Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 4.2024, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) provide recommendations for the treatment of patients with NSCLC, including diagnosis, primary disease management, surveillance for relapse, and subsequent treatment. The panel has updated the list of recommended targeted therapies based on recent FDA approvals and clinical data. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for NSCLC focuses on treatment recommendations for advanced or metastatic NSCLC with actionable molecular biomarkers.

Optimizing clinical outcomes for bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with Zephyr® valves.

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction treatment with Zephyr one-way valves is an effective guideline-based treatment option for patients with severe emphysema and hyperinflation. However, in some cases the treatment response is less than anticipated or there might be a loss of initial treatment effect. Reasons for the lack of response can include incorrect assessment of collateral ventilation, improper valve placement, or patient related factors. Loss of initial benefit can be due to granulation tissue formation and subsequent valve dysfunction, or there may be side effects such as excessive coughing or infectious problems. Careful follow-up after treatment with valves is important and evaluation with a CT scan and/or bronchoscopy is helpful if there is no improvement after treatment or loss of initial benefit. This paper aims to describe the most important causes and provide a strategy of how to approach and manage these patients.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Mesothelioma: Pleural, Version 1.2024.

Mesothelioma is a rare cancer that originates from the mesothelial surfaces of the pleura and other sites, and is estimated to occur in approximately 3,500 people in the United States annually. Pleural mesothelioma is the most common type and represents approximately 85% of these cases. The NCCN Guidelines for Mesothelioma: Pleural provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up for patients with pleural mesothelioma. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight significant updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Mesothelioma: Pleural, including revised guidance on disease classification and systemic therapy options.

Mesothelioma: Peritoneal, Version 2.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Mesothelioma is a rare cancer originating in mesothelial surfaces of the peritoneum, pleura, and other sites. These NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) focus on peritoneal mesothelioma (PeM). The NCCN Guidelines for PeM provide recommendations for workup, diagnosis, and treatment of primary as well as previously treated PeM. The diagnosis of PeM may be delayed because PeM mimics other diseases and conditions and because the disease is so rare. The pathology section was recently updated to include new information about markers used to identify mesothelioma, which is difficult to diagnose. The term "malignant" is no longer used to classify mesotheliomas, because all mesotheliomas are now defined as malignant.

Overall Survival Among Patients With De Novo Stage IV Metastatic and Distant Metastatic Recurrent Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Importance: Despite recent breakthroughs in therapy, advanced lung cancer still poses a therapeutic challenge. The survival profile of patients with metastatic lung cancer remains poorly understood by metastatic disease type (ie, de novo stage IV vs distant recurrence). Objective: To evaluate the association of metastatic disease type on overall survival (OS) among patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to identify potential mechanisms underlying any survival difference. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study of a national US population based at a tertiary referral center in the San Francisco Bay Area using participant data from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) who were enrolled between 2002 and 2004 and followed up for up to 7 years as the primary cohort and patient data from Stanford Healthcare (SHC) for diagnoses between 2009 and 2019 and followed up for up to 13 years as the validation cohort. Participants from NLST with de novo metastatic or distant recurrent NSCLC diagnoses were included. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to March 2023. Exposures: De novo stage IV vs distant recurrent metastatic disease. Main Outcomes and Measures: OS after diagnosis of metastatic disease. Results: The NLST and SHC cohort consisted of 660 and 180 participants, respectively (411 men [62.3%] vs 109 men [60.6%], 602 White participants [91.2%] vs 111 White participants [61.7%], and mean [SD] age of 66.8 [5.5] vs 71.4 [7.9] years at metastasis, respectively). Patients with distant recurrence showed significantly better OS than patients with de novo metastasis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.87; P < .001) in NLST, which was replicated in SHC (aHR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43-0.96; P = .03). In SHC, patients with de novo metastasis more frequently progressed to the bone (63 patients with de novo metastasis [52.5%] vs 19 patients with distant recurrence [31.7%]) or pleura (40 patients with de novo metastasis [33.3%] vs 8 patients with distant recurrence [13.3%]) than patients with distant recurrence and were primarily detected through symptoms (102 patients [85.0%]) as compared with posttreatment surveillance (47 patients [78.3%]) in the latter. The main finding remained consistent after further adjusting for metastasis sites and detection methods. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients with distant recurrent NSCLC had significantly better OS than those with de novo disease, and the latter group was associated with characteristics that may affect overall survival. This finding can help inform future clinical trial designs to ensure a balance for baseline patient characteristics.

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.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 2.2023.

The NCCN Guidelines for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) provide recommendations for management of disease in patients with NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on neoadjuvant and adjuvant (also known as perioperative) systemic therapy options for eligible patients with resectable NSCLC.

Extragastrointestinal stromal tumour of the transverse mesocolon mimicking giant ovarian cystic neoplasm.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) are mesenchymal tumours which are most commonly found along the gastrointestinal tract. They are more rarely found in an extragastrointestinal location and typically present late due to only vague symptoms from mass effect. There are very few case reports of GIST arising within the transverse mesocolon. We report a case of a large cystic transverse mesocolic GIST which preoperative imaging concluded was likely of ovarian origin. This resulted in an abrupt change in the surgical management intraoperatively, but fortunately, an R0 resection was still achieved. This serves as an important lesson to keep the differential diagnosis broad when dealing with large cystic abdominal masses. The tumour was found to be KIT wild type, with a platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha D842V mutation identified, conferring intrinsic resistance to imatinib.

Impact of Federal Lung Cancer Screening Policy on the Incidence of Early-stage Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In December 2013 the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended annual lung cancer screening for high-risk patients. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) later announced coverage in 2015. The impact of these federal decisions at the population level is unknown. METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, we studied changes in lung cancer incidence by stage and linked to US census data to obtain age-adjusted estimates standardized to the US population. Based on age at diagnosis we stratified patients as age-eligible or age-ineligible for screening. We used difference-in-differences regression to determine the effect of screening on lung cancer incidence by stage. RESULTS: For all age groups the incidence of early-stage lung cancer both before and after the USPSTF guidelines remained relatively stable at 12.8 ± 0.52 and 13.5 ± 0.92 per 100,000 patients, respectively (P = .068). However the difference-in-differences analysis estimated an absolute increase in the age-adjusted incidence by 3.4 per 100,000 persons in the age-eligible group after the announcement of the guidelines (P = .007). The effect was even larger after the CMS decision (4.3/100,000 persons, P < .001). Similarly there was a 14.2 per 100,000 persons absolute reduction in the incidence of advanced-stage lung cancer (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The 2013 USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines and CMS coverage decisions were associated with an increased incidence of early-stage lung cancer and decreased incidence of advance-staged lung cancer at the population level.

Predictive Model to Guide Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging Surveillance in Patients With Metastatic Lung Cancer: Impact on Real-World Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Brain metastasis is common in lung cancer, and treatment of brain metastasis can lead to significant morbidity. Although early detection of brain metastasis may improve outcomes, there are no prediction models to identify high-risk patients for brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance. Our goal is to develop a machine learning-based clinicogenomic prediction model to estimate patient-level brain metastasis risk. METHODS: A penalized regression competing risk model was developed using 330 patients diagnosed with lung cancer between January 2014 and June 2019 and followed through June 2021 at Stanford HealthCare. The main outcome was time from the diagnosis of distant metastatic disease to the development of brain metastasis, death, or censoring. RESULTS: Among the 330 patients, 84 (25%) developed brain metastasis over 627 person-years, with a 1-year cumulative brain metastasis incidence of 10.2% (95% CI, 6.8 to 13.6). Features selected for model inclusion were histology, cancer stage, age at diagnosis, primary site, and RB1 and ALK alterations. The prediction model yielded high discrimination (area under the curve 0.75). When the cohort was stratified by risk using a 1-year risk threshold of > 14.2% (85th percentile), the high-risk group had increased 1-year cumulative incidence of brain metastasis versus the low-risk group (30.8% v 6.1%, P < .01). Of 48 high-risk patients, 24 developed brain metastasis, and of these, 12 patients had brain metastasis detected more than 7 months after last brain MRI. Patients who missed this 7-month window had larger brain metastases (58% v 33% largest diameter > 10 mm; odds ratio, 2.80, CI, 0.51 to 13) versus those who had MRIs more frequently. CONCLUSION: The proposed model can identify high-risk patients, who may benefit from more intensive brain MRI surveillance to reduce morbidity of subsequent treatment through early detection.

Assessment of Potential Gender Bias in General Surgery Resident Milestone Evaluations.

This quality improvement study uses Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestone evaluation scores to compare the scores of men and women surgical residents.

Accuracy of Electronic Medical Record Follow-Up Data for Estimating the Survival Time of Patients With Cancer.

PURPOSE: For real-world evidence, it is convenient to use routinely collected data from the electronic medical record (EMR) to measure survival outcomes. However, patients can become lost to follow-up, causing incomplete data and biased survival time estimates. We quantified this issue for patients with metastatic cancer seen in an academic health system by comparing survival estimates from EMR data only and from EMR data combined with high-quality cancer registry data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer from 2008 to 2014 were included in this retrospective study. Patients who were diagnosed with cancer or received their initial treatment within our system were included in the institutional cancer registry and this study. Overall survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Survival curves were generated in two ways: using EMR follow-up data alone and using EMR data supplemented with data from the Stanford Cancer Registry/California Cancer Registry. RESULTS: Four thousand seventy-seven patients were included. The median follow-up using EMR + Cancer Registry data was 19.9 months, and the median follow-up in surviving patients was 67.6 months. There were 1,301 deaths recorded in the EMR and 3,140 deaths recorded in the Cancer Registry. The median overall survival from the date of cancer diagnosis using EMR data was 58.7 months (95% CI, 54.2 to 63.2); using EMR + Cancer Registry data, it was 20.8 months (95% CI, 19.6 to 22.3). A similar pattern was seen using the date of first systemic therapy or date of first hospital admission as the baseline date. CONCLUSION: Using EMR data alone, survival time was overestimated compared with EMR + Cancer Registry data.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Lung Cancer Screening, Version 1.2022.

The NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening recommend criteria for selecting individuals for screening and provide recommendations for evaluation and follow-up of lung nodules found during initial and subsequent screening. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening.

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 3.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) provide recommended management for patients with NSCLC, including diagnosis, primary treatment, surveillance for relapse, and subsequent treatment. Patients with metastatic lung cancer who are eligible for targeted therapies or immunotherapies are now surviving longer. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for NSCLC focuses on targeted therapies for patients with metastatic NSCLC and actionable mutations.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical student education: Implementation and outcome of a virtual general surgery curriculum.

BACKGROUND: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, medical schools were forced to adapt clinical curricula. The University of Washington School of Medicine created a hybrid in person and virtual general surgery clerkship. METHODS: The third year general surgery clerkship was modified to a 4-week in person and 2-week virtual clerkship to accommodate the same number of learners in less time. All students completed a survey to assess the impact of the virtual clerkship. RESULTS: The students preferred faculty lectures over national modules in the virtual clerkship. 58.6% indicated they would prefer the virtual component before the in-person experience. There was no change from previous years in final grades or clerkship exam scores after this hybrid curriculum. CONCLUSIONS: If the need for a virtual general surgery curriculum arises again in the future, learners value this experience at the beginning of the clerkship and prefer faculty lectures over national modules.

Closing the gap: Triangulation of surgeons' respectful behaviors perceived by medical students, residents, and patients.

BACKGROUND: Professionalism in academia requires surgical faculty to establish a safe clinical learning environment based on respectful behaviors that span the training and patient interface. National data reporting trainee mistreatment suggest that there are significant gaps between resident and medical student perceptions of attending behavior. It is unknown whether patient perceptions mirror those of surgical trainees. HYPOTHESIS: Based on triangulated ratings, patients, surgical residents, and medical students have similar perceptions of a surgeons' respectful behaviors. METHODS: Respect scores from end-of-rotation evaluations by surgical residents and rotating medical students were compared for 50 academic surgeons over the period of 2014 to 2018. Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment surveys were collected from patients of 36 of these surgeons and mined for respect and listening behavior ratings. Data were triangulated and analyzed for correlation and variability across the trainee and patient experiences. RESULTS: Resident respect ratings of faculty were consistently higher than those from medical students. Despite a wider variability, medical students still rated their surgical faculty as being respectful to themselves and others most often, almost always, and always 95% of the time. Patient scores were generally lower than trainee scores for an individual surgeon, particularly regarding listening skills. Triangulation of trainee data with patient data identified surgeons demonstrating strong respectful behaviors across the clinical environment as well as those with gaps in behavior toward trainees and patients. CONCLUSION: Triangulation of feedback from trainees and patients provides a unique opportunity to target interventions in professionalism across the clinical learning environment.

Psychological Traits and the Persuasiveness of Lung Cancer Screening Health Messages.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening remains underused despite its proven mortality benefit. Health systems have attempted to increase screening awareness through advertising. Psychological theories suggest that construal level (a personal orientation toward the big picture or the details) and regulatory focus (goals emphasizing acquisition of a good or avoidance of a bad outcome) play a key role in health advertising effectiveness. These theories have not been examined in a screen-eligible population. METHODS: Using Amazon's crowdsourcing platform, Mechanical Turk, we identified screen-eligible individuals based on US Preventive Services Task Force criteria. We randomly assigned participants to see 1 of 4 screening advertisement images in a 2 (construal level: high vs low) × 2 (regulatory focus: promotion vs prevention) between-subjects experimental design. We assessed willingness to undergo screening after the advertisement. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-one individuals responded to our study invitation (mean age, 61 years). We found that the high construal/promotion focus image led to a greater willingness to screen compared with images representing other psychological states (P = .04). Regarding the personality traits of our respondents, high construal/promotion focus was the most prevalent (40%) trait combination, whereas low construal/prevention focus was the least prevalent (17%). CONCLUSIONS: The psychological focus of health-related messages affects an individual's willingness to undergo lung cancer screening. Individuals eligible for lung cancer screening are more persuaded by "big picture" messages describing the benefits of screening. Health systems may use this knowledge to design more effective patient-facing communications that lead to higher rates of screening.

Initial Assessment of the Effect of ProvenCare on Lung Cancer Surgical Quality.

BACKGROUND: ProvenCare is a joint initiative of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer, Geisinger, and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) to standardize evidence-based practices in the delivery of surgical lung cancer care. This study compares outcomes of ProvenCare patients with the STS Database. METHODS: Best practice elements were agreed on through expert consensus meetings. ProvenCare elements were used to direct care. Compliance was monitored while clinical outcomes were collected within the STS General Thoracic Surgery Database (GTSD). ProvenCare patient outcomes were compared with outcomes in all other STS GTSD patients. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models compared morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 2026 patients at 23 ProvenCare hospitals were compared with 71 565 control patients at 311 hospitals from 2010 to 2016. ProvenCare patients were more likely to receive guideline-recommended staging evaluations and more likely to have mediastinal staging performed during resection (63.4% vs 49.4%; P < .001). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (1.4% vs 1.3% lobectomy [P = .84]; 3.4% vs 2.0% all other resections [P = .054]) or STS indicator complications (10.8% vs 9.9% lobectomy [P = .21]; 9.2% vs 9.4% all other resections [P = .92]). When controlling for patient-level clinical and demographic risk factors, the likelihood of perioperative morbidity and mortality was not significantly different (odds ratio [OR], 1.07 [95% CI, 0.77-1.47] lobectomy; OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.62-1.50] all other resections). CONCLUSIONS: Variability in preoperative evaluation of patients with lung cancer represents an opportunity to improve quality of care. ProvenCare increased use of guideline-recommended preoperative processes, which may improve cancer outcomes and survival, without resulting in differences in short-term surgical outcomes.