Search

INTRODUCTION:Tobacco use disorder (TUD), previously known as nicotine dependence, was associated with increased risk of lung cancer. However, little is known about the prevalence of TUD and symptom manifestation in smokers with lung cancer. OBJECTIVES:The aim of the present study was to investigate the prevalence of TUD using DSM-5 diagnostic criteria in patients diagnosed with lung cancer and analyze their tobacco use characteristics. METHODS:A total of 200 histologically confirmed lung cancer patients who used tobacco within the prior 12-month period at the time of diagnosis were recruited for this study. Participants were assessed using interviewer-administered questionnaires to determine TUD symptoms and smoking-related behaviors, and self-administered Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) was also administered. RESULTS:The prevalence of DSM-5 TUD was 92.0% (n = 184). Of a total of 200 subjects, 23 (11.5%), 35 (17.5%), and 126 (63.0%) were classified into mild, moderate, and severe TUD categories, respectively. A total of 19 (81.3%) moderate TUD and 98 (77.8%) severe TUD patients had attempted smoking cessation. Of these subjects, 21 (21.4%) severe TUD and 12 (63.2%) moderate TUD patients tried more than three times. The number of satisfied criteria under DSM-5 TUD was positively correlated with FTND score, cumulative lifetime smoking amount, and daily smoking levels. CONCLUSIONS:Smokers diagnosed with lung cancer showed a high prevalence of DSM-5 TUD. Their heavy and consistent tobacco use suggests reduced motivation to abstain from smoking.

Lung cancer specialists play an important role in designing and implementing lung cancer screening. We aimed to describe their 1) attitudes toward low-dose lung computed tomography (LDCT) screening, 2) current practices and experiences of LDCT screening and 3) attitudes and opinions towards national lung cancer screening program (NLCSP). We conducted a national web-based survey of pulmonologists, thoracic surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiological oncologists who are members of Korean Association for Lung Cancer (N = 183). Almost all respondents agreed that LDCT screening increases early detection (100%), improves survival (95.1%), and gives a good smoking cessation counseling opportunity (88.6%). Most were concerned about its high false positive results (79.8%) and the subsequent negative effects. Less than half were concerned about radiation hazard (37.2%). Overall, most (89.1%) believed that the benefits outweigh the risks and harms. Most (79.2%) stated that they proactively recommend LDCT screening to those who are eligible for the current guidelines, but the screening propensity varied considerably. The majority (77.6%) agreed with the idea of NLCSP and its beneficial effect, but had concerns about the quality control of CT devices (74.9%), quality assurance of radiologic interpretation (63.3%), poor access to LDCT (56.3%), and difficulties in selecting eligible population using self-report history (66.7%). Most (79.2%) thought that program need to be funded by a specialized fund rather than by the National Health Insurance. The opinions on the level of copayment for screening varied. Our findings would be an important source for health policy decision when considering for NLCSP in Korea.

INTRODUCTION:A combination of platelet and lymphocyte to monocyte ratio (LMR) (abbreviated as COP-LMR) has been recently evaluated as systemic inflammatory marker for prognostication in lung cancer. While previous study on COP-LMR has evaluated its prognostic value in NSCLC patients who underwent curative resections, the combination of these two markers has not been evaluated in advanced NSCLC yet. OBJECTIVES:In this study, we evaluated the prognostic value of COP-LMR in stage IV NSCLC with malignant pleural effusion under active anticancer treatment. METHODS:Between January 2012 and July 2016, 217 patients with stage IV NSCLC and MPE undergoing active anticancer treatment were selected for evaluation. If patients had both low LMR (< 2.47) and increased platelet (> 30.0 ×10(4) mm-3), they were assigned to COP-LMR group 2. Patients with one parameter were assigned to COP-LMR group 1. If none, patients were assigned to COP-LMR group 0. RESULTS:Median overall survival (OS) (P < 0.001), progression free survival (PFS) (P < 0.001) and histological feature (P = 0.003) showed significant differences among COP-LMR groups. For COP-LMR groups 0, 1 and 2, median survival times were 35.9, 14.7 and 7.4 months, respectively, while median progression free times were 19.2, 13.3 and 7.4 months, respectively. Older age, male, low albumin, high CRP and high COP-LMR (0 vs 1, P = 0.021, hazard ratio (HR): 1.822, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.096-3.027 and 0 vs 2, P = 0.003, HR: 2.464, 95% CI: 1.373-4.421) were independent predictive factors for shorter OS. Age, sex, histology, albumin, or CRP had no significant influence on PFS. High COP-LMR was the significant factor in predicting shorter PFS (0 vs 1, P = 0.116 and 0 vs 2, P = 0.007, HR: 1.902, 95% CI: 1.194-3.028). CONCLUSIONS:A combination of pretreatment LMR and platelet levels can be used to predict short survival in stage IV NSCLC patients who underwent active anticancer treatment.

OBJECTIVES:Despite a sharp increase in e-cigarette use, there is debate about whether e-cigarettes are a viable alternative for harm reduction, and the forms that regulation should take. Healthcare providers can be effective in offering guidance to patients and their families and shaping regulatory policy. We described lung cancer specialists' attitudes toward e-cigarettes and its regulation. METHODS:We undertook a nationwide survey of pulmonologists, thoracic surgeons, medical and radiological oncologists who are members of Korean Association for Lung Cancer. Survey items included beliefs and attitudes toward e-cigarettes, attitudes toward e-cigarette regulation and preparedness on discussing e-cigarettes with their patients. RESULTS:Most respondents believed that e-cigarettes are not safer than conventional tobacco cigarettes (75.7%) or smokeless tobacco (83.2%), and feared that discussing e-cigarettes with the patients would encourage use (65.4%). They did not consider it a smoking cessation treatment (78.3%), and thus would not recommend it to smokers who do not want to quit (82.2%) or who failed to quit with conventional smoking cessation treatment (74.1%). Most respondents supported all examples of e-cigarette regulations, including the safety and quality check (97.8%), warning label (97.8%), advertisement ban (95.1%), restriction of flavoring (78.4%), minimum purchasing age (99.5%), and restriction of indoor use (94.6%). Most learned about e-cigarettes from media and advertisements, or conversation with patients rather than through professional scientific resources, and reported discomfort when discussing e-cigarette with patients. CONCLUSION:Lung cancer specialist physicians in Korea doubt the safety of e-cigarette and use of e-cigarette as smoking cessation treatment, and supported strict regulation. However, only 20% reported that they obtained information on e-cigarettes from the scientific literature and many lacked adequate knowledge based on scientific evidence, suggesting the need for better preparedness. Nevertheless, the views of professionals revealed from our study could help to develop clinical guidelines and regulatory guidance.

Lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are two major lung diseases. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations, v-Ki-ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) mutations and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements represent driver mutations that are frequently assessed on initial evaluation of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The present study focused on the expression of driver mutations in NSCLC patients presenting with COPD and further evaluated the association between NSCLC and COPD. Data from 501 consecutive patients with histologically proven recurrent or metastatic NSCLC were analyzed retrospectively. The patients underwent spirometry and genotyping of EGFR, ALK, and KRAS in tissue samples. Patient characteristics and expression of driver mutations were compared between the COPD and non-COPD groups. Among 350 patients with spirometric results, 106 (30.3%) were diagnosed with COPD, 108 (30.9%) had EGFR mutations, 31 (8.9%) had KRAS mutations, and 34 (9.7%) showed ALK rearrangements. COPD was independently associated with lower prevalences of EGFR mutations (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.254-0.931, p = 0.029) and ALK rearrangements (95% CI, 0.065-0.600, p = 0.004). The proportions of EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangements decreased as the severity of airflow obstruction increased (p = 0.001). In never smokers, the prevalence of EGFR mutations was significantly lower in the COPD group than in the non-COPD group (12.7% vs. 49.0%, p = 0.002). COPD-related NSCLC patients exhibited low prevalences of EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangements compared with the non-COPD group. Further studies are required regarding the molecular mechanisms underlying lung cancer associated with COPD.