cohort (odds ratio = 0.83, 95% confidence interval = 0.71 to 0.97; P = .02). Among the most prevalent symptoms, 24-hour recall was associated with a lower rate of reporting postoperative constipation but no differences in reporting rates for other symptoms. CONCLUSION: A shorter recall period was associated with a reduction in the proportion of patients reporting moderate-severe symptoms. The optimal recall period may vary depending on whether electronic patient-reported outcomes are collected for active symptom management, as a clinical trial endpoint, or another purpose. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03850912.

Disparities in electronic health record portal access and use among patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record-linked portals may improve health-care quality for patients with cancer. Barriers to portal access and use undermine interventions that rely on portals to reduce cancer care disparities. This study examined portal access and persistence of portal use and associations with patient and structural factors before the implementation of 3 portal-based interventions within the Improving the Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium. METHODS: Portal use data were extracted from electronic health records for the 12 months preceding intervention implementation. Sociodemographic factors, mode of accessing portals (web vs mobile), and number of clinical encounters before intervention implementation were also extracted. Rurality was derived using rural-urban commuting area codes. Broadband access was estimated using the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. Multiple logistic regression models tested the associations of these factors with portal access (ever accessed or never accessed) and persistence of portal use (accessed the portal ≤20 weeks vs ≥21 weeks in the 35-week study period). RESULTS: Of 28 942 eligible patients, 10 061 (35%) never accessed the portal. Male sex, membership in a racial and ethnic minority group, rural dwelling, not working, and limited broadband access were associated with lower odds of portal access. Younger age and more clinical encounters were associated with higher odds of portal access. Of those with portal access, 25% were persistent users. Using multiple modalities for portal access, being middle-aged, and having more clinical encounters were associated with persistent portal use. CONCLUSION: Patient and structural factors affect portal access and use and may exacerbate disparities in electronic health record-based cancer symptom surveillance and management.

Current and Future Perspectives on Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer: A Roadmap From 2023 to 2027 From the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer substantially reduces mortality from lung cancer, as revealed in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. This review is based on the ninth CT screening symposium of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, which focuses on the major themes pertinent to the successful global implementation of LDCT screening and develops a strategy to further the implementation of lung cancer screening globally. These recommendations provide a 5-year roadmap to advance the implementation of LDCT screening globally, including the following: (1) establish universal screening program quality indicators; (2) establish evidence-based criteria to identify individuals who have never smoked but are at high-risk of developing lung cancer; (3) develop recommendations for incidentally detected lung nodule tracking and management protocols to complement programmatic lung cancer screening; (4) Integrate artificial intelligence and biomarkers to increase the prediction of malignancy in suspicious CT screen-detected lesions; and (5) standardize high-quality performance artificial intelligence protocols that lead to substantial reductions in costs, resource utilization and radiologist reporting time; (6) personalize CT screening intervals on the basis of an individual's lung cancer risk; (7) develop evidence to support clinical management and cost-effectiveness of other identified abnormalities on a lung cancer screening CT; (8) develop publicly accessible, easy-to-use geospatial tools to plan and monitor equitable access to screening services; and (9) establish a global shared education resource for lung cancer screening CT to ensure high-quality reading and reporting.

Expanding the Reach and Grasp of Lung Cancer Screening.

Low-dose computer tomographic (LDCT) lung cancer screening reduces lung cancer-specific and all-cause mortality among high-risk individuals, but implementation has been challenging. Despite health insurance coverage for lung cancer screening in the United States since 2015, fewer than 10% of eligible persons have participated; striking geographic, racial, and socioeconomic disparities were already evident, especially in the populations at greatest risk of lung cancer and, therefore, most likely to benefit from screening; and adherence to subsequent testing is significantly lower than that reported in clinical trials, potentially reducing the realized benefit. Lung cancer screening is a covered health care benefit in very few countries. Obtaining the full population-level benefit of lung cancer screening will require improved participation of already eligible persons (the grasp of screening) and improved eligibility criteria that more closely match up with the full spectrum of persons at risk (the reach of screening), irrespective of smoking history. We used the socioecological framework of health care to systematically review implementation barriers to lung cancer screening and discuss multilevel solutions. We also discussed guideline-concordant management of incidentally detected lung nodules as a complementary approach to early lung cancer detection that can extend the reach and strengthen the grasp of screening. Furthermore, we discussed ongoing efforts in Asia to explore the possibility of LDCT screening in populations in whom lung cancer risk is relatively independent of smoking. Finally, we summarized innovative technological solutions, including biomarker selection and artificial intelligence strategies, to improve the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening in diverse populations.

A biopsychosocial model to understand racial disparities in the era of cancer immunotherapy.

The approval and wide uptake of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in oncology practice raise the concerns of possibly worsened racial disparities in cancer treatment due to biological and psychosocial reasons. We propose a multilevel biopsychosocial model to understand the opportunities and challenges to racial disparities in the era of cancer immunotherapy.