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.

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.

Pragmatic trial of a multidisciplinary lung cancer care model in a community healthcare setting: study design, implementation evaluation, and baseline clinical results.

BACKGROUND: Responsible for 25% of all US cancer deaths, lung cancer presents complex care-delivery challenges. Adoption of the highly recommended multidisciplinary care model suffers from a dearth of good quality evidence. Leading up to a prospective comparative-effectiveness study of multidisciplinary vs. serial care, we studied the implementation of a rigorously benchmarked multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach to conduct a patient-centered, combined implementation and effectiveness study of a multidisciplinary model of lung cancer care. We established a co-located multidisciplinary clinic to study the implementation of this care-delivery model. We identified and engaged key stakeholders from the onset, used their input to develop the program structure, processes, performance benchmarks, and study endpoints (outcome-related process measures, patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes, survival). In this report, we describe the study design, process of implementation, comparative populations, and how they contrast with patients within the local and regional healthcare system. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02123797. RESULTS: Implementation: the multidisciplinary clinic obtained an overall treatment concordance rate of 90% (target >85%). Satisfaction scores were high, with >95% of patients and caregivers rating themselves as being "very satisfied" with all aspects of care from the multidisciplinary team (patient/caregiver response rate >90%). The Reach of the multidisciplinary clinic included a higher proportion of minority patients, more women, and younger patients than the regional population. Comparative effectiveness: The comparative effectiveness trial conducted in the last phase of the study met the planned enrollment per statistical design, with 178 patients in the multidisciplinary arm and 348 in the serial care arm. The multidisciplinary cohort had older age and a higher percentage of racial minorities, with a higher proportion of stage IV patients in the serial care arm. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a comprehensive implementation of a multidisciplinary model of lung cancer care, which will advance the science behind implementing this much-advocated clinical care model.

Evolution in the Surgical Care of Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the Mid-South Quality of Surgical Resection Cohort.

Surgery is the most important curative treatment modality for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We examined the pattern of surgical resection for NSCLC in a high incidence and mortality region of the United States over a 10-year period (2004-2013) in the context of a regional surgical quality improvement initiative. We abstracted patient-level data on all resections at 11 hospitals in 4 contiguous Dartmouth Hospital Referral Regions in North Mississippi, East Arkansas, and West Tennessee. Surgical quality measures focused on intraoperative practice, with emphasis on pathologic nodal staging. We used descriptive statistics and trend analyses to assess changes in practice over time. To measure the effect of an ongoing regional quality improvement intervention with a lymph node specimen collection kit, we used period effect analysis to compare trends between the preintervention and postintervention periods. Of 2566 patients, 18% had no preoperative biopsy, only 15% had a preoperative invasive staging test, and 11% underwent mediastinoscopy. The rate of resections with no mediastinal lymph nodes examined decreased from 48%-32% (P < 0.0001), whereas the rate of resections examining 3 or more mediastinal stations increased from 5%-49% (P < 0.0001). There was a significant period effect in the increase in the number of N1, mediastinal, and total lymph nodes examined (all P < 0.0001). A quality improvement intervention including a lymph node specimen collection kit shows early signs of having a significant positive effect on pathologic nodal examination in this population-based cohort. However, gaps in surgical quality remain.

Prognostic Value of National Comprehensive Cancer Network Lung Cancer Resection Quality Criteria.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) surgical resection guidelines for non-small cell lung cancer recommend anatomic resection, negative margins, examination of hilar/intrapulmonary lymph nodes, and examination of three or more mediastinal nodal stations. We examined the survival impact of these criteria. METHODS: A population-based observational study was done using patient-level data from all curative-intent, non-small cell lung cancer resections from 2004 to 2013 at 11 institutions in four contiguous Dartmouth Hospital referral regions in three US states. We used an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model to assess the overall survival impact of attaining NCCN guidelines. RESULTS: Of 2,429 eligible resections, 91% were anatomic, 94% had negative margins, 51% sampled hilar nodes, and 26% examined three or more mediastinal nodal stations. Only 17% of resections met all four criteria; however, there was a significant increasing trend from 2% in 2004 to 39% in 2013 (p < 0.001). Compared with patients whose surgery missed one or more criteria, the hazard ratio for patients whose surgery met all four criteria was 0.71 (95% confidence interval: 0.59 to 0.86, p < 0.001). Margin status and the nodal staging criteria were most strongly linked with survival. CONCLUSIONS: Attainment of NCCN surgical quality guidelines was low, but improving, over the past decade in this cohort from a high lung cancer mortality region of the United States. The NCCN quality criteria, especially the nodal examination criteria, were strongly associated with survival. The quality of nodal examination should be a focus of quality improvement in non-small cell lung cancer care.

Preoperative Evaluation of Lung Cancer in a Community Health Care Setting.

BACKGROUND: We examined the presurgical evaluation of suspected lung cancer patients in a community-based health care system to establish current benchmarks of care that will lay the groundwork for an evidence-based quality improvement project. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed clinical records of all recipients of lung resection at two institutions, and classified all lung cancer relevant procedures into five "nodal points": lesion detection, diagnostic biopsy, radiologic staging, invasive staging, and treatment. We analyzed the frequency of passage through each nodal point, the time intervals between nodal points, and the use of staging modalities. RESULTS: Of 614 eligible patients, 92% had lung cancer, 5% had a non-lung primary tumor, 3% had a benign lesion. Six percent received preoperative therapy; 39% of resections were minimally invasive. Ninety-eight percent of patients had a preoperative computed tomography (CT) scan, 27% had no preoperative diagnostic procedure, 22% had no preoperative positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scans, and 88% had no invasive preoperative staging test. Only 10% had trimodality staging with CT, PET/CT, and invasive staging. Twenty-one percent of patients who had an invasive staging test had mediastinal nodal metastasis at resection. The median duration (interquartile range) from initial lesion identification to resection was 84 days (43 to 189) days; from lesion identification to diagnostic biopsy, 28 days (7 to 96); and from diagnostic biopsy to surgery, 40 days (26 to 69). CONCLUSIONS: There is opportunity for improvement in the thoroughness, accuracy, and timeliness of preoperative evaluation of suspected lung cancer patients in this community cohort. Better coordination of care may significantly improve these benchmarks.

Audit of lymphadenectomy in lung cancer resections using a specimen collection kit and checklist.

BACKGROUND: Audits of operative summaries and pathology reports reveal wide discordance in identifying the extent of lymphadenectomy performed (the communication gap). We tested the ability of a prelabeled lymph node specimen collection kit and checklist to narrow the communication gap between operating surgeons, pathologists, and auditors of surgeons' operation notes. METHODS: We conducted a prospective single cohort study of lung cancer resections performed with a lymph node collection kit from November 2010 to January 2013. We used the kappa statistic to compare surgeon claims on a checklist of lymph node stations harvested intraoperatively with pathology reports and an independent audit of surgeons' operative summaries. Lymph node collection procedures were classified into four groups based on the anatomic origin of resected lymph nodes: mediastinal lymph node dissection, systematic sampling, random sampling, and no sampling. RESULTS: From the pathology reports, 73% of 160 resections had a mediastinal lymph node dissection or systematic sampling procedure, 27% had random sampling. The concordance with surgeon claims was 80% (kappa statistic 0.69, 95% confidence interval: 0.60 to 0.79). Concordance between independent audits of the operation notes and either the pathology report (kappa 0.14, 95% confidence interval: 0.04 to 0.23) or surgeon claims (kappa 0.09, 95% confidence interval: 0.03 to 0.22) was poor. CONCLUSIONS: A prelabeled specimen collection kit and checklist significantly narrowed the communication gap between surgeons and pathologists in identifying the extent of lymphadenectomy. Audit of surgeons' operation notes did not accurately reflect the procedure performed, bringing its value for quality improvement work into question.