Beliefs among Physicians in the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approach to Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

No Abstract

Beliefs among Physicians in the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approach to Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

No Abstract

Paraneoplastic Syndromes and Thymic Malignancies: An Examination of the International Thymic Malignancy Interest Group Retrospective Database

Introduction Thymic epithelial tumors (TETs) are associated with paraneoplastic autoimmune (PN/AI) syndromes. Myasthenia gravis is the most common PN/AI syndrome associated with TETs. Methods The International Thymic Malignancy Interest Group (ITMIG) retrospective database was examined to determine (i) baseline and treatment characteristics associated with PN/AI syndromes and (ii) the prognostic role of PN/AI syndromes for patients with TETs. The competing risks model was used to estimate cumulative incidence of recurrence (CIR) and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate overall survival (OS). A Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis. Results 6670 patients with known PN/AI syndrome status were identified from 1951-2012. PN/AI syndromes were associated with younger age, female sex, type B1 thymoma, earlier stage, and an increased rate of total thymectomy and complete resection status. There was a statistically significant lower CIR in the PN/AI (+) group compared to the PN/AI (-) group (10-year 17.3% vs. 21.2%, respectively, p=0.0003). The OS was improved in the PN/AI (+) group compared to the PN/AI (-) group (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.54-0.74, P<0.0001, median OS 21.6 years versus 17.0 years, respectively). However, in the multivariate model for recurrence-free survival and OS, PN/AI syndrome was not an independent prognostic factor. Discussion Previously, there has been mixed data regarding the prognostic role of PN/AI syndromes for patients with TETs. Here, using the largest dataset in the world for TETs, PN/AI syndromes were associated with favorable features (i.e. earlier stage, complete resection status) but were not an independent prognostic factor for TETs

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: Deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 2: Systematic review of evidence regarding resection extent in generally healthy patients

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options (lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy, thermal ablation), weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after lobectomy, segmentectomy and wedge resection in generally healthy patients is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons with at least some adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved. Results: In healthy patients there is no short-term benefit to sublobar resection Conclusions: A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding resection extent in healthy patients with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation on which to build a framework for individualized clinical decision-making

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: Deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 3: Systematic review of evidence regarding surgery in compromised patients or specific tumors

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options [lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), thermal ablation], weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after lobectomy, segmentectomy and wedge resection in older patients, patients with limited pulmonary reserve and favorable tumors is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons (NRCs) with adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved. Results: In older patients, perioperative mortality is minimally altered by resection extent and only slightly affected by increasing age; sublobar resection may slightly decrease morbidity. Long-term outcomes are worse after lesser resection; the difference is slightly attenuated with increasing age. Reported short-term outcomes are quite acceptable in (selected) patients with severely limited pulmonary reserve, not clearly altered by resection extent but substantially improved by a minimally invasive approach. Quality-of-life (QOL) and impact on pulmonary function hasn\u27t been well studied, but there appears to be little difference by resection extent in older or compromised patients. Patient selection is paramount but not well defined. Ground-glass and screen-detected tumors exhibit favorable long-term outcomes regardless of resection extent; however solid tumors \u3c1 cm are not a reliably favorable group. Conclusions: A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding resection extent in compromised patients and favorable tumors with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation for a framework for individualized decision-making

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: Deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 4: Systematic review of evidence involving SBRT and ablation

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options [lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), thermal ablation], weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after SBRT or thermal ablation Results: Short-term outcomes are meaningfully better after SBRT than resection. SBRT doesn\u27t affect quality-of-life (QOL), on average pulmonary function is not altered, but a minority of patients may experience gradual late toxicity. Adjusted non-randomized comparisons demonstrate a clinically relevant detriment in long-term outcomes after SBRT Conclusions: A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy or thermal ablatio

The role of Endobronchial ultrasound guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) for qualitative diagnosis of mediastinal and hilar lymphadenopathy: a prospective analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recently EBUS-TBNA, which has a sensitivity of 94.6%, specificity of 100% and diagnostic accuracy rate of 96.3% as previously reported, has been widely used for patients with mediastinal and hilar lymphadenopathy or suspected lung cancer to get accurate diagnosis. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the usefulness of EBUS-TBNA in obtaining cytological and histological diagnosis of mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes compared to the results obtained with conventional mediastinoscopy as previously reported, and to assess the relationship of diagnostic accuracy and number of passes and size of lymph nodes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>101 patients with mediastinal and hilar lymphadenopathy or suspected lung cancer in our institution were included in this prospective study. EBUS-TBNA was performed in all cases. The final diagnosis was confirmed by cytology, surgical results, and/or clinical follow-up for at least 6 months. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated using standard formulas.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In 101 patients, EBUS-TBNA was successfully performed to obtain samples from 225 lymph nodes, 7 lung masses, 1 mediastinal mass and 2 esophageal masses. 63 malignant tumors and 38 benign diseases were confirmed. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutation was detected in 10 biopsy samples, and epidermal growth factor receptor mutation was detected in 4 cases. With respect to the correct diagnosis of mediastinal and hilar lymphadenopathy, EBUS-TBNA had a sensitivity of 95.08%, specificity of 100%, positive predictive value of 100%, negative predictive value of 93.02%, and overall accuracy of 97.02%. The relationship of diagnostic accuracy and number of lymph node passes or size of lymph nodes was both insignificant (p = 0.27; p = 0.23). The procedure was uneventful without complications.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>EBUS-TBNA is an accurate and safe tool in diagnosis of mediastinal and hilar lymphadenopathy. It cannot completely replace mediastinoscopy, it may indeed reduce the number of mediastinoscopy procedures. In some cases, it can necessarily be the first-line procedure before mediastinoscopy.</p

Management of Lung Nodules and Lung Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic: CHEST Expert Panel Report

Background: The risks from potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and resource reallocation that has occurred to combat the pandemic, have altered the balance of benefits and harms that informed current (pre-COVID-19) guideline recommendations for lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. Consensus statements were developed to guide clinicians managing lung cancer screening programs and patients with lung nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic. / Methods: An expert panel of 24 members, including pulmonologists (n = 17), thoracic radiologists (n = 5), and thoracic surgeons (n = 2), was formed. The panel was provided with an overview of current evidence, summarized by recent guidelines related to lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. The panel was convened by video teleconference to discuss and then vote on statements related to 12 common clinical scenarios. A predefined threshold of 70% of panel members voting agree or strongly agree was used to determine if there was a consensus for each statement. Items that may influence decisions were listed as notes to be considered for each scenario. / Results: Twelve statements related to baseline and annual lung cancer screening (n = 2), surveillance of a previously detected lung nodule (n = 5), evaluation of intermediate and high-risk lung nodules (n = 4), and management of clinical stage I non–small-cell lung cancer (n = 1) were developed and modified. All 12 statements were confirmed as consensus statements according to the voting results. The consensus statements provide guidance about situations in which it was believed to be appropriate to delay screening, defer surveillance imaging of lung nodules, and minimize nonurgent interventions during the evaluation of lung nodules and stage I non–small-cell lung cancer. / Conclusions: There was consensus that during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is appropriate to defer enrollment in lung cancer screening and modify the evaluation of lung nodules due to the added risks from potential exposure and the need for resource reallocation. There are multiple local, regional, and patient-related factors that should be considered when applying these statements to individual patient care