"Living with Loss": A qualitative exploration of existential fears among people with advanced lung cancer in online lung cancer support groups.

OBJECTIVES: With targeted therapies, people are surviving longer with advanced lung cancer and engaging in online lung cancer support communities. While these groups provide a sense of community, witnessing the death of peers can lead to emotional distress. This qualitative study aims to (1) explore the experience of witnessing death in online cancer support groups; (2) identify factors that contribute to the emotional struggles of witnessing the death of peers; and (3) identify strategies/options for dealing with losses in the cancer community. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of qualitative interviews exploring existential concerns with participants (n = 25) from oncogene-specific online lung cancer support groups. The principal investigator conducted study interviews between August 2018 and March 2019 where participants were asked about their cancer experiences and existential concerns. We used thematic analysis and NVIVO 11 software to examine and store the de-identified interview data. RESULTS: Participants indicated that they had often witnessed their peers die and felt the pain of the loss. Factors that played a part in their struggle with witnessing others' death included the closeness of the relationship with the person, the age of the person who died, seeing oneself in the experience of the other dying, disparities in care, and losing touch in the final stages. Participants used varied coping strategies such as celebrating the life of the individual who died, engaging in advocacy efforts, not focusing on the loss, participating in therapy, and bringing self-preserving thoughts. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Our study highlights the importance of addressing existential fears in online lung cancer support groups and incorporating conversations about death in spaces that deal with cancer.

Program-Based Lung Cancer Care: A Prospective Observational Tumor Registry Linkage Study.

Introduction: Low-dose computed tomography screening (LDCT) and lung nodule programs (LNP) promote early lung cancer detection, improve survival; Multidisciplinary Care Programs (MDC) promote guideline-concordant care. The impact of such program-based care on "real-world" lung cancer survival is unquantified. We evaluated outcomes of lung cancer care delivered through structured programs in a community health care system. Methods: We conducted a cohort study linking institutional prospective observational LDCT, LNP and MDC databases with Tumor Registry of Baptist Cancer Center facilities. We categorized all patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 2011 and 2021 into program-based care versus non-program-based care cohorts. We compared patient characteristics, stage distribution, treatment modalities, survival and mortality in each pathway of care. Results: Of 12,148 patients, 237, 1,165, 1,140 and 9,606 were diagnosed through the LDCT, LNP, MDC or no program, respectively; non-program-based care sequentially diminished from 96.3% to 66.5%, diagnosis through LDCT increased from 0.5% to 7.1%, LNP from 3.5% to 20.8%; and MDC alone decreased from a high of 12.8% in 2014 to 5.6% in 2021. Program-based care was associated with earlier stage (p < 0.001), higher surgical resection rates (p < 0.001), greater use of adjuvant therapy (p < 0.001), better aggregate and stage-stratified survival (p < 0.001), and lower all-cause and lung cancer-specific mortality (p < 0.001). Recipients of non-program-based care were considerably less likely to receive lung cancer treatment; results remained consistent when patients receiving no treatment were excluded. Conclusions: Program-based care was associated with substantially better survival. Increasing access to program-based care should be explored as a matter of urgent public policy.

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.

Incidentally Detected Lung Cancer in Persons Too Young or Too Old for Lung Cancer Screening in a Mississippi Delta Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer risk in screening age-ineligible persons with incidentally detected lung nodules is poorly characterized. We evaluated lung cancer risk in two age-ineligible Lung Nodule Program (LNP) cohorts. METHODS: Prospective observational study comparing 2-year cumulative lung cancer diagnosis risk, lung cancer characteristics, and overall survival between low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening participants aged 50 to 80 years and LNP participants aged 35 to younger than 50 years (young) and older than 80 years (elderly). RESULTS: From 2015 to 2022, lung cancer was diagnosed in 329 (3.43%), 39 (1.07%), and 172 (6.87%) LDCT, young, and elderly LNP patients, respectively. The 2-year cumulative incidence was 3.0% (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 2.6%-3.4%) versus 0.79% (CI: 0.54%-1.1%) versus 6.5% (CI: 5.5%-7.6%), respectively, but lung cancer diagnosis risk was similar between young LNP and Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) 1 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.88 [CI: 0.50-1.56]) and Lung-RADS 2 (aHR = 1.0 [0.58-1.72]). Elderly LNP risk was greater than Lung-RADS 3 (aHR = 2.34 [CI: 1.50-3.65]), but less than 4 (aHR = 0.28 [CI: 0.22-0.35]). Lung cancer was stage I or II in 62.92% of LDCT versus 33.33% of young (p = 0.0003) and 48.26% of elderly (p = 0.0004) LNP cohorts; 16.72%, 41.03%, and 29.65%, respectively, were diagnosed at stage IV. The aggregate 5-year overall survival rates were 57% (CI: 48-67), 55% (CI: 39-79), and 24% (CI: 15-40) (log-rank p < 0.0001). Results were similar after excluding persons with any history of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: LNP modestly benefited persons too young or old for screening. Differences in clinical characteristics and outcomes suggest differences in biological characteristics of lung cancer in these three patient cohorts.

Factors leading to disparity in lung cancer diagnosis among black/African American communities in the USA: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: This study has two objectives: first, to explore the diagnostic experiences of black/African American (BAA) patients with lung cancer to pinpoint pitfalls, suboptimal experiences and instances of discrimination leading to disparities in outcomes compared with patients of other ethnic backgrounds, especially white patients. The second objective is to identify the underlying causes contributing to health disparities in the diagnosis of lung cancer among BAA patients. METHODS: We employed a phenomenological research approach, guiding in-depth interviews with patients self-identifying as BAA diagnosed with lung cancer, as well as caregivers, healthcare professionals and community advocates knowledgeable about BAA experiences with lung cancer. We performed thematic analysis to identify experiences at patient, primary care and specialist levels. Contributing factors were identified using the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) health disparity model. RESULTS: From March to November 2021, we conducted individual interviews with 19 participants, including 9 patients/caregivers and 10 providers/advocates. Participants reported recurring and increased pain before seeking treatment, treatment for non-cancer illnesses, delays in diagnostic tests and referrals, poor communication and bias when dealing with specialists and primary care providers. Factors contributing to suboptimal experiences included reluctance by insurers to cover costs, provider unwillingness to conduct comprehensive testing, provider bias in recommending treatment, high healthcare costs, and lack of healthcare facilities and qualified staff to provide necessary support. However, some participants reported positive experiences due to their insurance, availability of services and having an empowered support structure. CONCLUSIONS: BAA patients and caregivers encountered suboptimal experiences during their care. The NIMHD model is a useful framework to organise factors contributing to these experiences that may be leading to health disparities. Additional research is needed to fully capture the extent of these experiences and identify ways to improve BAA patient experiences in the lung cancer diagnosis pathway.

Lung Cancer Patients' and Caregivers' Satisfaction With Multidisciplinary Versus Serial Care in a Community Healthcare Setting: A Prospective Comparative-Effectiveness Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary Care is recommended for complex oncologic conditions. We compared lung cancer patients' and caregivers' satisfaction with Multidisciplinary Care to routine, serial care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed validated surveys administered at baseline, 3 and 6 months to patients and their caregivers enrolled in a prospective cohort comparative-effectiveness study of Multidisciplinary versus Serial Care (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02123797). Multivariate mixed linear models examined the cross-group differences, time-related variances, and how interaction between groups and time-periods influenced satisfaction. RESULTS: Compared to serial care (N = 297), the Multidisciplinary Care cohort (N = 159), was older (69 vs. 66 years), had earlier clinical stage (41% vs. 33% stage I/II), and less severe symptoms (45% vs. 35% asymptomatic). Demographic and social-economic characteristics of caregivers (N = 99 for Multidisciplinary and 123 for Serial Care, respectively) were similar. Multidisciplinary Care patients and caregivers were more likely to perceive their care to be better than that of other patients (p < .01). Although Serial Care patients and caregivers expressed greater satisfaction with their treatment plan (p < .01 patients, p = 0.04 caregivers), Multidisciplinary Care patients showed greater improvement at 6-months (p < .01). Multidisciplinary Care patients and caregivers reported better overall satisfaction with team members (p < .01) while Serial Care patients had greater improvement in their satisfaction with team members at 6-months (p = .04). Multidisciplinary Care patients perceived more financial burden at 6-months compared to Serial Care patients (p = .04). CONCLUSION: Patient-caregiver dyads had mixed perceptions of their care experience. Recipients of Multidisciplinary Care perceived better experience with care and team members; Serial Care recipients expressed greater satisfaction with their treatment plan.

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.

Evaluation of Lung Cancer Risk Among Persons Undergoing Screening or Guideline-Concordant Monitoring of Lung Nodules in the Mississippi Delta.

Importance: Guideline-concordant management of lung nodules promotes early lung cancer diagnosis, but the lung cancer risk profile of persons with incidentally detected lung nodules differs from that of screening-eligible persons. Objective: To compare lung cancer diagnosis hazard between participants receiving low-dose computed tomography screening (LDCT cohort) and those in a lung nodule program (LNP cohort). Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study included LDCT vs LNP enrollees from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2021, who were seen in a community health care system. Participants were prospectively identified, data were abstracted from clinical records, and survival was updated at 6-month intervals. The LDCT cohort was stratified by Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System as having no potentially malignant lesions (Lung-RADS 1-2 cohort) vs those with potentially malignant lesions (Lung-RADS 3-4 cohort), and the LNP cohort was stratified by smoking history into screening-eligible vs screening-ineligible groups. Participants with prior lung cancer, younger than 50 years or older than 80 years, and lacking a baseline Lung-RADS score (LDCT cohort only) were excluded. Participants were followed up to January 1, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Comparative cumulative rates of lung cancer diagnosis and patient, nodule, and lung cancer characteristics between programs, using LDCT as a reference. Results: There were 6684 participants in the LDCT cohort (mean [SD] age, 65.05 [6.11] years; 3375 men [50.49%]; 5774 [86.39%] in the Lung-RADS 1-2 and 910 [13.61%] in the Lung-RADS 3-4 cohorts) and 12 645 in the LNP cohort (mean [SD] age, 65.42 [8.33] years; 6856 women [54.22%]; 2497 [19.75%] screening eligible and 10 148 [80.25%] screening ineligible). Black participants constituted 1244 (18.61%) of the LDCT cohort, 492 (19.70%) of the screening-eligible LNP cohort, and 2914 (28.72%) of the screening-ineligible LNP cohort (P < .001). The median lesion size was 4 (IQR, 2-6) mm for the LDCT cohort (3 [IQR, 2-4] mm for Lung-RADS 1-2 and 9 [IQR, 6-15] mm for Lung-RADS 3-4 cohorts), 9 (IQR, 6-16) mm for the screening-eligible LNP cohort, and 7 (IQR, 5-11) mm for the screening-ineligible LNP cohort. In the LDCT cohort, lung cancer was diagnosed in 80 participants (1.44%) in the Lung-RADS 1-2 cohort and 162 (17.80%) in the Lung-RADS 3-4 cohort; in the LNP cohort, it was diagnosed in 531 (21.27%) in the screening-eligible cohort and 447 (4.40%) in the screening-ineligible cohort. Compared with Lung-RADS 1-2, the fully adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were 16.2 (95% CI, 12.7-20.6) for the screening-eligible cohort and 3.8 (95% CI, 3.0-5.0) for the screening-ineligible cohort; compared with Lung-RADS 3-4, the aHRs were 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0-1.5) and 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2-0.4), respectively. The stage of lung cancer was I to II in 156 of 242 patients (64.46%) in the LDCT cohort, 276 of 531 (52.00%) in the screening-eligible LNP cohort, and 253 of 447 (56.60%) in the screening-ineligible LNP cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the cumulative lung cancer diagnosis hazard of screening-age persons enrolled in the LNP was higher than that in a screening cohort, irrespective of smoking history. The LNP provided access to early detection for a higher proportion of Black persons.

Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Care Within a Community-Based Health Care System.

PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary lung cancer care is assumed to improve care delivery by increasing transparency, objectivity, and shared decision making; however, there is a lack of high-level evidence demonstrating its benefits, especially in community-based health care systems. We used implementation and team science principles to establish a colocated multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic in a large community-based health care system and evaluated patient experience and outcomes within and outside this clinic. METHODS: We conducted a prospective frequency-matched comparative effectiveness study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02123797) evaluating the thoroughness of lung cancer staging, receipt of stage-appropriate treatment, and survival between patients receiving care in the multidisciplinary clinic and those receiving usual serial care. Target enrollment was 150 patients on the multidisciplinary arm and 300 on the serial care arm. We frequency-matched patients by clinical stage, performance status, insurance type, race, and age. RESULTS: A total of 526 patients were enrolled: 178 on the multidisciplinary arm and 348 on the serial care arm. After adjusting for other factors, multidisciplinary patients had significantly higher odds (odds ratio [OR]: 2.3 [95% CI, 1.5 to 3.4]) of trimodality staging compared with serial care. Patients on the multidisciplinary arm also had higher odds of receiving invasive stage confirmation (OR: 2.0 [95% CI, 1.4 to 3.1]) and mediastinal stage confirmation (OR: 1.9 [95% CI, 1.3 to 2.8]). Additionally, patients receiving multidisciplinary care were significantly more likely to receive stage-appropriate treatment (OR: 1.8 [95% CI, 1.1 to 3.0]). We found no significant difference in overall or progression-free survival between study arms. CONCLUSION: The multidisciplinary clinic delivered significant improvements in evidence-based quality care on multiple levels. Even in the absence of a demonstrable survival benefit, these findings provide a strong rationale for recommending this model of care.

Potential Impact of Criteria Modifications on Race and Sex Disparities in Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening reduces lung cancer mortality, but current eligibility criteria underestimate risk in women and racial minorities. We evaluated the impact of screening criteria modifications on LDCT eligibility and lung cancer detection. METHODS: Using data from a Lung Nodule Program, we compared persons eligible for LDCT by the following: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2013 criteria (55-80 y, ≥30 pack-years of smoking, and ≤15 y since cessation); USPSTF2021 criteria (50-80 y, ≥20 pack-years of smoking, and ≤15 y since cessation); quit duration expanded to less than or equal to 25 years (USPSTF2021-QD25); reducing the pack-years of smoking to more than or equal to 10 years (USPSTF2021-PY10); and both (USPSTF2021-QD25-PY10). We compare across groups using the chi-square test or analysis of variance. RESULTS: The 17,421 individuals analyzed were of 56% female sex, 69% white, 28% black; 13% met USPSTF2013 criteria; 17% USPSTF2021; 18% USPSTF2021-QD25; 19% USPSTF2021-PY10; and 21% USPSTF2021-QD25-PY10. Additional eligible individuals by USPSTF2021 (n = 682) and USPSTF2021-QD25-PY10 (n = 1402) were 27% and 29% black, both significantly higher than USPSTF2013 (17%, p < 0.0001). These additional eligible individuals were 55% (USPSTF2021) and 55% (USPSTF2021-QD25-PY10) of female sex, compared with 48% by USPSTF2013 (p < 0.05). Of 1243 persons (7.1%) with lung cancer, 22% were screening eligible by USPSTF13. USPSTF2021-QD25-PY10 increased the total number of persons with lung cancer by 37%. These additional individuals with lung cancer were of 57% female sex (versus 48% with USPSTF2013, p = 0.0476) and 24% black (versus 20% with USPSTF2013, p = 0.3367). CONCLUSIONS: Expansion of LDCT screening eligibility criteria to allow longer quit duration and fewer pack-years of exposure enriches the screening-eligible population for women and black persons.

Lung Cancer Diagnosed Through Screening, Lung Nodule, and Neither Program: A Prospective Observational Study of the Detecting Early Lung Cancer (DELUGE) in the Mississippi Delta Cohort.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer screening saves lives, but implementation is challenging. We evaluated two approaches to early lung cancer detection-low-dose computed tomography screening (LDCT) and program-based management of incidentally detected lung nodules. METHODS: A prospective observational study enrolled patients in the early detection programs. For context, we compared them with patients managed in a Multidisciplinary Care Program. We compared clinical stage distribution, surgical resection rates, 3- and 5-year survival rates, and eligibility for LDCT screening of patients diagnosed with lung cancer. RESULTS: From 2015 to May 2021, 22,886 patients were enrolled: 5,659 in LDCT, 15,461 in Lung Nodule, and 1,766 in Multidisciplinary Care. Of 150, 698, and 1,010 patients diagnosed with lung cancer in the respective programs, 61%, 60%, and 44% were diagnosed at clinical stage I or II, whereas 19%, 20%, and 29% were stage IV (P = .0005); 47%, 42%, and 32% had curative-intent surgery (P < .0001); aggregate 3-year overall survival rates were 80% (95% CI, 73 to 88) versus 64% (60 to 68) versus 49% (46 to 53); 5-year overall survival rates were 76% (67 to 87) versus 60% (56 to 65) versus 44% (40 to 48), respectively. Only 46% of 1,858 patients with lung cancer would have been deemed eligible for LDCT by US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2013 criteria, and 54% by 2021 criteria. Even if all eligible patients by USPSTF 2021 criteria had been enrolled into LDCT, the Nodule Program would have detected 20% of the stage I-II lung cancer in the entire cohort. CONCLUSION: LDCT and Lung Nodule Programs are complementary, expanding access to early lung cancer detection and curative treatment to different-risk populations. Implementing Lung Nodule Programs may alleviate emerging disparities in access to early lung cancer detection.

The Relative Survival Impact of Guideline-Concordant Clinical Staging and Stage-Appropriate Treatment of Potentially Curable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer management guidelines strive to improve outcomes. Theoretically, thorough staging promotes optimal treatment selection. We examined the association between guideline-concordant invasive mediastinal nodal staging, guideline-concordant treatment, and non-small cell lung cancer survival. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the current practice of invasive mediastinal nodal staging for patients with lung cancer in a structured multidisciplinary care environment? Is guideline-concordant staging associated with guideline-concordant treatment? How do they relate to survival? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We evaluated patients with nonmetastatic non-small cell lung cancer diagnosed from 2014 through 2019 in the Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program of the Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis, Tennessee. We examined patterns of mediastinal nodal staging and stage-stratified treatment, grouping patients into cohorts with guideline-concordant staging alone, guideline-concordant treatment alone, both, or neither. We evaluated overall survival with Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of 882 patients, 456 (52%) received any invasive mediastinal staging. Seventy-four percent received guideline-concordant staging; guideline-discordant staging decreased from 34% in 2014 to 18% in 2019 (P < .0001). Recipients of guideline-concordant staging were more likely to receive guideline-concordant treatment (83% vs 66%; P < .0001). Sixty-one percent received both guideline-concordant invasive mediastinal staging and guideline-concordant treatment; 13% received guideline-concordant staging alone; 17% received guideline-concordant treatment alone; and 9% received neither. Survival was greatest in patients who received both (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.63), followed by those who received guideline-concordant treatment alone (aHR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.99), and those who received guideline-concordant staging alone (aHR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.37-1.09) compared with neither (P < .0001, log-rank test). INTERPRETATION: Levels of guideline-concordant staging were high, were rising, and were associated with guideline-concordant treatment selection in this multidisciplinary care cohort. Guideline-concordant staging and guideline-concordant treatment were complementary in their association with improved survival, supporting the connection between these two processes and lung cancer outcomes.

Impact of a Lymph Node Specimen Collection Kit on the Distribution and Survival Implications of the Proposed Revised Lung Cancer Residual Disease Classification: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

IMPORTANCE: The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) has proposed a revision of the residual disease (R-factor) classification, to R0, 'R-uncertain', R1 and R2. We previously demonstrated longer survival after surgical resection with a lymph node specimen collection kit, and now evaluate R-factor redistribution as the mechanism of its survival benefit. OBJECTIVE: We retrospectively evaluated surgical resections for lung cancer in the population-based observational 'Mid-South Quality of Surgical Resection' cohort from 2009-2019, including a full-cohort and propensity-score matched analysis. RESULTS: Of 3,505 resections, 34% were R0, 60% R-uncertain, and 6% R1 or R2. The R0 percentage increased from 9% in 2009 to 56% in 2019 (p < 0.0001). Kit cases were 66% R0 and 29% R-uncertain, compared to 14% R0 and 79% R-uncertain in non-kit cases (p < 0.0001). Compared with non-kit resections, kit resections had 12.3 times the adjusted odds of R0 versus R-uncertainty.Of 2,100 R-uncertain resections, kit cases had lower percentages of non-examination of lymph nodes, 1% vs. 14% (p < 0.0001) and non-examination of mediastinal lymph nodes, 8% vs. 35% (p < 0.0001). With the kit, more R-uncertain cases had examination of stations 7 (43% vs. 22%, p < 0.0001) and 10 (67% vs. 45%, p < 0.0001).The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for kit cases versus non-kit cases was 0.75 (confidence interval [CI]: 0.66-0.85, p < 0.0001). In 2,100 subjects with R-uncertain resections, kit cases had an aHR of 0.79 versus non-kit cases ([CI: 0.64-0.99], p=0.0384); however, in the 1,199 R0 resections the survival difference was not significant (aHR: 0.85[0.68-1.07], p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A lymph node kit increased overall survival by increasing R0, reducing the probability of R-uncertain resections, and diminishing extreme R-uncertainty.

Interest in Cessation Treatment Among People Who Smoke in a Community-Based Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the need for tobacco cessation services within a multidisciplinary clinic (MDC), we surveyed patients on their smoking status, interest in quitting, and willingness to participate in a clinic-based cessation program. We further evaluated the association between interest in cessation or willingness to participate in a cessation program and overall survival (OS). METHODS: From 2014 to 2019, all new patients with lung cancer in the MDC at Baptist Cancer Center (Memphis, TN) were administered a social history questionnaire to evaluate their demographic characteristics, smoking status, tobacco dependence, interest in quitting, and willingness to participate in a cessation program. We used chi-square tests and logistic regression to compare characteristics of those who would participate to those who would not or were unsure and Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression to evaluate the association between cessation interest or willingness to quit and OS. RESULTS: Of 641 total respondents, the average age was 69 years (range: 32-95), 47% were men, 64% white, 34% black, and 17% college graduates. A total of 90% had ever smoked: 34% currently and 25% quit within the past year. Among the current smokers, 60% were very interested in quitting and 37% would participate in a cessation program. Willingness to participate in a cessation program was associated with greater interest in quitting (p < 0.0001), better OS (p = 0.02), and reduced hazard of death (hazard ratio = 0.52, 95% confidence interval: 0.30-0.88), but no other characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with lung cancer in an MDC expressed considerable interest in tobacco cessation services; patients willing to participate in a clinic-based cessation program had improved survival.

Survival Impact of an Enhanced Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Conference in a Regional Community Health Care System.

INTRODUCTION: We compared NSCLC treatment and survival within and outside a multidisciplinary model of care from a large community health care system. METHODS: We implemented a rigorously benchmarked "enhanced" Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Conference (eMTOC) and used Tumor Registry data (2011-2017) to evaluate guideline-concordant care. Because eMTOC was located in metropolitan Memphis, we separated non-MTOC patient by metropolitan and regional location. We categorized National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment as "preferred," or "appropriate" (allowable under certain circumstances). We compared demographic and clinical characteristics across cohorts using chi-square tests and survival using Cox regression, adjusted for multiple testing. We also performed propensity-matched and adjusted survival analyses. RESULTS: Of 6259 patients, 14% were in eMTOC, 55% metropolitan non-MTOC, and 31% regional non-MTOC cohorts. eMTOC had the highest rates of African Americans (34% versus 28% versus 22%), stages I to IIIB (63 versus 40 versus 50), urban residents (81 versus 78 versus 20), stage-preferred treatment (66 versus 57 versus 48), guideline-concordant treatment (78 versus 70 versus 63), and lowest percentage of nontreatment (6 versus 21 versus 28); all p values were less than 0.001. Compared with eMTOC, hazard for death was higher in metropolitan (1.5, 95% confidence interval: 1.4-1.7) and regional (1.7, 1.5-1.9) non-MTOC; hazards were higher in regional non-MTOC versus metropolitan (1.1, 1.0-1.2); all p values were less than 0.05 after adjustment. Results were generally similar after propensity analysis with and without adjusting for guideline-concordant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary NSCLC care planning was associated with significantly higher rates of guideline-concordant care and survival, providing evidence for rigorous implementation of this model of care.

Comparative Effectiveness of a Lymph Node Collection Kit Versus Heightened Awareness on Lung Cancer Surgery Quality and Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: The adverse prognostic impact of poor pathologic nodal staging has stimulated efforts to heighten awareness of the problem through guidelines, without guidance on processes to overcome it. We compared heightened awareness (HA) of nodal staging quality versus a lymph node collection kit. METHODS: We categorized curative-intent lung cancer resections from 2009 to 2020 in a population-based, nonrandomized stepped-wedge implementation study of both interventions, into preintervention baseline, HA, and kit subcohorts. We used differences in proportion and hazard ratios across the subcohorts to estimate the effect of the interventions on poor quality (nonexamination of nodes [pNX] or nonexamination of mediastinal lymph nodes) and attainment of quality recommendations of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Commission on Cancer, and the proposed complete resection definition of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer across the three cohorts. RESULTS: Of 3734 resections, 39% were preintervention, 40% kit, and 21% HA cases. Cohort proportions were the following: pNX, 11% (baseline) versus 0% (kit) versus 9% (HA); nonexamination of mediastinal lymph nodes, 27% versus 1% versus 22%; Commission on Cancer benchmark attainment, 14% versus 77% versus 30%; International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer-defined complete resection, 11% versus 58% versus 24%; National Comprehensive Cancer Network attainment, 23% versus 79% versus 35% (p < 0.001 for all, except pNX rate baseline versus HA). Survival rate was significantly higher for both interventions compared with baseline (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Resections with HA or the kit significantly improved surgical quality and outcomes, but the kit was more effective. We propose to conduct a prospective, institutional cluster-randomized clinical trial comparing both interventions.

Outcomes After Use of a Lymph Node Collection Kit for Lung Cancer Surgery: A Pragmatic, Population-Based, Multi-Institutional, Staggered Implementation Study.

INTRODUCTION: Suboptimal pathologic nodal staging prevails after curative-intent resection of lung cancer. We evaluated the impact of a lymph node specimen collection kit on lung cancer surgery outcomes in a prospective, population-based, staggered implementation study. METHODS: From January 1, 2014, to August 28, 2018, we implemented the kit in three homogeneous institutional cohorts involving 11 eligible hospitals from four contiguous hospital referral regions. Our primary outcome was pathologic nodal staging quality, defined by the following evidence-based measures: the number of lymph nodes or stations examined, proportions with poor-quality markers such as nonexamination of lymph nodes, and aggregate quality benchmarks including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. Additional outcomes included perioperative complications, health care utilization, and overall survival. RESULTS: Of 1492 participants, 56% had resection with the kit and 44% without. Pathologic nodal staging quality was significantly higher in the kit cases: 0.2% of kit cases versus 9.8% of nonkit cases had no lymph nodes examined; 3.2% versus 25.3% had no mediastinal lymph nodes; 75% versus 26% attained the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). Kit cases revealed no difference in perioperative complications or health care utilization except for significantly shorter duration of surgery, lower proportions with atelectasis, and slightly higher use of blood transfusion. Resection with the kit was associated with a lower hazard of death (crude, 0.78 [95% confidence interval: 0.61-0.99]; adjusted 0.85 [0.71-1.02]). CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer surgery with a lymph node collection kit significantly improved pathologic nodal staging quality, with a trend toward survival improvement, without excessive perioperative morbidity or mortality.