Search

Background and Objective: Approximately 16,000 new cases of lung cancer are diagnosed each year in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, and it is the leading cause of cancer death in the region. Unwarranted variation in lung cancer care and outcomes has been described for many years, although clinical quality indicators to facilitate benchmarking across Australasia have not been established. The purpose of this study was to establish clinical quality indicators applicable to lung and other thoracic cancers across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Methods: Following a literature review, a modified three round eDelphi consensus process was completed between October 2022 and June 2023. Participants included clinicians from all relevant disciplines, patient advocates, researchers and other stakeholders, with representatives from all Australian states and territories and Aotearoa New Zealand. Consensus was set at a threshold of 70%, with the first two rounds conducted as online surveys, and the final round held as a hybrid in person and virtual consensus meeting. Results: The literature review identified 422 international thoracic oncology indicators, and a total of 71 indicators were evaluated over the course of the Delphi consensus. Ultimately, 27 clinical quality indicators reached consensus, covering the continuum of thoracic oncologic care from diagnosis to first line treatment. Indicators benchmarking supportive care were poorly represented. Attendant numeric quality standards were developed to facilitate benchmarking. Conclusion: Twenty‐seven clinical quality indicators relevant to thoracic oncology care in Australasia were developed. Real world implementation will now be explored utilizing a prospective dataset collected across Australia. A three‐round Delphi consensus process developed 27 contemporary clinical quality indicators, spanning the continuum of lung cancer care from diagnosis to treatment at the end of life. Systematic benchmarking utilizing these indicators will enable the identification of unwarranted variation and promote equitable access to best practice care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: Unwarranted variations in lung cancer care have been well described in both Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, with shortfalls in hospital‐based workforce and infrastructure previously demonstrated. A survey of lung cancer clinicians was performed to gain an updated understanding of current workforce and infrastructure. Methods: An online Qualtrics survey included questions on institutional demographics, estimated lung cancer case load, multidisciplinary team (MDT) characteristics including workforce and local infrastructure. We sought to obtain one response from every institution treating lung cancer in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Results: Responses were received from 89 institutions, estimated to include 85% centres treating lung cancer in Australia and 100% of public hospitals in Aotearoa New Zealand. Lung cancer nurse specialist and Nuclear Medicine are poorly represented in multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) with just 34/88 (38%) institutions fulfilling recommended core workforce for MDT meetings. Case presentation is low with 32/88 (36%) regularly discussing all lung cancer patients at MDT. Metropolitan institutions appear to have a more comprehensive range of services on site, compared to non‐metropolitan institutions. Few (4/88) institutions have embedded smoking cessation services. Compared to the previous 2021 Landscape Survey, thoracic surgery representation and core MDT workforce have improved, with modest change in specialist nurse numbers. Conclusion: This wide‐reaching survey has identified persistent deficiencies and variations in lung cancer workforce and gaps in infrastructure. Multidisciplinary collaboration and care coordination are needed to ensure all patients can access timely and equitable lung cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: Respiratory tract neoplasms; Chemotherapy; Radiotherapy; Radiology EN Respiratory tract neoplasms Chemotherapy Radiotherapy Radiology 334 336 3 04/19/22 20220415 NES 220415 Lung cancer treatments and outcomes are changing, but survival remains a challenge Lung cancer is the second most common cancer in the world, accounting for 11.4% of all cancers, but with 18.0% of total cancer-related deaths, it is the leading cause of cancer death.1 In Australasia, the incidence of lung cancer varies between 19.1 and 42.1 per 100 000 population, with the strongest risk factors historically being increasing age and tobacco smoke exposure.2,3 However, the proportion of (predominantly) female never smokers with lung cancer is increasing in many countries, particularly across South-East Asia, together with an enlarging proportion of adenocarcinomas and molecular mutations, especially of the epidermal growth factor receptor ( I EGFR i ).2,4 Lung cancer in never smokers is increasingly being recognised as biologically distinct from smoking-related lung cancers, although there is overlap with other risk factors such as environmental and genetic interactions, biofuel and occupational exposures, and indoor and outdoor pollution.2,4 The incidence of lung cancer in several developed countries (eg, the United Kingdom and the United States) has started to fall. Screening for lung cancer in individuals who never smoked: an International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Early Detection and Screening Committee Report. Modern radiation techniques, such as four-dimensional computed tomography planning and intensity-modulated and high precision image-guided radiation therapies, have enabled early stage lung cancers to be treated with much higher ablative doses.15,16 There have been further encouraging results observed for both adjuvant and neoadjuvant studies for resectable NSCLC. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Approximately 15%-20% of all non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases present with stage I disease. Surgical resection traditionally offers the best chance of a cure but some patients will not have this treatment due to older age, comorbidities or personal choice. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has become an established curative intent treatment option for patients who are not selected for or do not choose surgery. The aim of this study is to compare survival at 90 days, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years for patients who received either lobectomy or SABR.Methods: We used data from the 2015 National Lung Cancer Audit database and linked with Hospital Episode Statistics and the radiotherapy dataset to identify patients with NSCLC stage IA-IB and performance status (PS) 0-2 who underwent surgery or SABR treatment. We assessed the likelihood of death at 90 days, 6 months, 1 year and 2 year after diagnosis and procedure date to observe survival between two patient groups.Results: We identified 2373 patients in our cohort, 476 of whom had SABR. The median difference between date of diagnosis and date of treatment for surgery patients was 17 days while for SABR patients it was 73 days. Increasing age and worsening PS were associated with having SABR rather than surgery. Survival between the two treatment modalities was similar early on but by 1-year people who had surgery did better than those who had SABR (adjusted ORs 2.12, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.31). This difference persisted at 2 years and when the analysis was restricted to patients aged <80 years and with PS 0 or 1 and stage IA only.Conclusion: Our analysis suggests that patients who have lobectomy have a better survival compared with SABR patients; however, we found considerable delays in patients receiving SABR which may contribute to poorer long-term outcomes with this treatment option. Reducing these delays should be a key focus in development and reorganisation of services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: Clinical Quality Registry; healthcare services; lung cancer EN Clinical Quality Registry healthcare services lung cancer 1103 1105 3 11/19/21 20211201 NES 211201 Unwarranted variation in lung cancer management and outcomes reflects important clinical quality and equity issues. A centralized lung cancer CQR should be capable of linkage with health service utilization data and electronic medical records, with data capture from the time of diagnosis. [Extracted from the article]

Introduction: Data from the National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) often show variation in outcomes between lung cancer units which are not entirely explained by case mix. We explore the association between the organisation of services and patient outcome.Methods: Details of service provision were collected via an electronic survey in June 2017. An overall organisational score derived from eleven key service factors from national lung cancer commissioning guidance was calculated for each organisation. The results for each hospital were linked to their patient outcome results from the 2015 NLCA cases. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to link the organisational score to patient outcomes.Results: Lung cancer unit organisational audit scores varied from 0 to 11. Thirty-eight (29%) units had a score of 0-4, 64 (50%) had a score of 5-7 and 27 (21%) had a score of 8-11. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that, compared with an organisational score of 0-4, patients seen at units with a score of 8-11 had higher 1-year survival (adjusted OR (95% CI)=2.30 (1.04 to 5.08), p<0.001), higher curative-intent treatment rate (adjusted OR (95% CI)=1.62 (1.26 to 2.09), p<0.001) and greater likelihood of receiving treatment within 62 days (adjusted OR (95% CI)=1.49 (1.20 to 1.86), p<0.001).Conclusion: National variation in the provision of services and workforce remain. We provide evidence that adherence to the national lung commissioning guidance has the potential to improve patient outcomes within the current service structure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Purpose Methods Results Conclusion The conventional lying down position for radiation therapy can be challenging for patients due to pain, swallowing or breathing issues. To provide an alternative upright treatment position for these patients, we have developed a portable rotating radiation therapy platform which integrates with conventional photon treatment machines. The device enables cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging of patients in an upright position, and the future delivery of therapeutic radiation.To design, manufacture, and test a device for upright radiation therapy. A collaborative partnership between physicists, engineers, radiation therapists, radiation oncologists, implementation researchers and consumers was established, to create a device that meets both the clinical and technical requirements of upright radiation therapy. The device is central to a clinical trial (ACTRN12623000498695) which will evaluate upright image quality in the context of future image guided radiation therapy for patients with lung cancer or head and neck cancer.The weight and physical constraints of the device were assessed with respect to the American civilian population. The final design was evaluated with a series of tests to characterize the angular accuracy of the platform rotation and the reproducibility of the platform setup position in a radiation treatment room. To acquire an upright CBCT, the platform movement system was synchronized to the kilo‐voltage fluoroscopic imaging on an existing treatment machine. The accuracy of the synchronization was evaluated by assessing the positional reproducibility of upright CBCT imaging of a chest phantom.The platform has a weight limit of up to 125 kg which is suitable for approximately 90% of males and 95% of females. The platform has physical constraints that accommodate approximately 95.6% of males and 99.6% of females: a maximum seated height of 97.5 cm, a maximum hip breadth of 63.0 cm, and maximum elbow to knuckle length of 46.5 cm. The angular accuracy of the motion system is within ±0.15° over a full rotation, which is within the guidelines for machine movement accuracy in radiation therapy (1 mm/1°). The platform is a portable device and can be reproducibly positioned in a radiation therapy treatment room with a translational range within ±0.04 mm and a rotational range within ±0.025°. The CBCT imaging can reproducibly detect the position of a chest phantom with a translational uncertainty of ±0.07 mm and a rotational uncertainly of ±0.22°, when imaging is acquired following a strict procedure.The upright radiation therapy platform is suitable for the evaluation of CBCT imaging in the context of image guided radiation therapy. The platform will allow the investigation of open questions in upright radiation therapy in the areas of patient experience, positional stability, anatomical changes, and treatment delivery. Improvements to the materials in the radiation beam line, synchronization with the existing treatment machine, and increasing the device weight limit are suggested prior to delivery of future upright treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Single-fraction SABR offers high local control and low toxicity in inoperable stage I lung cancer and lung oligometastases. • Excess toxicity with central lung lesions has been reported. • Proximity to brachial plexus and chest wall are not relative contraindications; risks are similar to multi-fraction SABR. • Single-fraction SABR plans require additional technical considerations to balance treatment time and interplay effects. • Prospective studies are needed for central targets, interstitial lung disease, and to maximise immunomodulatory effects. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a well-established treatment for patients with medically inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and pulmonary oligometastases. The use of single-fraction SABR in this setting is supported by excellent local control and safety profiles which appear equivalent to multi-fraction SABR based on the available data. The resource efficiency and reduction in hospital outpatient visits associated with single-fraction SABR have been particularly advantageous during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the increased interest, single-fraction SABR in subgroups of patients remains controversial, including those with centrally located tumours, synchronous targets, proximity to dose-limiting organs at risk, and concomitant severe respiratory illness. This review provides an overview of the published randomised evidence evaluating single-fraction SABR in primary lung cancer and pulmonary oligometastases, the common clinical challenges faced, immunogenic effect of SABR, as well as technical and cost-utility considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We present here consensus guidelines on the diagnosis and management of radiation pneumonitis (RP). • These consensus guidelines serve as a practical guide for clinicians in assessing RP risk in individual patients. • These guidelines represent areas of agreement amongst radiation oncology and pulmonary experts from a Delphi consensus study. • Future work should clarify the relationship between radiation- and drug-induced pneumonitis and optimal management strategies. Radiation pneumonitis (RP) is a dose-limiting toxicity for patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) for lung cancer, however, the optimal practice for diagnosis, management, and follow-up for RP remains unclear. We thus sought to establish expert consensus recommendations through a Delphi Consensus study. In Round 1, open questions were distributed to 31 expert clinicians treating thoracic malignancies. In Round 2, participants rated agreement/disagreement with statements derived from Round 1 answers using a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75 % agreement. Statements that did not achieve consensus were modified and re-tested in Round 3. Response rate was 74 % in Round 1 (n = 23/31; 17 oncologists, 6 pulmonologists); 82 % in Round 2 (n = 19/23; 15 oncologists, 4 pulmonologists); and 100 % in Round 3 (n = 19/19). Thirty-nine of 65 Round 2 statements achieved consensus; a further 10 of 26 statements achieved consensus in Round 3. In Round 2, there was agreement that risk stratification/mitigation includes patient factors; optimal treatment planning; the basis for diagnosis of RP; and that oncologists and pulmonologists should be involved in treatment. For uncomplicated radiation pneumonitis, an equivalent to 60 mg oral prednisone per day, with consideration of gastroprotection, is a typical initial regimen. However, in this study, no consensus was achieved for dosing recommendation. Initial steroid dose should be administered for a duration of 2 weeks, followed by a gradual, weekly taper (equivalent to 10 mg prednisone decrease per week). For severe pneumonitis, IV methylprednisolone is recommended for 3 days prior to initiating oral corticosteroids. Final consensus statements included that the treatment of RP should be multidisciplinary, the uncertainty of whether pneumonitis is drug versus radiation-induced, and the importance risk stratification, especially in the scenario of interstitial lung disease. This Delphi study achieved consensus recommendations and provides practical guidance on diagnosis and management of RP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The IDEAL-CRT phase 1/2 multicenter trial of isotoxically dose-escalated concurrent chemoradiation for stage II/III non-small cell lung cancer investigated two 30-fraction schedules of 5 and 6 weeks' duration. We report toxicity, tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) for both schedules, with long-term follow-up for the 6-week schedule.Methods and Materials: Patients received isotoxically individualized tumor radiation doses of 63 to 71 Gy in 5 weeks or 63 to 73 Gy in 6 weeks, delivered concurrently with 2 cycles of cisplatin and vinorelbine. Eligibility criteria were the same for both schedules.Results: One-hundred twenty patients (6% stage IIB, 68% IIIA, 26% IIIB, 1% IV) were recruited from 9 UK centers, 118 starting treatment. Median prescribed doses were 64.5 and 67.6 Gy for the 36 and 82 patients treated using the 5- and 6-week schedules. Grade ≥3 pneumonitis and early esophagitis rates were 3.4% and 5.9% overall and similar for each schedule individually. Late grade 2 esophageal toxicity occurred in 11.1% and 17.1% of 5- and 6-week patients. Grade ≥4 adverse events occurred in 17 (20.7%) 6-week patients but no 5-week patients. Four adverse events were grade 5, with 2 considered radiation therapy related. After median follow-up of 51.8 and 26.4 months for the 6- and 5-week schedules, median OS was 41.2 and 22.1 months, respectively, and median PFS was 21.1 and 8.0 months. In exploratory analyses, OS was significantly associated with schedule (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.98; P = .04) and fractional clinical/internal target volume receiving ≥95% of the prescribed dose (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; P = .05). PFS was also significantly associated with schedule (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.86; P = .01).Conclusions: Toxicity in IDEAL-CRT was acceptable. Survival was promising for 6-week patients and significantly longer than for 5-week patients. Survival might be further lengthened by following the 6-week schedule with an immune agent, motivating further study of such combined optimized treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, but the optimal radiotherapy schedule and dose remains controversial. The aim of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer.Methods: The CONVERT trial was an open-label, phase 3, randomised superiority trial. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had cytologically or histologically confirmed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and adequate pulmonary function. Patients were recruited from 73 centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 45 Gy radiotherapy in 30 twice-daily fractions of 1·5 Gy over 19 days, or 66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions of 2 Gy over 45 days, starting on day 22 after commencing cisplatin-etoposide chemotherapy (given as four to six cycles every 3 weeks in both groups). The allocation method used was minimisation with a random element, stratified by institution, planned number of chemotherapy cycles, and performance status. Treatment group assignments were not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by modified intention-to-treat. A 12% higher overall survival at 2 years in the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group was considered to be clinically significant to show superiority of the once-daily regimen. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00433563) and is currently in follow-up.Findings: Between April 7, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013, 547 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients). Four patients (one in the twice-daily group and three in the once-daily group) did not return their case report forms and were lost to follow-up; these patients were not included in our analyses. At a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35-58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24-34) in the twice-daily group versus 25 months (21-31) in the once-daily group (hazard ratio for death in the once daily group 1·18 [95% CI 0·95-1·45]; p=0·14). 2-year overall survival was 56% (95% CI 50-62) in the twice-daily group and 51% (45-57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5·3% [95% CI -3·2% to 13·7%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event in patients evaluated for chemotherapy toxicity was neutropenia (197 [74%] of 266 patients in the twice-daily group vs 170 [65%] of 263 in the once-daily group). Most toxicities were similar between the groups, except there was significantly more grade 4 neutropenia with twice-daily radiotherapy (129 [49%] vs 101 [38%]; p=0·05). In patients assessed for radiotherapy toxicity, was no difference in grade 3-4 oesophagitis between the groups (47 [19%] of 254 patients in the twice-daily group vs 47 [19%] of 246 in the once-daily group; p=0·85) and grade 3-4 radiation pneumonitis (4 [3%] of 254 vs 4 [2%] of 246; p=0·70). 11 patients died from treatment-related causes (three in the twice-daily group and eight in the once-daily group).Interpretation: Survival outcomes did not differ between twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, and toxicity was similar and lower than expected with both regimens. Since the trial was designed to show superiority of once-daily radiotherapy and was not powered to show equivalence, the implication is that twice-daily radiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in this setting.Funding: Cancer Research UK (Clinical Trials Awards and Advisory Committee), French Ministry of Health, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Cancer Research Fund, Lung Cancer, and Radiation Oncology Groups). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]