Evaluating the accuracy of lung-RADS score extraction from radiology reports: Manual entry versus natural language processing.

INTRODUCTION: Radiology scoring systems are critical to the success of lung cancer screening (LCS) programs, impacting patient care, adherence to follow-up, data management and reporting, and program evaluation. LungCT ScreeningReporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) is a structured radiology scoring system that provides recommendations for LCS follow-up that are utilized (a) in clinical care and (b) by LCS programs monitoring rates of adherence to follow-up. Thus, accurate reporting and reliable collection of Lung-RADS scores are fundamental components of LCS program evaluation and improvement. Unfortunately, due to variability in radiology reports, extraction of Lung-RADS scores is non-trivial, and best practices do not exist. The purpose of this project is to compare mechanisms to extract Lung-RADS scores from free-text radiology reports. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed reports of LCS low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) examinations performed at a multihospital integrated healthcare network in New York State between January 2016 and July 2023. We compared three methods of Lung-RADS score extraction: manual physician entry at time of report creation, manual LCS specialist entry after report creation, and an internally developed, rule-based natural language processing (NLP) algorithm. Accuracy, recall, precision, and completeness (i.e., the proportion of LCS exams to which a Lung-RADS score has been assigned) were compared between the three methods. RESULTS: The dataset includes 24,060 LCS examinations on 14,243 unique patients. The mean patient age was 65 years, and most patients were male (54 %) and white (75 %). Completeness rate was 65 %, 68 %, and 99 % for radiologists' manual entry, LCS specialists' entry, and NLP algorithm, respectively. Accuracy, recall, and precision were high across all extraction methods (>94 %), though the NLP-based approach was consistently higher than both manual entries in all metrics. DISCUSSION: An NLP-based method of LCS score determination is an efficient and more accurate means of extracting Lung-RADS scores than manual review and data entry. NLP-based methods should be considered best practice for extracting structured Lung-RADS scores from free-text radiology reports.

Qualitative interviews for hospitalists addressing lung cancer screening.

Novel strategies are needed to improve low rates of lung cancer screening (LCS) in the US. Seeking to determine hospitalists' perspectives on leveraging hospitalizations to identify patients eligible for LCS, we performed qualitative interviews with eight hospitalists from two hospitals within a large integrated healthcare system. The interviews used semi-structured questions to assess (1) knowledge and practice of general screening and LCS guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), (2) identification of smoking history, and (3) hospitalists' views on how data obtained during hospitalization may be utilized to improve general screening and LCS post hospitalization. We ultimately reached the conclusion that hospitalists would support a dedicated program to identify hospitalized patients eligible for LCS and facilitate testing after discharge. Efforts to identify patients and arrange subsequent screening should be performed by team members outside the inpatient team.

Ultralow-Dose Dynamic Expiratory CT and Repeated Imaging Enhance Evaluation for Tracheomalacia.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine if a novel imaging protocol (ultralow-dose dynamic expiratory computed tomography [CT] with repeated imaging) identifies tracheomalacia (TM) more reliably than traditional dynamic tracheal CT. METHODS: We performed a retrospective evaluation of 184 consecutive ultralow-dose dynamic CTs for TM during 2017. The protocol obtains images during 1 inspiration and 2 forced expirations. Tracheal narrowing during both expirations (airway narrowing [percentage] during first dynamic expiration CT [DE1], airway narrowing [percentage] during second dynamic expiration CT [DE2]) was reported as a percentage of inspiratory area. We identified maximum narrowing of each patient's sequence (maximum narrowing [percentage] on either dynamic expiration CT [DEmax] = greatest narrowing of DE1 or DE2) and compared DE1, DE2, and DEmax in individual studies and between patients. Outcomes included frequency of TM, tracheal narrowing, and severity. Reliability was assessed by comparing tracheal area narrowing and TM grade. RESULTS: There was significantly more airway narrowing using 2 expiratory image acquisitions. Average DEmax tracheal area was 12% narrower than DE1 alone and 21% worse than DE2 alone (both P < 0.001). Using DEmax, TM was diagnosed 35% more often than DE1 alone and 31% more often than DE2 alone ( P < 0.001). DEmax identified more severe distribution of TM compared with DE1 or DE2 alone ( P < 0.001). Reliability between DE1 and DE2 was good for tracheal narrowing and moderate for TM grade. The mean effective radiation dose was 2.41 millisievert (mSv) for routine inspiration CT and 0.07 mSv for each dynamic expiration CT (total effective radiation, 2.55 mSv). CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic expiration CT with 2 expiratory image acquisitions enhanced evaluation of TM, minimally increased radiation dose, and should be considered as a noninvasive screening option.

Trends and predictors of Quality of Life in lung cancer survivors.

INTRODUCTION: Health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) is often impaired in lung cancer survivors. To inform personalized survivorship care, we identified associations between HR-QoL scores and patient-, tumor-, and treatment-factors over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated HR-QoL scores provided at diagnosis, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years from the Yale Lung Cancer Biorepository. HR-QoL was measured via the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung (FACT-L) instrument and available for a subset of patients (n = 513). Analyses were stratified by early-stage (I-II; n = 355) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), advanced stage NSCLC (III-IV; n = 158), and small cell lung cancer (SCLC, n = 21). We used mixed effects modeling and multivariable analysis with covariate adjustment to examine changes in FACT-L from diagnosis to follow-up. Sensitivity analysis was performed including patients with early-stage disease and complete FACT-L scores at both baseline and year 2 (n = 91). RESULTS: The average FACT-L scores at diagnosis in early-stage NSCLC, advanced stage NSCLC, and SCLC were 121.0 (standard deviation (SD) 11.4), 109.2 (18.7), and 98.7 (20.2) respectively. At all timepoints, HR-QoL was higher in patients with early-stage NSCLC (vs advanced-stage disease). In patients with early- and advanced-stage NSCLC, HR-QoL was higher at years 1 and 2 than at diagnosis, though the changes did not meet clinical significance. At NSCLC diagnosis, higher HR-QoL was associated with older age, better performance status, participating in physical activity, adenocarcinoma histology, and (in advanced stage NSCLC) anticipated treatment with chemotherapy. At NSCLC follow-up, HR-QoL was higher in patients with higher BMI and better performance status. DISCUSSION: In patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC, HR-QoL scores are impacted by patient factors, tumor factors, and treatment factors. HR-QoL is higher in patients with early-stage disease. In patients surviving 2 years, HR-QoL was higher at follow-up, though the change did not meet clinical significance. To optimize HR-QoL, lung cancer survivorship teams should prioritize comorbidity management, physical activity, healthy weight maintenance, and treatment-related side effects.

The Evaluation and Management of Visceral Complications in Radiation Fibrosis Syndrome Part 1.

Abstract: External beam ionizing radiation is a fundamental component of cancer treatment and is incorporated into approximately 50% of cancer treatments. Radiation therapy causes cell death directly by apoptosis and indirectly by disruption of mitosis. Purpose of Review: This study aims to inform rehabilitation clinicians of the visceral toxicities of radiation fibrosis syndrome and how to detect and diagnose these complications. Recent Findings: Latest research indicates that radiation toxicity is primarily related to radiation dose, patient co-morbidity, and concomitant use of chemotherapies and immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer. While cancer cells are the primary target, surrounding normal cells and tissues are also affected. Radiation toxicity is dose dependent, and tissue injury develops from inflammation that may progress to fibrosis. Thus, radiation dosing in cancer therapy is often limited by tissue toxicity. Although newer radiotherapeutic modalities aim to limit delivery of radiation to non-cancerous tissues, many patients continue to experience toxicity. Summary: To ensure early recognition of radiation toxicity and fibrosis, it is imperative that all clinicians are aware of the predictors, signs, and symptoms of radiation fibrosis syndrome. Here, we present part 1 of the visceral complications of radiation fibrosis syndrome, addressing radiation-related toxicity in the heart, lungs, and thyroid gland.

Racial, Ethnic, and Rural Disparities in US Veteran COVID-19 Vaccine Rates.

Background: Race, ethnicity, and rurality-related disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine uptake have been documented in the United States (US). Objective: We determined whether these disparities existed among patients at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the largest healthcare system in the US. Design Settings Participants Measurements: Using VA Corporate Data Warehouse data, we included 5,871,438 patients (9.4% women) with at least one primary care visit in 2019 in a retrospective cohort study. Each patient was assigned a single race/ethnicity, which were mutually exclusive, self-reported categories. Rurality was based on 2019 home address at the zip code level. Our primary outcome was time-to-first COVID-19 vaccination between December 15, 2020-June 15, 2021. Additional covariates included age (in years), sex, geographic region (North Atlantic, Midwest, Southeast, Pacific, Continental), smoking status (current, former, never), Charlson Comorbidity Index (based on ≥1 inpatient or two outpatient ICD codes), service connection (any/none, using standardized VA-cutoffs for disability compensation), and influenza vaccination in 2019-2020 (yes/no). Results: Compared with unvaccinated patients, those vaccinated (n=3,238,532; 55.2%) were older (mean age in years vaccinated=66.3, (standard deviation=14.4) vs. unvaccinated=57.7, (18.0), p<.0001)). They were more likely to identify as Black (18.2% vs. 16.1%, p<.0001), Hispanic (7.0% vs. 6.6% p<.0001), or Asian American/Pacific Islander (AA/PI) (2.0% vs. 1.7%, P<.0001). In addition, they were more likely to reside in urban settings (68.0% vs. 62.8, p<.0001). Relative to non-Hispanic White urban Veterans, the reference group for race/ethnicity-urban/rural hazard ratios reported, all urban race/ethnicity groups were associated with increased likelihood for vaccination except American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) groups. Urban Black groups were 12% more likely (Hazard Ratio (HR)=1.12 [CI 1.12-1.13]) and rural Black groups were 6% more likely to receive a first vaccination (HR=1.06 [1.05-1.06]) relative to white urban groups. Urban Hispanic, AA/PI and Mixed groups were more likely to receive vaccination while rural members of these groups were less likely (Hispanic: Urban HR=1.17 [1.16-1.18], Rural HR=0.98 [0.97-0.99]; AA/PI: Urban HR=1.22 [1.21-1.23], Rural HR=0.86 [0.84-0.88]). Rural White Veterans were 21% less likely to receive an initial vaccine compared with urban White Veterans (HR=0.79 [0.78-0.79]). AI/AN groups were less likely to receive vaccination regardless of rurality: Urban HR=0.93 [0.91-0.95]; AI/AN-Rural HR=0.76 [0.74-0.78]. Conclusions: Urban Black, Hispanic, and AA/PI Veterans were more likely than their urban White counterparts to receive a first vaccination; all rural race/ethnicity groups except Black patients had lower likelihood for vaccination compared with urban White patients. A better understanding of disparities and rural outreach will inform equitable vaccine distribution.

Lung cancer with air lucency: a systematic review and clinical management guide.

Background: Lung cancers with air lucency are poorly understood, often recognized only after substantial progression. Methods: From a systematic review (PubMed and EMBASE, 2000-2022, terms related to cystic, cavitary, bulla, pseudocavitary, bubble-like, date 10-30-2022) 49 studies were selected using broad inclusion criteria (case series of ≥10 cases up to trials and reviews). There was no source of funding. Primary evidence relevant to clinical management issues was assembled. Because data was available only from heterogeneous retrospective case series, meta-analysis and formal risk-of-bias assessment was omitted. A framework was developed to guide clinical management based on the available data. Results: Demographic, smoking and histologic differences suggest that cystic, cavitary and bullous lung cancers with air lucency may be distinct entities; insufficient data leaves it unclear whether this also applies to pseudocavitary (solid) or bubble-like (ground glass) cancers. Annual observation of irregular thin-walled cysts is warranted; a surgical diagnosis (and resection) is justified once a solid component appears because subsequent progression is often rapid with markedly worse outcomes. Bubble-like ground glass lesions should be managed similarly. Cavitary lesions must be distinguished from infection or vasculitis, but generally require needle or surgical biopsy. Pseudocavitary lesions are less well studied; positron emission tomography may be useful in this setting to differentiate scar from malignancy. Further research is needed because these conclusions are based on interpretation of retrospective case series. Conclusions: The aggregate of available evidence suggests a framework for management of suspected lung cancers with air lucency. Greater awareness, earlier detection, and aggressive management once a solid component appears are needed. This review and framework should facilitate further research; questions include whether the suggested entities and proposed management are borne out and should involve clearly defined terms and outcomes related to progression and treatment. In summary, a conceptual understanding is emerging from interpretation of available data about a previously poorly understood topic; this should improve patient outcomes.

Cancer-related Fatigue in Lung Cancer: A Research Agenda: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Background: Fatigue is the most common symptom among cancer survivors. Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) may occur at any point in the cancer care continuum. Multiple factors contribute to CRF development and severity, including cancer type, treatments, presence of other symptoms, comorbidities, and medication side effects. Clinically, increasing physical activity, enhancing sleep quality, and recognizing sleep disorders are integral to managing CRF. Unfortunately, CRF is infrequently recognized, evaluated, or treated in lung cancer survivors despite more frequent and severe symptoms than in other cancers. Therefore, increased awareness and understanding of CRF are needed to improve health-related quality of life in lung cancer survivors. Objectives: 1) To identify and prioritize knowledge and research gaps and 2) to develop and prioritize research questions to evaluate mechanistic, diagnostic, and therapeutic approaches to CRF among lung cancer survivors. Methods: We convened a multidisciplinary panel to review the available literature on CRF, focusing on the impacts of physical activity, rehabilitation, and sleep disturbances in lung cancer. We used a three-round modified Delphi process to prioritize research questions. Results: This statement identifies knowledge gaps in the 1) detection and diagnostic evaluation of CRF in lung cancer survivors; 2) timing, goals, and implementation of physical activity and rehabilitation; and 3) evaluation and treatment of sleep disturbances and disorders to reduce CRF. Finally, we present the panel's initial 32 research questions and seven final prioritized questions. Conclusions: This statement offers a prioritized research agenda to 1) advance clinical and research efforts and 2) increase awareness of CRF in lung cancer survivors.

Characteristics Associated with Spirometry Guideline Adherence in VA Patients Hospitalized with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND: The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommends at least annual spirometry for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Since spirometry acquisition is variable in clinical practice, identifying characteristics associated with annual spirometry may inform strategies to improve care for patients with COPD. METHODS: We included veterans hospitalized for COPD at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities from 10/2012 to 09/2015. Our primary outcome was spirometry within 1 year of COPD hospitalization. Patient demographics, health factors, and comorbidities as well as practice and geographic variables were identified using Corporate Data Warehouse; provider characteristics were obtained from the Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients. We used logistic regression with a random intercept to account for potential clustering within facilities. RESULTS: Spirometry was completed 1 year before or after hospitalization for 20,683/38,148 (54.2%) veterans across 114 facilities. Patients with spirometry were younger, (mean=67.2 years (standard deviation (SD)=9.3) vs. 69.4 (10.3)), more likely non-white (21.3% vs. 19.7%), and more likely to have comorbidities (p<0.0001 for asthma, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder). Pulmonary clinic visit was most strongly associated with spirometry (odds ratio (OR)=3.14 [95% confidence interval 2.99-3.30]). There was no association for facility complexity. In a secondary analysis including provider-level data (3862 patients), results were largely unchanged. There was no association between primary care provider age, gender, or type (physician vs. advanced practice registered nurse vs. physician assistant) and spirometry. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of high-risk COPD patients, just over half completed spirometry within 1 year of hospitalization. Pulmonary clinic visit was most strongly associated with 1-year spirometry, though provider variables were not. Spirometry completion for high-risk COPD patients remains suboptimal and strategies to improve post-hospitalization care for patients not seen in pulmonary clinic should be developed to ensure guideline concordant care.

Barriers and facilitators to lung cancer screening and follow-up.

Two randomized trials have shown that lung cancer screening (LCS) with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality in patients at high-risk for lung malignancy by identifying early-stage cancers, when local cure and control is achievable. The implementation of LCS in the United States has revealed multiple barriers to preventive cancer care. Rates of LCS are disappointingly low with estimates between 5%-18% of eligible patients screened. Equally concerning, follow-up after baseline screening is far lower than that of clinical trials (44-66% v >90%). To optimize the benefits of LCS, programs must identify and address factors related to LCS participation and follow-up while concurrently recognizing and mitigating barriers. As a relatively new screening test, the most effective processes for LCS are uncertain. Therefore, LCS programs have adopted a wide range of approaches without clearly established best practices to guide them, particularly in rural and resource-limited settings. In this narrative review, we identify barriers and facilitators to LCS, focusing on those studies in non-clinical trial settings - reflecting "real world" challenges. Our goal is to identify effective and scalable LCS practices that will increase LCS participation, improve adherence to follow-up, inform strategies for quality improvement, and support new research approaches.

Comorbidity and life expectancy in shared decision making for lung cancer screening.

Shared decision making (SDM) is an important part of lung cancer screening (LCS) that includes discussing the risks and benefits of screening, potential outcomes, patient eligibility and willingness to participate, tobacco cessation, and tailoring a strategy to an individual patient. More than other cancer screening tests, eligibility for LCS is nuanced, incorporating the patient's age as well as tobacco use history and overall health status. Since comorbidities and multimorbidity (ie, 2 or more comorbidities) impact the risks and benefits of LCS, these topics are a fundamental part of decision-making. However, there is currently little evidence available to guide clinicians in addressing comorbidities and an individual's "appropriateness" for LCS during SDM visits. Therefore, this literature review investigates the impact of comorbidities and multimorbidity among patients undergoing LCS. Based on available evidence and guideline recommendations, we identify comorbidities that should be considered during SDM conversations and review best practices for navigating SDM conversations in the context of LCS. Three conditions are highlighted since they concomitantly portend higher risk of developing lung cancer, potentially increase risk of screening-related evaluation and treatment complications and can be associated with limited life expectancy: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and human immunodeficiency virus infection.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 1: a guide to decision-making.

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options (lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy, thermal ablation), weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: Based on a systematic review from 2000-2021, evidence regarding relevant outcomes was assembled, with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers. A framework was developed to present this information a format that enhances decision-making at the point of care for individual patients. Results: While patients often cross over several boundaries, the evidence fits into categories of healthy patients, compromised patients, and favorable tumors. In healthy patients with typical (i.e., solid spiculated) lung cancers, the impact on long-term outcomes is the major driver of treatment selection. This is only slightly ameliorated in older patients. In compromised patients increasing frailty accentuates short-term differences and diminishes long-term differences especially when considering non-surgical vs. surgical approaches; nuances of patient selection (technical treatment feasibility, anticipated risk of acute toxicity, delayed toxicity, and long-term outcomes) as well as patient values are increasingly influential. Favorable (less-aggressive) tumors generally have good long-term outcomes regardless of the treatment approach. Discussion: A framework is provided that organizes the evidence and identifies the major drivers of decision-making for an individual patient. This facilitates blending available evidence and clinical judgment in a flexible, nuanced manner that enhances individualized clinical care.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 2: systematic review of evidence regarding resection extent in generally healthy patients.

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options (lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy, thermal ablation), weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after lobectomy, segmentectomy and wedge resection in generally healthy patients is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons with at least some adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved. Results: In healthy patients there is no short-term benefit to sublobar resection vs. lobectomy in randomized and non-randomized comparisons. A detriment in long-term outcomes is demonstrated by adjusted non-randomized comparisons, more marked for wedge than segmentectomy. Quality-of-life data is confounded by the use of video-assisted approaches; evidence suggests the approach has more impact than the resection extent. Differences in pulmonary function tests by resection extent are not clinically meaningful in healthy patients, especially for multi-segmentectomy vs. lobectomy. The margin distance is associated with the risk of recurrence. Conclusions: A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding resection extent in healthy patients with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation on which to build a framework for individualized clinical decision-making.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 3: systematic review of evidence regarding surgery in compromised patients or specific tumors.

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options [lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), thermal ablation], weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after lobectomy, segmentectomy and wedge resection in older patients, patients with limited pulmonary reserve and favorable tumors is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons (NRCs) with adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved. Results: In older patients, perioperative mortality is minimally altered by resection extent and only slightly affected by increasing age; sublobar resection may slightly decrease morbidity. Long-term outcomes are worse after lesser resection; the difference is slightly attenuated with increasing age. Reported short-term outcomes are quite acceptable in (selected) patients with severely limited pulmonary reserve, not clearly altered by resection extent but substantially improved by a minimally invasive approach. Quality-of-life (QOL) and impact on pulmonary function hasn't been well studied, but there appears to be little difference by resection extent in older or compromised patients. Patient selection is paramount but not well defined. Ground-glass and screen-detected tumors exhibit favorable long-term outcomes regardless of resection extent; however solid tumors <1 cm are not a reliably favorable group. Conclusions: A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding resection extent in compromised patients and favorable tumors with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation for a framework for individualized decision-making.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 4: systematic review of evidence involving SBRT and ablation.

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options [lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), thermal ablation], weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after SBRT or thermal ablation vs. resection is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons with at least some adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved. Results: Short-term outcomes are meaningfully better after SBRT than resection. SBRT doesn't affect quality-of-life (QOL), on average pulmonary function is not altered, but a minority of patients may experience gradual late toxicity. Adjusted non-randomized comparisons demonstrate a clinically relevant detriment in long-term outcomes after SBRT vs. surgery. The short-term benefits of SBRT over surgery are accentuated with increasing age and compromised patients, but the long-term detriment remains. Ablation is associated with a higher rate of complications than SBRT, but there is little intermediate-term impact on quality-of-life or pulmonary function tests. Adjusted comparisons show a meaningful detriment in long-term outcomes after ablation vs. surgery; there is less difference between ablation and SBRT. Conclusions: A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy or thermal ablation vs. resection with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation for a framework for individualized decision-making.

Evidence of Racial Disparities in the Lung Cancer Screening Process: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest computed tomography for high-risk individuals reduces lung cancer mortality, with greater reduction observed in Black participants in clinical trials. While racial disparities in lung cancer mortality exist, less is known about disparities in LCS participation. We conducted a systematic review to explore LCS participation in Black compared with White patients in the USA. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted through a search of published studies in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied-Health Literature Database, from database inception through October 2020. We included studies that examined rates of LCS participation and compared rates by race. Studies were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: We screened 18,300 titles/abstracts; 229 studies were selected for full-text review, of which nine studies met inclusion criteria. Studies were categorized into 2 groups: studies that reported the screening rate among an LCS-eligible patient population, and studies that reported the screening rate among a patient population referred for LCS. Median LCS participation rates were 14.4% (range 1.7 to 62.6%) for eligible patient studies and 68.5% (range 62.6 to 88.8%) for referred patient studies. The meta-analyses showed screening rates were lower in the Black compared to White population among the LCS-eligible patient studies ([OR]=0.43, [95% CI: 0.25, 0.74]). However, screening rates were the same between Black and White patients in the referred patient studies (OR=0.94, [95% CI: 0.74, 1.19]). DISCUSSION: Black LCS-eligible patients are being screened at a lower rate than White patients but have similar rates of participation once referred. Differences in referrals by providers may contribute to the racial disparity in LCS participation. More studies are needed to identify barriers to LCS referral and develop interventions to increase provider awareness of the importance of LCS in Black patients. Trial Registry PROSPERO; No.: CRD42020214213; URL: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO.

Racial Differences in Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening Follow-up: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the United States Preventive Services Taskforce instituted recommendations for annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest CT imaging for high-risk individuals. LCS reduces lung cancer mortality, with greater reduction observed in Black participants in clinical trials. Although racial disparities in lung cancer mortality have been well documented, less is known about disparities in LCS participation and adherence to follow-up in clinical practice. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the association between race and adherence to LCS follow-up? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted through a search of published studies in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Database from database inception through October 2020. We included studies that examined rates of adherence to LCS follow-up and compared rates by race. Studies were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: We screened 18,300 titles and abstracts, and 229 studies were selected for full-text review. Nine studies met inclusion criteria; seven were included in the meta-analysis. Median adherent follow-up rate was 37% (range, 16%-82%). Notable differences among the studies included the proportion of the Black population (range, 4%-47%) and the structure of the LCS programs. The meta-analyses showed lower adherence to LCS follow-up in the Black population (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80). This disparity persisted across all malignancy risk levels determined by initial screening results. INTERPRETATION: Lower adherence to LCS follow-up in Black compared with White patients occurs despite the higher potential lung cancer mortality benefit. Literature specifically addressing race-related barriers to LCS adherence remains limited. To ensure equity in LCS benefits, greater outreach to eligible Black patients should be implemented through increased physician education and use of screening program coordinators to focus on this patient population. TRIAL REGISTRY: PROSPERO; No.: CRD42020214213; URL: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO.

"Randomized trial of physical activity on quality of life and lung cancer biomarkers in patients with advanced stage lung cancer: a pilot study".

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer survivors need more options to improve quality of life (QoL). It is unclear to what extent patients with advanced stage disease are willing to participate in home-based physical activity (PA) and if these interventions improve QoL. The goal of our study was to determine interest in participating in our 3-month home-based walking regimen in patients with advanced stage lung cancer. We used a randomized design to evaluate for potential benefit in PA and patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: We performed an open-label, 1:1 randomized trial in 40 patients with stage III/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) evaluating enrollment rate, PA, QoL, dyspnea, depression, and biomarkers. Compared to usual care (UC), the intervention group (IG) received an accelerometer, in-person teaching session, and gain-framed text messages for 12 weeks. RESULTS: We enrolled 56% (40/71) of eligible patients. Participants were on average 65 years and enrolled 1.9 years from diagnosis. Most patients were women (75%), and receiving treatment (85%) for stage IV (73%) adenocarcinoma (83%). A minority of patients were employed part-time or full time (38%). Both groups reported low baseline PA (IG mean 37 (Standard deviation (SD) 46) vs UC 59 (SD 56) minutes/week; p = 0.25). The IG increased PA more than UC (mean change IG + 123 (SD 212) vs UC + 35 (SD 103) minutes/week; p = 0.051)). Step count in the IG was not statistically different between baseline (4707 step/day), week 6 (5605; p = 0.16), and week 12 (4606 steps/day; p = 0.87). The intervention improved EORTC role functioning domain (17 points; p = 0.022) with borderline improvement in dyspnea (- 13 points; p = 0.051) compared to UC. In patients with two blood samples (25%), we observed a significant increase in soluble PD-1 (219.8 (SD 54.5) pg/mL; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot trial using a 3-month, home-based, mobile health intervention enrolled over half of eligible patients with stage III and IV NSCLC. The intervention increased PA, and may improve several aspects of QoL. We also identified potential biomarker changes relevant to lung cancer biology. Future research should use a larger sample to examine the effect of exercise on cancer biomarkers, which may mediate the association between PA and QoL. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03352245 ).

Does pulmonary subspecialty referral from primary care affect the adherence to vaccination recommendations in COPD patients?

The importance of vaccinations for COPD patients has been previously described. However, there is still a gap between guideline recommendations and the implementation of preventive care delivery for these patients. Specially, the rise of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has made the significance of vaccination adherence more critical to address. Our study showed that referral to pulmonary clinic is associated with increased odds of receiving influenza (OR = 1.97, [95% CI 1.07, 3.65]) and pneumococcal vaccinations (PCV13 OR = 3.55, [1.47, 8.54]; PPSV23 OR = 4.92, [1.51, 16.02]). These data suggest that partnerships between primary care physicians and pulmonologists can potentially improve the vaccination rates for patients with COPD.