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.

Perception of Treatment Success and Impact on Function with Antibiotics or Appendectomy for Appendicitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial with an Observational Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To compare secondary patient reported outcomes of perceptions of treatment success and function for patients treated for appendicitis with appendectomy vs. antibiotics at 30 days. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy trial found antibiotics noninferior to appendectomy based on 30-day health status. To address questions about outcomes among participants with lower socioeconomic status, we explored the relationship of sociodemographic and clinical factors and outcomes. METHODS: We focused on 4 patient reported outcomes at 30 days: high decisional regret, dissatisfaction with treatment, problems performing usual activities, and missing >10 days of work. The randomized (RCT) and observational cohorts were pooled for exploration of baseline factors. The RCT cohort alone was used for comparison of treatments. Logistic regression was used to assess associations. RESULTS: The pooled cohort contained 2062 participants; 1552 from the RCT. Overall, regret and dissatisfaction were low whereas problems with usual activities and prolonged missed work occurred more frequently. In the RCT, those assigned to antibiotics had more regret (Odd ratios (OR) 2.97, 95% Confidence intervals (CI) 2.05-4.31) and dissatisfaction (OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.25-3.12), and reported less missed work (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.27-0.56). Factors associated with function outcomes included sociodemographic and clinical variables for both treatment arms. Fewer factors were associated with dissatisfaction and regret. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants reported high satisfaction, low regret, and were frequently able to resume usual activities and return to work. When comparing treatments for appendicitis, no single measure defines success or failure for all people. The reported data may inform discussions regarding the most appropriate treatment for individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Cancers originating in the esophagus or esophagogastric junction constitute a major global health problem. Esophageal cancers are histologically classified as squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or adenocarcinoma, which differ in their etiology, pathology, tumor location, therapeutics, and prognosis. In contrast to esophageal adenocarcinoma, which usually affects the lower esophagus, esophageal SCC is more likely to localize at or higher than the tracheal bifurcation. Systemic therapy can provide palliation, improved survival, and enhanced quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. The implementation of biomarker testing, especially analysis of HER2 status, microsatellite instability status, and the expression of programmed death-ligand 1, has had a significant impact on clinical practice and patient care. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Palliative management, which may include systemic therapy, chemoradiation, and/or best supportive care, is recommended for all patients with unresectable or metastatic cancer. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with locally advanced esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancers. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers focuses on the management of recurrent or metastatic disease.

Gastric Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Over 95% of gastric cancers are adenocarcinomas, which are typically classified based on anatomic location and histologic type. Gastric cancer generally carries a poor prognosis because it is often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Systemic therapy can provide palliation, improved survival, and enhanced quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. The implementation of biomarker testing, especially analysis of HER2 status, microsatellite instability (MSI) status, and the expression of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), has had a significant impact on clinical practice and patient care. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Palliative management, which may include systemic therapy, chemoradiation, and/or best supportive care, is recommended for all patients with unresectable or metastatic cancer. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with localized gastric cancer. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Gastric Cancer focuses on the management of unresectable locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic disease.

Clinical Understaging, Treatment Response, and Survival Among Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Selecting appropriate management for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) is predicated on accurate clinical staging information. Inaccurate information could lead to inappropriate treatment and suboptimal survival. We investigated the relationship between staging accuracy, treatment, and survival. METHODS: This was a national cohort study of EA patients in the National Cancer Data Base (2006-2015) treated with upfront resection or neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). Clinical and pathological staging information was used to ascertain staging concordance for each patient. For NAT patients, Bayesian analysis was used to account for potential downstaging. We evaluated the association between staging concordance, receipt of NAT, and survival through hierarchical logistic regression and multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Among 7635 EA patients treated at 877 hospitals, 3038 had upfront resection and 4597 NAT followed by surgery. Relative to accurately staged patients, understaging was associated with a lower likelihood (odds ratio [OR] 0.04 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02-0.05) while overstaging was associated with a greater likelihood of receiving NAT (OR 1.98 [1.53-2.56]). Relative to upfront surgery, treatment of cT1N0 patients with NAT was associated with a higher risk of death (HR 3.08 [2.36-4.02]). For accurately or overstaged cT3-T4 patients, NAT was associated with a lower risk of death whether downstaging occurred (ypN0 disease-HR 0.67 [0.49-0.92]; N+ disease-HR 0.55 [0.45-0.66]) or not (ypN + disease-HR 0.78 [95% CI 0.65-0.93]). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical understaging is associated with receipt of NAT which in turn may have a stage-specific impact on patients' survival regardless of treatment response. Guidelines should account for the possibility of inaccurate clinical staging.

Use of post-discharge heparin prophylaxis and the risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding following bariatric surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality after bariatric surgery. Roughly 80% of VTEs occur post-discharge. The frequency of post-discharge heparin (PDH) prophylaxis use is unknown, and evidence about benefits and risks is limited. We aimed to determine the rate of use of PDH prophylaxis and evaluate its relationship with VTE and bleeding events. METHODS: Using the Truven Health MarketScan® database, we performed a retrospective cohort study (2007-2015) of adult patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass. We determined PDH prophylaxis from outpatient pharmacy claims, and post-discharge 90-day VTE and bleeding events from outpatient and inpatient claims. We used propensity score-adjusted regression models to mitigate confounding bias. RESULTS: Among 43,493 patients (median age 45 years; 78% women; 77% laparoscopic gastric bypass, 17% laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, 6% open gastric bypass), 6% received PDH prophylaxis. Overall, 224 patients (0.52%) experienced VTEs, and 806 patients (1.85%) experienced bleeding. The unadjusted VTE rate did not differ between patients who did and did not receive PDH prophylaxis (0.39% vs. 0.52%, respectively; p = 0.347). The unadjusted bleeding rate was higher for the PDH prophylaxis group (2.74% vs. 1.80%, p < 0.001). In our adjusted analysis, a 23% lower risk of VTE in the PDH prophylaxis group was not statistically significant (odds ratio [OR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41 to 1.46), whereas the 47% higher risk of bleeding was statistically significant (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.88). CONCLUSIONS: PDH prophylaxis after bariatric surgery is uncommon. In our analysis, use was not associated with a lower VTE risk but was associated with a higher bleeding risk.

Potential Impact of "Take the Volume Pledge" on Access and Outcomes for Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the number of US hospitals that would meet "Take the Volume Pledge" (TVP) volume thresholds and compare outcomes at hospitals meeting and not meeting TVP thresholds. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: TVP aims to regionalize complex cancer resections to hospitals meeting established annual average volume thresholds. There is little data describing the potential impact on patient access if this initiative were broadly implemented or the relationship between these volume thresholds and quality of oncologic care. METHODS: Hospitals in the National Cancer Database (2006-2012) performing esophagectomy (n = 968), proctectomy (n = 1250), or pancreatectomy (n = 1068) were categorized based on frequency meeting TVP thresholds: always low volume (LV); low annual average and intermittently low volume (ILV); high annual average and intermittently high volume (IHV); always high volume (HV). Multivariable generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate the association between hospital TVP category, oncologic care processes, and perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: Few hospitals met annual TVP thresholds (HV or IHV)-esophagectomy 1.6%; proctectomy 19.7%; pancreatectomy 6.6%. The majority of esophagectomy (77.8%) and pancreatectomy (53.4%) and 48.1% of proctectomy patients received care at hospitals not meeting annual TVP thresholds (LV or ILV). While performance for all three procedures was generally better at ILV, IHV, and HV hospitals relative to LV hospitals, there were few differences (none of which were consistent) when comparing ILV, IHV, and HV hospitals to each other. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Few hospitals would meet TVP volume thresholds for complex cancer resections with little difference in outcomes between ILV, IHV, and HV hospitals. While a policy to regionalize complex surgical care may have merit, it could also compromise patient autonomy and limit access to care if patients are unable or unwilling to travel.

Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Esophageal cancer is the sixth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common histology in Eastern Europe and Asia, and adenocarcinoma is most common in North America and Western Europe. Surgery is a major component of treatment of locally advanced resectable esophageal and esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancer, and randomized trials have shown that the addition of preoperative chemoradiation or perioperative chemotherapy to surgery significantly improves survival. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, ramucirumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic disease. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with esophageal and EGJ cancers. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers focuses on recommendations for the management of locally advanced and metastatic adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and EGJ.

Large Cell Neuroendocrine Tumor Size >3 cm Negatively Impacts Long-Term Outcomes After R0 Resection.

BACKGROUND: Minimal knowledge exists regarding the outcome, prognosis and optimal treatment strategy for patients with pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas (LCNEC) due to their rarity. We aimed to identify factors affecting survival and recurrence after resection to inform current treatment strategies. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 72 patients who had undergone a curative resection for LCNEC in 8 centers between 2000 and 2015. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify the factors influencing recurrence, disease-specific survival and overall survival. These included age, gender, previous malignancy, ECOG performance status, symptoms at diagnosis, extent of resection, extent of lymphadenectomy, additional chemo- and/or radiotherapy, tumor location, tumor size, pT, pleural invasion, pN and pStage. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 47 (95%CI 41-79) months; 5-year disease-specific and overall survival rates were 57.6% (95%CI 41.3-70.9) and 47.4% (95%CI 32.3-61.1). There were 22 systemic recurrences and 12 loco-regional recurrences. Tumor size was an independent prognostic factor for systemic recurrence [HR: 1.20 (95%CI 1.01-1.41); p = 0.03] with a threshold value of 3 cm (AUC = 0.71). For tumors ≤3 cm and >3 cm, 5-year freedom from systemic recurrence was 79.2% (95%CI 43.6-93.6) and 38.2% (95%CI 20.6-55.6) (p < 0.001) and 5-year disease-specific survival was 60.7% (95%CI 35.1-78.8) and 54.2% (95%CI 32.6-71.6) (p = 0.31), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of patients with surgically resected LCNEC will develop systemic recurrence after resection. Patients with tumors >3 cm have a significantly higher rate of systemic recurrence suggesting that adjuvant chemotherapy should be considered after complete resection of LCNEC >3 cm, even in the absence of nodal involvement.

Hospital Minimally Invasive Surgery Utilization for Gastrointestinal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of receiving care at high minimally invasive surgery (MIS)-utilizing hospitals BACKGROUND:: MIS techniques are used across surgical specialties. The extent of MIS utilization for gastrointestinal (GI) cancer resection and impact of receiving care at high utilizing hospitals is unclear. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 137,581 surgically resected esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, hepatobiliary, colon, and rectal cancer patients within the National Cancer Data Base (2010-2013). Disease-specific, hospital-level, reliability-adjusted MIS utilization rates were calculated to evaluate perioperative outcomes. Among patients for whom adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) was indicated, the association between days to AC and hospital MIS utilization was examined using generalized estimating equations. Association with risk of death was evaluated using multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Disease-specific MIS use increased significantly [42.0%-68.3% increase; trend test, P < 0.001 for all except hepatobiliary (P = 0.007)] over time. Most hospitals [range-30.3% (colon); 92.9% (pancreatic)] were low utilizers (≤30% of cases). Higher MIS utilization is associated with increased lymph nodes examined (P < 0.001, all) and shorter length of stay (P < 0.001, all). Each 10% increase in MIS utilization is associated with fewer days to AC [3.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-5.3) for MIS gastric; 3.3 ([0.7-5.8) for open gastric; 1.1 (0.3-2.0) days for open colon]. An association between MIS utilization and risk of death was observed for colon [Q2-hazard ratio (HR) 0.96 (0.89-1.02); Q3-HR 0.91 (0.86-0.98); Q4-HR 0.87 (0.82-0.93)] and rectal cancer [Q2-HR 0.89 (0.76-1.05); Q3-HR 0.84 (0.82-0.97); Q4-HR 0.86 (0.74-0.98)]. CONCLUSIONS: Most hospitals treating GI malignancies are low MIS utilizers. Our findings may reflect real-world MIS effectiveness for oncologic resection and could be useful for identifying hospitals with infrastructure and/or processes beneficial for multimodality cancer care.

Utility of Adjuvant Chemotherapy After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation and Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy is associated with improved overall survival for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, and to evaluate how pathologic disease response to neoadjuvant treatment impacts this effect. BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation is currently the preferred management approach for locoregional esophageal cancer. Although there is interest in the use of AC, the benefit of systemic therapy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy is unclear. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy in the National Cancer Data Base (2006-2012). RESULTS: Among 3592 patients with esophageal cancer (84.7% adenocarcinoma, 15.2% squamous cell carcinoma), 335 (9.3%) were treated with AC. AC was not associated with a significantly lower risk of death among patients with no residual disease (ypT0N0) or residual non-nodal disease (ypT+N0). Among patients with residual nodal disease (ypTanyN+), AC was associated with a 30% lower risk of death in the overall cohort [hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, (0.57-0.85)] and among those with adenocarcinoma [HR 0.69 (0.57-0.85)]. Using a 90-day postoperative landmark, findings were similar. Among patients with postoperative length of stay ≤10 days and no unplanned readmission, AC was associated with approximately 40% lower risk of death among patients with residual nodal disease [overall cohort, HR 0.63 (0.48-0.84); adenocarcinoma, HR 0.66 (0.49-0.88)]. CONCLUSIONS: AC after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy is associated with improved survival in patients with residual nodal disease. Our findings suggest AC may provide additional benefit for esophageal cancer patients, and merits further investigation.

Proton therapy posterior beam approach with pencil beam scanning for esophageal cancer : Clinical outcome, dosimetry, and feasibility.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to present the dosimetry, feasibility, and preliminary clinical results of a novel pencil beam scanning (PBS) posterior beam technique of proton treatment for esophageal cancer in the setting of trimodality therapy. METHODS: From February 2014 to June 2015, 13 patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (T3-4N0-2M0; 11 adenocarcinoma, 2 squamous cell carcinoma) were treated with trimodality therapy (neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy). Eight patients were treated with uniform scanning (US) and 5 patients were treated with a single posterior-anterior (PA) beam PBS technique with volumetric rescanning for motion mitigation. Comparison planning with PBS was performed using three plans: AP/PA beam arrangement; PA plus left posterior oblique (LPO) beams, and a single PA beam. Patient outcomes, including pathologic response and toxicity, were evaluated. RESULTS: All 13 patients completed chemoradiation to 50.4 Gy (relative biological effectiveness, RBE) and 12 patients underwent surgery. All 12 surgical patients had an R0 resection and pathologic complete response was seen in 25 %. Compared with AP/PA plans, PA plans have a lower mean heart (14.10 vs. 24.49 Gy, P < 0.01), mean stomach (22.95 vs. 31.33 Gy, P = 0.038), and mean liver dose (3.79 vs. 5.75 Gy, P = 0.004). Compared to the PA/LPO plan, the PA plan reduced the lung dose: mean lung dose (4.96 vs. 7.15 Gy, P = 0.020) and percentage volume of lung receiving 20 Gy (V20; 10 vs. 17 %, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Proton therapy with a single PA beam PBS technique for preoperative treatment of esophageal cancer appears safe and feasible.

Gastric Cancer, Version 3.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Gastric cancer is the fifth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the third leading cause of death from cancer in the world. Several advances have been made in the staging procedures, imaging techniques, and treatment approaches. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Gastric Cancer provide an evidence- and consensus-based treatment approach for the management of patients with gastric cancer. This manuscript discusses the recommendations outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for staging, assessment of HER2 overexpression, systemic therapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease, and best supportive care for the prevention and management of symptoms due to advanced disease.

Imaging surveillance and survival for surgically resected non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The importance of imaging surveillance after treatment for lung cancer is not well characterized. We examined the association between initial guideline recommended imaging surveillance and survival among early-stage resected non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data (1995-2010). Surgically resected patients, with stage I and II NSCLC, were categorized by imaging received during the initial surveillance period (4-8 mo) after surgery. Primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary treatment interventions were examined as intermediary outcomes. RESULTS: Most (88%) patients had at least one outpatient clinic visit, and 24% received an initial computerized tomography (CT) during the first surveillance period. Five-year survival by initial surveillance imaging was 61% for CT, 58% for chest radiography, and 60% for no imaging. After adjustment, initial CT was not associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-1.14). On subgroup analysis, restricted to patients with demonstrated initial postoperative follow-up, CT was associated with a lower overall risk of death for stage I patients (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.98), but not for stage II (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.71-1.42). There was no significant difference in rates of secondary interventions predicted by type of initial imaging surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Initial surveillance CT is not associated with improved overall or lung cancer-specific survival among early-stage NSCLC patients undergoing surgical resection. Stage I patients with early follow-up may represent a subpopulation that benefits from initial surveillance although this may be influenced by healthy patient selection bias.

Reducing Conduit Ischemia and Anastomotic Leaks in Transhiatal Esophagectomy: Six Principles.

BACKGROUND: Transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) is an accepted approach for distal esophageal (DE) and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers. Its reported weaknesses are limited loco-regional resection and high anastomotic leak rates. We have used laparoscopic assistance to perform a THE (LapTHE) as our preferred method of resection for GEJ and DE cancers for over 20 years. Our unique approach and experience may provide technical insights and perhaps superior outcomes. METHODS: We reviewed all patients who underwent LapTHE for DE and GEJ malignancy over 10 years (2011-2020). We included 6 principles in our approach: (1) minimize dissection trauma using laparoscopy; (2) routine Kocher maneuver; (3) division of lesser sac adhesions exposing the entire gastroepiploic arcade; (4) gaining excess conduit mobility, allowing resection of proximal stomach, and performing the anastomosis with a well perfused stomach; (5) stapled side-to-side anastomosis; and (6) routine feeding jejunostomy and early oral diet. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-seven patients were included in the analysis. The median number of lymph nodes procured was 19 (range 5-49). Negative margins were achieved in all cases (95% confidence interval [CI] 98-100%). Median hospital stay was 7 days. Overall major complication rate was 24% (17-32%), 90-day mortality was 2.0% (0.4-5.8%), and reoperation was 5.4% (2.4-10%). Three patients (2.0%, 0.4-5.8%) developed anastomotic leaks. Median follow-up was 901 days (range 52-5240). Nine patients (6.1%, 2.8-11%) developed anastomotic strictures. CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of LapTHE for DE and GEJ cancers and inclusion of these six operative principles allow for a low rate of anastomotic complications relative to national benchmarks.

Evaluation of a Multilevel Laboratory Stewardship Intervention Targeted to Cardiac and Thoracic Surgical Services at an Academic Medical Center.

CONTEXT.­: Unnecessary laboratory tests are ordered because of factors such as preselected orders on order sets, clinician habits, and trainee concerns. Excessive use of laboratory testing increases patient discomfort via unnecessary phlebotomy, contributes to iatrogenic anemia, increases risk of bloodstream infections, and increases the cost of care. OBJECTIVE.­: To address these concerns, we implemented a multilevel laboratory stewardship intervention to decrease unnecessary laboratory testing, measured by laboratory tests per day attributed to service, across 2 surgical divisions with high laboratory use. DESIGN.­: The multilevel intervention included 5 components: stakeholder engagement, provider education, computerized provider order entry modification, performance feedback, and culture change supported by leadership. The primary outcome of the study was laboratory tests ordered per patient-day. Secondary outcomes included the number of blood draws per patient-day, total lab-associated costs, length of stay, discharge to a nursing facility, 30-day readmissions, and deaths. A difference-in-differences analytic approach assessed the outcome measures in the intervention period, with other surgical services as controls. RESULTS.­: The primary outcome of laboratory tests per patient-day showed a significant decrease across both thoracic and cardiac surgery services, with between 1.5 and 2 fewer tests ordered per patient-day for both services and an estimated 20 000 fewer tests performed during the intervention period. Blood draws per patient-day were also significantly decreased on the thoracic surgery service but not for cardiac surgery. CONCLUSIONS.­: A multilevel laboratory stewardship intervention targeted to 2 surgical services resulted in a significant decrease in laboratory test use without negatively impacting length of stay, readmissions, or mortality.

Factors associated with lung cancer risk factor documentation.

Objectives: To identify factors associated with the minimum necessary information to determine an individual's eligibility for lung cancer screening (ie, sufficient risk factor documentation) and to characterize clinic-level variability in documentation. Study Design: Cross-sectional observational study using electronic health record data from an academic health system in 2019. Methods: We calculated the relative risk of sufficient lung cancer risk factor documentation by patient-, provider-, and system-level variables using Poisson regression models, clustering by clinic. We compared unadjusted, risk-adjusted, and reliability-adjusted proportions of patients with sufficient smoking documentation across 31 clinics using logistic regression models and 2-level hierarchical logit models to estimate reliability-adjusted proportions across clinics. Results: Among 20,632 individuals, 60% had sufficient risk factor documentation to determine screening eligibility. Patient-level factors inversely associated with risk factor documentation included Black race (relative risk [RR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.81), non-English preferred language (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.74), Medicaid insurance (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.71), and nonactivated patient portal (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.90). Documentation varied across clinics. The reliability-adjusted intraclass correlation coefficient decreased from 11.0% (95% CI, 6.9%-17.1%) to 5.3% (95% CI, 3.2%-8.6%), adjusting for covariates. Conclusions: We found a low rate of sufficient lung cancer risk factor documentation and associations of risk factor documentation based on patient-level factors such as race, insurance status, language, and patient portal activation. Risk factor documentation rates varied across clinics, and only approximately half the variation was explained by factors in our analysis.

Patient and Nodule Characteristics Associated With a Lung Cancer Diagnosis Among Individuals With Incidentally Detected Lung Nodules.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary nodules are a common incidental finding on CT imaging. Few studies have described patient and nodule characteristics associated with a lung cancer diagnosis using a population-based cohort. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does a relationship exist between patient and nodule characteristics and lung cancer among individuals with incidentally detected pulmonary nodules, and can this information be used to create exploratory lung cancer prediction models with reasonable performance characteristics? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults older than 18 years with lung nodules of any size incidentally detected by chest CT imaging between 2005 and 2015. All patients had at least 2 years of complete follow-up. To evaluate the relationship between patient and nodule characteristics and lung cancer, we used binomial regression. We used logistic regression to create prediction models, and we internally validated model performance using bootstrap optimism correction. RESULTS: Among 7,240 patients with a median age of 67 years, 56% of whom were women, with a median BMI of 28 kg/m2, 56% of whom were ever smokers, 31% of whom had prior nonlung malignancy, with a median nodule size 5.6 mm, 57% of whom had multiple nodules, and 40% of whom had an upper lobe nodule, 265 patients (3.7%; 95% CI, 3.2%-4.1%) had a diagnosis of lung cancer. In a multivariate analysis, age, sex, BMI, smoking history, and nodule size and location were associated with a lung cancer diagnosis, whereas prior malignancy and nodule number and laterality were not. We were able to construct two prediction models with an area under the curve value of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.72-0.80) and reasonable calibration. INTERPRETATION: Lung cancer is uncommon among individuals with incidentally detected lung nodules. Some, but not all, previously identified factors associated with lung cancer also were associated with this outcome in this sample. These findings may have implications for clinical practice, future practice guidelines, and the development of novel lung cancer prediction models for individuals with incidentally detected lung nodules.

Symptoms and signs of lung cancer prior to diagnosis: case-control study using electronic health records from ambulatory care within a large US-based tertiary care centre.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death in the USA. While most patients are diagnosed following symptomatic presentation, no studies have compared symptoms and physical examination signs at or prior to diagnosis from electronic health records (EHRs) in the USA. We aimed to identify symptoms and signs in patients prior to diagnosis in EHR data. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: Ambulatory care clinics at a large tertiary care academic health centre in the USA. PARTICIPANTS, OUTCOMES: We studied 698 primary lung cancer cases in adults diagnosed between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2019, and 6841 controls matched by age, sex, smoking status and type of clinic. Coded and free-text data from the EHR were extracted from 2 years prior to diagnosis date for cases and index date for controls. Univariate and multivariable conditional logistic regression were used to identify symptoms and signs associated with lung cancer at time of diagnosis, and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months before the diagnosis/index dates. RESULTS: Eleven symptoms and signs recorded during the study period were associated with a significantly higher chance of being a lung cancer case in multivariable analyses. Of these, seven were significantly associated with lung cancer 6 months prior to diagnosis: haemoptysis (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.9 to 5.3), cough (OR 3.1, 95% CI 2.4 to 4.0), chest crackles or wheeze (OR 3.1, 95% CI 2.3 to 4.1), bone pain (OR 2.7, 95% CI 2.1 to 3.6), back pain (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.9 to 3.2), weight loss (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.5 to 2.8) and fatigue (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: Patients diagnosed with lung cancer appear to have symptoms and signs recorded in the EHR that distinguish them from similar matched patients in ambulatory care, often 6 months or more before diagnosis. These findings suggest opportunities to improve the diagnostic process for lung cancer.