Journal of Thoracic Oncology最新文献

Objectives: The study aimed to assess the opinion of pathologists and thoracic surgeons of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer regarding the application and interpretation of the residual tumor (R) classification for lung cancer.

Methods: On the basis of their membership profiles, a total of 623 pathologists and thoracic surgeons were identified and contacted by email with a cover letter and a link to an online survey. The questionnaire consisted of 12 questions about various aspects of the application and interpretation of the R classification for lung cancer. The response rate (to at least one question) was 72% (144 pathologists and 303 surgeons).

Results: The frequency of use of the R classification varies by geographic region. Although R status is regularly reported in Europe and Asia, 70% of pathologists in the United States and Canada never include R status in reports. Similar variations exist about who assigns the R category for the resection-in Europe and the United Kingdom, it is mainly the pathologist, whereas in China, Japan and the United States, it is the surgeon. There are some good agreements about margins examined and how to manage staple lines. The category "uncertain resection" has not been practically implemented in most of the world, except at some centers in Japan and the United Kingdom.

Conclusion: This survey shows that surgical resection margins are part of routine reporting in most institutions; but the assignment of an R category is not always part of the pathology report, with considerable variation between countries. Despite the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer proposals, the application of the uncertain resection category has not been taken up by most institutions, and further evidence is needed.

Introduction: Guideline-discordant low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening may cause lung cancer (LC) overdiagnosis, but its extent and consequences are unclear. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of self-initiated, non-reimbursed LDCT screening in a predominantly non-smoking population and its impact on LC epidemiology and healthcare utilization.

Methods: This nationwide cohort study analyzed data from Korea's National Health Information Database and 11 academic hospital screening centers (1999-2022). The overall analysis encompassed the entire Korean population. For non-reimbursed LDCT screening prevalence, which the National Health Information Database does not capture, a separate analysis was conducted on a cohort of 1.7 million adults to extrapolate nationwide rates. Outcomes included trends in self-initiated, non-reimbursed LDCT screening, LC incidence, mortality, stage and age at diagnosis, 5-year survival, and LC-related healthcare utilization, including surgeries and biopsies. Joinpoint regression assessed trend changes.

Results: Self-initiated, non-reimbursed LDCT screening during health check-ups increased from 29% to 60% in men and 7% to 46% in women, despite only 2.4% of men and 0.04% of women qualifying for risk-based screening. In women, localized-stage LC incidence nearly doubled (age-standardized incidence rate: from 7.6 to 13.7 per 100,000), whereas distant-stage incidence decreased (age-standardized incidence rate: from 16.1 to 15.0 per 100,000). LC mortality declined (age-standardized mortality rate: from 23.3 to 19.8 per 100,000), whereas 5-year survival rates improved substantially. LC diagnoses in women shifted towards earlier stages and younger ages. Lung surgeries for both malignant and benign lesions, frequently lacking nonsurgical biopsies, increased sharply in women.

Conclusions: Widespread guideline-discordant LDCT screening correlates with LC overdiagnosis and increased healthcare utilization, particularly in women. Randomized controlled trials are needed to assess the risks and benefits of screening in low-risk populations to determine its efficacy and consequences.

Introduction: Investigator-assigned Subjective or Judgmental Efficacy and Toxicity (ISJET) reporting represents language used to contextualize efficacy or toxicity data in clinical trials that may be inappropriate or misleading. In addition, pooling of grade 1 and 2 adverse events (AEs) may reflect a practice based on acute chemotherapy treatments rather than the expansion of chronic treatments that are now commonplace for many patients with lung cancer. In this study, we set out to evaluate the use of ISJETs and combined grade 1 and 2 reporting in early phase clinical trials of lung treatments at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting.

Methods: Phase I and II clinical trials of systemic treatments in adults with at least one patient with lung cancer presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting were reviewed. Baseline information and toxicity/efficacy reporting were collected. ISJETs were captured based on predefined phrases such as "tolerable," "manageable," "acceptable," or "favorable."

Results: A total of 100 eligible studies were identified. The median sample size was 43 (interquartile range 29-73), and 61 studies (61%) were phase I trials. Most studies reported any-grade (99%) and grade 3 (96%) AEs. Only 12% of the studies distinguished between grade 1 and 2 AEs. ISJETs were used to report toxicity in 88% and efficacy in 41% of the studies, respectively.

Conclusion: Most early phase lung cancer clinical trials presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting included ISJETs and did not distinguish between grade 1 and 2 AEs. Initiatives to increase objective efficacy and toxicity reporting language and more fit-for-purpose toxicity reporting are warranted.