ABSTRACT
Introduction: Single-station N2 (ssN2) versus multi-station N2 has been used as a selection criterion for treatment recommendations between surgical versus non-surgical multimodality treatment in stage III-N2 NSCLC. We hypothesized that clinical staging would be susceptible to upstaging on pathologic staging and, therefore, challenge this practice. Methods: A retrospective study of prospectively collected routine clinical data for patients with stage III-N2 NSCLC that had completed computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), and staging endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) and had been confirmed clinical stage III-ssN2 at multidisciplinary team discussion and went on to complete surgical resection as the first treatment to provide pathologic staging. The study was completed in two cohorts (A) across a single cancer alliance in England (Greater Manchester) January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018 and (B) across five United Kingdom centers to validate the findings in part A January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020. Results: A total of 115 patients met the inclusion criteria across cohort A (56 patients) and cohort B (59 patients) across 15 United Kingdom hospitals. The proportion of cases in which clinical stage III-ssN2 was upstaged to pathologic stage III-multi-station N2 was 34% (19 of 56) in cohort A, 32% in cohort B (19 of 59), and 33% across the combined study cohort (38 of 115). Most patients had a single radiologically abnormal lymph node on CT and PET (88%, 105 of 115). In the majority, the reasons for missed N2 disease on staging EBUS were due to inaccessible (stations 5, 6, 8, 9) N2 nodes at EBUS (34%, 13 of 38) and accessible lymph nodes not sampled during staging EBUS as not meeting sampling threshold (40%, 15 of 38) rather than false-negative sampling during EBUS (26%, 10 of 38). Conclusions: During multidisciplinary team discussions, clinicians must be aware that one-third of patients with stage III-ssN2 on the basis of CT, PET, and staging EBUS do not truly have ssN2 and this questions the use of this criterion to define treatment recommendations.
ABSTRACT
Aim: This study retrospectively analyses the impact of the 1st year of the COVID-19 pandemic on route of presentation and staging in lung cancer compared to the 2 years before and after implementation of the Leicester Optimal Lung Cancer Pathway (LOLCP) in Leicester, United Kingdom. Method: Electronic databases and hospital records were used to identify all patients diagnosed with lung cancer in 2018 (pre-LOLCP), 2019 (post-LOLCP), and March 2020-2021 (post-COVID-19 lockdown). Information regarding patient characteristics, performance status, stage, and route of diagnosis was documented and analysed. Emergency presentation was defined as diagnosis of new lung cancer being made after unscheduled attendance to urgent or emergency care facility. Results: Following implementation of the LOLCP pathway, there was a significant decrease in emergency presentations from 26.8 to 19.6% (p = 0.002) with a stage shift from 33.9% early stage disease to 40.3%. These improved outcomes were annulled during the COVID-19 pandemic, with emergency presentations increasing to 38.9% (p < 0.001) and a reduction in early-stage lung cancer diagnoses to 31.5%. There was a 61% decline in 2 week wait referrals but no significant decline in the LOLCP direct-to-CT referrals. Conclusion: We have demonstrated a significant increase in late-stage lung cancer diagnoses and emergency presentations during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The causes for these changes are likely to be multifactorial. The long-term effect on lung cancer mortality remains to be seen and is an important focus of future study.