Causes of Death and Hospitalization in Long-term Lung Cancer Survivors: A Population-based Appraisal.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer survivorship is emerging as an important topic owing to improved survival, but information about health issues among survivors of lung cancer is still lacking. This study used a population dataset to assess causes of death (COD) and hospitalization among long-term (5-year) survivors of lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using linked data from the California Cancer Registry and Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, all patients with lung cancer diagnosed from 2000 to 2012 were identified. COD and principal admission diagnoses were categorized for all survivors beginning 5 years after diagnosis. Annual proportional distribution of diagnoses and COD were calculated over time. RESULTS: Among 102,768 patients with lung cancer, 12,048 (11.7%) survived at least 5 years after diagnosis. Lung cancer was the most common reason for admission in the first 5 years after diagnosis. In the sixth year after diagnosis, 3662 (41.8%) of 8755 long-term survivors had at least 1 hospitalization, which declined to 804 (10.4%) of 7718 in year 10. Among long-term survivors, pulmonary disease (18.3%) became the most common reason for admission, followed by cardiovascular and gastrointestinal disease. However, 48.7% of 4728 deaths occurring among long-term survivors were still owing to lung cancer. The next most common COD were cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, and secondary neoplasm. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalizations among long-term survivors of lung cancer are common and occur most often owing to cardiovascular, pulmonary, and gastrointestinal diseases. Lung cancer remains the dominant COD even after 5-year survival. Active control of chronic cardiopulmonary disease and cancer surveillance should be priorities when providing patient-centered, comprehensive survivorship care.

The Effect of Primary Care Physician Knowledge of Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines on Perceptions and Utilization of Low-Dose Computed Tomography.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in high-risk patients, but a minority of eligible people are screened. It is not clear whether knowledge of USPSTF recommendations among primary care physicians (PCP) affects utilization of LDCT. METHODS: A randomly selected sample of 1384 PCPs in Los Angeles County was surveyed between January and October 2015, using surveys sent by mail, fax, and e-mail. The response rate was 18% (n = 250). Training background, years in practice, practice type, and respondent demographics were collected. We analyzed results based on the response to a question on whether the USPSTF recommends the use of LDCT to screen high-risk individuals for lung cancer. RESULTS: A total of 117 (47%) PCPs responded that the USPSTF recommends LDCT for LCS. Of PCPs who were aware of USPSTF recommendations, 97% responded that CT was effective at reducing lung cancer mortality among individuals meeting eligibility criteria, compared with 90% who were unaware of guidelines (P = .02). A larger proportion of PCPs aware of guidelines ordered LDCT (71% vs. 38%, P < .001) and initiated a discussion on screening (86% vs. 62%, P < .001). Both groups of PCPs reported similar perceptions of barriers to screening, such as insurance coverage, risks of LCS, and cost to society. Practice size, training background, and years in practice did not affect knowledge of guidelines. DISCUSSION: Awareness of USPSTF recommendations for LDCT is associated with increased utilization of LDCT for screening. Educational interventions for PCPs may improve adherence with LCS recommendations.

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer as a Second Primary Among Patients With Previous Malignancy: Who Is at Risk?

BACKGROUND: Patients with previous malignancies could be at increased risk of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the extent of the risk is unknown for many cancer types; thus, it is unclear who might benefit from screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data set from 1992 to 2012 was used to identify patients with previous malignancies who received a diagnosis of NSCLC ≥ 6 months after their initial cancer diagnosis. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for NSCLC were calculated as a ratio of the observed to expected cases adjusted by person-years at risk. Cancers with a SIR > 1.0 had a risk of NSCLC greater than expected. The analyses were stratified by sex, radiation therapy use, and histologic type. RESULTS: Among the cancer survivors, 32,058 developed NSCLC. Smoking-related (lung, head and neck, bladder) and hematologic malignancies, regardless of previous radiation therapy, had the greatest SIR for NSCLC (range, 1.97-4.88). Colorectal and renal cancer survivors also had an increased SIR for NSCLC (1.16 and 1.21, respectively). Women with previous pancreatic cancer treated with radiation, breast cancer with or without radiation therapy, and those with thyroid cancer demonstrated a greater SIR for lung adenocarcinoma. Men with previous irradiated prostate cancer also had an elevated SIR (1.08; 99% confidence interval, 1.01-1.15) for lung adenocarcinoma. Patients with melanoma, prostate or uterine cancer had a lower SIR for NSCLC than expected. CONCLUSION: Smoking-related malignancies had the greatest risk of NSCLC. Radiation therapy conferred an elevated risk of NSCLC for certain cancers. Melanoma, prostate, and uterine cancer survivors had a low risk of NSCLC. These results could help identify high-risk screening candidates in the growing population of cancer survivors.

Lung Cancer Screening.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States and worldwide. Since lung cancer outcomes are dependent on stage at diagnosis with early disease resulting in longer survival, the goal of screening is to capture lung cancer in its early stages when it can be treated and cured. Multiple studies have evaluated the use of chest X-ray (CXR) with or without sputum cytologic examination for lung cancer screening, but none has demonstrated a mortality benefit. In contrast, the multicenter National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) from the United States found a 20 % reduction in lung cancer mortality following three consecutive screenings with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in high-risk current and former smokers. Data from European trials are not yet available. In addition to a mortality benefit, lung cancer screening with LDCT also offers a unique opportunity to promote smoking cessation and abstinence and may lead to the diagnoses of treatable chronic diseases, thus decreasing the overall disease burden. The risks of lung cancer screening include overdiagnosis, radiation exposure, and false-positive results leading to unnecessary testing and possible patient anxiety and distress. However, the reduction in lung cancer mortality is a benefit that outweighs the risks and major health organizations currently recommend lung cancer screening using age, smoking history, and quit time criteria derived from the NLST. Although more research is needed to clearly define and understand the application and utility of lung cancer screening in the general population, current data support that lung cancer screening is effective and should be offered to eligible beneficiaries.

Perceptions and Utilization of Lung Cancer Screening Among Primary Care Physicians.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is effective at reducing lung cancer mortality in high-risk current and former smokers. Despite the fact that screening is recommended by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF), few eligible patients are screened. We set out to study the barriers to LCS by surveying primary care physicians (PCPs). METHODS: We surveyed a randomly selected sample of 1384 eligible PCPs between January and October 2015, using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, though surveys sent by mail, fax, and e-mail. The survey included questions regarding knowledge of LCS guidelines, utilization of LCS over the prior 12 months, and perceptions of barriers to LCS. Training background, years in practice, practice type, and demographics were also collected. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 18%. Responders and nonresponders did not differ by practice or demographic characteristics. Of the respondents, 47% indicated that LCS was recommended by the USPSTF, 52% had referred at least one patient for LDCT, and 12% had referred at least one patient to a LCS program over the prior 12 months. Perceived barriers to LCS included uncertainty regarding ther benefit of LCS, concern regarding insurance coverage, and the harm of LCS. CONCLUSIONS: Although LCS is recommended by the USPSTF, LDCT is utilized in a minority of eligible patients, as reported by surveyed PCPs. Approximately half of PCPs are familiar with USPSTF recommendations for LCS and a number of physician barriers to adherence to guidelines exist. Additional study of physician- and system-based interventions to improve adherence to LCS recommendations is needed.

Psychological Burden Associated With Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose radiation computed tomography (LDCT) reduces mortality and is recommended for high-risk current and former smokers. Several potential harms associated with LCS have been identified, including the potential for psychological burden. To summarize the current state of the scientific knowledge on psychological burden associated with LCS, we performed a systematic search of the contemporary quantitative and qualitative research literature. We included randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that evaluated the effect of LCS with LDCT on psychological burden and health-related quality of life assessed using validated and nonvalidated measures. PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and Scopus were searched for English language articles published between 2004 and January 2015. Data abstraction and quality assessment were conducted by 2 independent reviewers. Thirteen studies were included that met our inclusion criteria. Overall, results were variable with some studies reporting worse psychological burden for patients with indeterminate results at prescreening, after screening, and at short-term follow-up (<6 months after screen). These adverse effects diminished or resolved at long-term follow-up (> 6 months after screen). LCS might be associated with short-term adverse psychological burden, particularly after a false positive result. However, these adverse effects diminished over time. The amount of current evidence is small, with limitations in study design and use of outcome measures. More high-quality research is needed to determine the frequency, duration, and overall magnitude of LCS-related psychological burden in nonclinical trial settings.

Proportion of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients that Would Have Been Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening is recommended for current smokers (CS) and former smokers (FS) who meet specific age and smoking criteria. We used existing criteria to estimate the proportion of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients that would have been screening-eligible. METHODS: We identified 2030 NSCLC patients at our institution from 1994 to 2014 and recorded their cigarette smoking status and history. Using criteria from the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) and from other organizations, we ascertained the proportions of screening-eligible patients. Associations among smoking status, gender, race/ethnicity, and insurance type were assessed using Chi-Square test. RESULTS: In our cohort, 31.0% (n = 630) were CS, 43.0% (n = 873) were FS, and 26.0% (n = 527) were never smokers. There were 698 patients (34.4%) who met all USPSTF screening criteria. Among 1503 CS and FS, 77.5% (n = 1165) were between age 55 and 80 years, and 67.9% (n = 1021) had smoked ≥ 30 pack-years. Among FS, 50.4% (n = 440) had quit within 15 years of diagnosis. Median pack-years smoked was 40 (interquartile range, 20-55 pack-years). CS were more likely to meet screening criteria than FS (67.5% vs. 31.3%; P < .0001). Significant differences were found among individuals meeting criteria by gender, race/ethnicity, and insurance type. CONCLUSION: Only a third of patients diagnosed with NSCLC were eligible for lung cancer screening based on USPSTF criteria. FS were less likely to meet all screening criteria due to only half meeting the quit-time criterion. Additional evidence is needed to evaluate the utility of restricting screening among FS to those who quit within 15 years.

Survival following lung resection in immunocompromised patients with pulmonary invasive fungal infection.

OBJECTIVES: Pulmonary invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are associated with high mortality in patients being treated for haematological malignancy. There is limited understanding of the role for surgical lung resection and outcomes in this patient population. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort of 50 immunocompromised patients who underwent lung resection for IFI. Patient charts were reviewed for details on primary malignancy and treatment course, presentation and work-up of IFI, reasons for surgery, type of resection and outcomes including postoperative complications, mortality, disease relapse and survival. Analysis was also performed on two subgroups based on year of surgery from 1990-2000 and 2001-2014. RESULTS: The median age was 39 years (range: 5-64 years). Forty-seven patients (94%) had haematological malignancies and 38 (76%) underwent haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Surgical indications included haemoptysis, antifungal therapy failure and need for eradication before HSCT. The most common pathogen was Aspergillus in 34 patients (74%). Wedge resections were performed in 32 patients (64%), lobectomy in 9 (18%), segmentectomy in 2 (4%) and some combination of the 3 in 7 (14%) for locally extensive, multifocal disease. There were 9 (18%) minor and 14 (28%) major postoperative complications. Postoperative mortality at 30 days was 12% (n = 6). Acute respiratory distress syndrome was the most common cause of postoperative death. Overall 5-year survival was 19%. Patients who had surgery in the early period had a median survival of 24 months compared with 5 months for those who had surgery before 2001 (P = 0.046). At the time of death, 15 patients (30%) had probable or proven recurrent IFI. Causes of death were predominantly related to refractory malignancy, fungal lung disease or complications of graft versus host disease (GVHD). Patients who had positive preoperative bronchoscopy cultures had a trend towards worse survival compared with those with negative cultures (hazard ratio: 1.80, P = 0.087). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical resection of IFI in immunocompromised patients is associated with high perioperative mortality. Long-term survival is limited by recurrent malignancy, persistent fungal infection and GVHD but has improved in recent years. Selection for surgical resection is difficult in this patient population, but should be carefully considered in those who are symptomatic, or have failed antifungal treatment.

A Population-Based Examination of the Surgical Outcomes for Patients with Esophageal Sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal sarcoma (ES) is a rare malignancy. The literature is limited to small case series and reports. This study used a population data set to study the characteristics, treatments, surgical outcomes, and prognostic factors for survival among ES patients. METHODS: The study identified 178 ES cases (0.3 %) and 63,548 esophageal carcinoma (EC) cases (99.7 %) including adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Registry (1973-2011). Characteristics and therapeutics were compared between ES and EC. Survival data were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimation. Uni- and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models determined predictors of 5-year overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Compared with the EC patients, the ES patients were more likely to be women, to have localized tumors, and to undergo surgery but less likely to receive radiation (p < 0.001). The most common histologies were carcinosarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, and gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). The 5-year OS for the ES patients was 38 % compared with 17 % for the EC patients (p < 0.001). The median survival period for the ES and EC surgical patients with locoregional disease was respectively 50 and 24 months. The ES patients with nonmetastatic disease who received surgery had better OS than those who did not (37 vs. 14 %; p < 0.0001). In the multivariate analysis, age and advanced stage conferred worse OS, whereas GIST histology and surgery were favorable predictors for OS. CONCLUSION: The ES patients were more likely to have localized disease, to be treated with surgery, and to have better OS than the EC patients. The survival benefit of surgery suggests that surgery should be the primary treatment for ES patients with resectable disease, particularly those with GIST.