Prevalence of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor and Programmed Death-Ligand 1 testing in a population-based lung cancer surgical resection cohort from 2018-2022.

BACKGROUND: Biomarker-directed therapy requires biomarker testing. We assessed the patterns of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) and Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PDL1) testing in a non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) resection cohort. We hypothesized that testing would increase but be unevenly distributed across patient-, provider- and institution-level demographics. METHODS: We examined the population-based Mid-south Quality of Surgical Resection (MS-QSR) cohort of NSCLC resections. We evaluated the proportions receiving EGFR and PDL1 testing before and after approval of biomarker-directed adjuvant therapy (2018-2020 versus 2021-2022). We used association tests and logistic regression to compare factors. RESULTS: From 2018-2022, 1687 patients had NSCLC resection across 12 MS-QSR institutions: 1045 (62%) from 2018-2020; and 642 (38%) from 2021-2022. From 2018-2020 11% had EGFR testing, versus 38% in 2021-2022 (56% in those meeting ADAURA trial inclusion criteria, p<0.0001). From 2018-2020, 8% had PDL1 testing, versus 20% in 2021-2022 (p<0.0001). EGFR testing did not significantly differ by age (p=0.07), sex (p=0.99), race (p=0.33), or smoking history (p=0.28); PDL1 testing did not differ significantly by age (p=0.47), sex (p=0.41), race (p=0.51), or health insurance (p=0.07). Testing was significantly less likely in non-teaching and non-Commission on Cancer-accredited hospitals and after resection by cardiothoracic or general surgeons (versus dedicated thoracic surgeons) (all p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: EGFR and PDL1 testing increased after approval of biomarker-directed adjuvant therapies. However, testing rates were still suboptimal and differed by institutional and provider-level factors. IMPACT: The association of institutional, pathologist, and surgeon characteristics with differences in testing demonstrate the need for more standardization in testing processes.

Two Interventions on Pathologic Nodal Staging in a Population-Based Lung Cancer Resection Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Despite its prognostic importance, poor pathologic nodal staging of lung cancer prevails. We evaluated the impact of 2 interventions to improve pathologic nodal staging. METHODS: We implemented a lymph node specimen collection kit to improve intraoperative lymph node collection (surgical intervention) and a novel gross dissection method for intrapulmonary node retrieval (pathology intervention) in nonrandomized stepped-wedge fashion, involving 12 hospitals and 7 pathology groups. We used standard statistical methods to compare surgical quality and survival of patients who had neither intervention (group 1), pathology intervention only (group 2), surgical intervention only (group 3), and both interventions (group 4). RESULTS: Of 4019 patients from 2009 to 2021, 50%, 5%, 21%, and 24%, respectively, were in groups 1 to 4. Rates of nonexamination of lymph nodes were 11%, 9%, 0%, and 0% and rates of nonexamination of mediastinal lymph nodes were 29%, 35%, 2%, and 2%, respectively, in groups 1 to 4 (P < .0001). Rates of attainment of American College of Surgeons Operative Standard 5.8 were 22%, 29%, 72%, and 85%; and rates of International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer complete resection were 14%, 21%, 53%, and 61% (P < .0001). Compared with group 1, adjusted hazard ratios for death were as follows: group 2, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.76-1.15); group 3, 0.91 (0.78-1.03); and group 4, 0.75 (0.64-0.87). Compared with group 2, group 4 adjusted hazard ratio was 0.72 (0.57-0.91); compared with group 3, it was 0.83 (0.69-0.99). These relationships remained after exclusion of wedge resections. CONCLUSIONS: Combining a lymph node collection kit with a novel gross dissection method significantly improved pathologic nodal evaluation and survival.

Surgeon Quality and Patient Survival After Resection for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The quality and outcomes of curative-intent lung cancer surgery vary in populations. Surgeons are key drivers of surgical quality. We examined the association between surgeon-level intermediate outcomes differences, patient survival differences, and potential mitigation by processes of care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using a baseline population-based surgical resection cohort, we derived surgeon-level cut points for rates of positive margins, nonexamination of lymph nodes, nonexamination of mediastinal lymph nodes, and wedge resections. Applying the baseline cut points to a subsequent cohort from the same population-based data set, we assign surgeons into three performance categories in reference to each metric: 1 (<25th percentile), 2 (25th-75th percentile), and 3 (>75th percentile). The sum of performance scores created three surgeon quality tiers: 1 (4-6, low), 2 (7-9, intermediate), and 3 (10-12, high). We used chi-squared, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, and Kruskal-Wallis tests to compare patient characteristics between the baseline and subsequent cohorts and across surgeon tiers. We applied Cox proportional hazards models to examine the association between patient survival and surgeon performance tier, sequentially adjusting for clinical stage, patient characteristics, and four specific processes. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2021, 39 surgeons performed 4,082 resections across the baseline and subsequent cohorts. Among 31 subsequent cohort surgeons, five were tier 1, five were tier 2, and 21 were tier 3. Tier 1 and 2 surgeons had significantly worse outcomes than tier 3 surgeons (hazard ratio [HR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.72 and 1.19; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.43, respectively). Adjustment for specific processes mitigated the surgeon-tiered survival differences, with adjusted HRs of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.8 to 1.3) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.7 to 1.25), respectively. CONCLUSION: Readily accessible intermediate outcomes metrics can be used to stratify surgeon performance for targeted process improvement, potentially reducing patient survival disparities.

Institution-Level Evolution of Lung Cancer Resection Quality With Implementation of a Lymph Node Specimen Collection Kit.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer surgery with a lymph node kit improves patient-level outcomes, but institution-level impact is unproven. METHODS: Using an institutional stepped-wedge implementation study design, we compared lung cancer resection quality between institutions in preimplementation and postimplementation phases of kit deployment and, within implementing institutions, resections without versus with the kit. Benchmarks included rates of nonexamination of lymph nodes, nonexamination of mediastinal lymph nodes, and attainment of American College of Surgeons Operative Standard 5.8. We report institution-level adjusted ORs (aORs) for attaining quality benchmarks. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2020, three preimplementing hospitals had 953 resections; 11 implementing hospitals had 4013 resections, 58% without and 42% with the kit. Quality was better in implementing institutions and with kit cases. Compared with preimplementing institutions, the aOR for nonexamination of lymph nodes was 0.62 (0.49-0.8, p = 0.002), nonexamination of mediastinal lymph nodes was 0.56 (0.47-0.68, p < 0.0001), and attainment of Operative Standard 5.8 was 7.3 (5.6-9.4, p < 0.0001); aORs for kit cases were 0.01 (0.001-0.06), 0.08 (0.06-0.11), and 11.6 (9.9-13.7), respectively (p < 0.0001 for all). Surgical quality was persistently poor in preimplementing institutions but sequentially improved in implementing institutions in parallel with kit adoption. In implementing institutions, resections with the kit had a uniformly high level of quality, whereas nonkit cases had a low level of quality, approximating that of preimplementing institutions. Within implementing institutions, 5-year overall survival was 61% versus 51% after surgery with versus without the kit (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery with a lymph node specimen collection kit improved institution-level quality of curative-intent lung cancer resection.