Search

ObjectiveTo compare secondary patient reported outcomes of perceptions of treatment success and function for patients treated for appendicitis with appendectomy vs. antibiotics at 30 days.Summary background dataThe Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy trial found antibiotics noninferior to appendectomy based on 30-day health status. To address questions about outcomes among participants with lower socioeconomic status, we explored the relationship of sociodemographic and clinical factors and outcomes.MethodsWe focused on 4 patient reported outcomes at 30 days: high decisional regret, dissatisfaction with treatment, problems performing usual activities, and missing >10 days of work. The randomized (RCT) and observational cohorts were pooled for exploration of baseline factors. The RCT cohort alone was used for comparison of treatments. Logistic regression was used to assess associations.ResultsThe pooled cohort contained 2062 participants; 1552 from the RCT. Overall, regret and dissatisfaction were low whereas problems with usual activities and prolonged missed work occurred more frequently. In the RCT, those assigned to antibiotics had more regret (Odd ratios (OR) 2.97, 95% Confidence intervals (CI) 2.05-4.31) and dissatisfaction (OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.25-3.12), and reported less missed work (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.27-0.56). Factors associated with function outcomes included sociodemographic and clinical variables for both treatment arms. Fewer factors were associated with dissatisfaction and regret.ConclusionsOverall, participants reported high satisfaction, low regret, and were frequently able to resume usual activities and return to work. When comparing treatments for appendicitis, no single measure defines success or failure for all people. The reported data may inform discussions regarding the most appropriate treatment for individuals.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

BackgroundCurrent smokers undergoing lobectomy are at greater risk of complications than are former smokers. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) composite score for rating program performance for lobectomy adjusts for smoking status, a modifiable risk factor. This study examined variability in the proportion of current smokers undergoing lobectomy among STS database participants. Additionally, the study determined whether each participant's rating changed if smoking was excluded from the risk adjustment model.MethodsThis is a retrospective analysis of the STS cohort used to develop the composite score for rating program performance for lobectomy. The study summarized the variability among STS database participants for performing lobectomy on current smokers and compared star ratings developed from models with and without smoking status.ResultsThere were 24,912 patients with smoking status data: 23% current smokers, 62% former smokers, and 15% never smokers. There was significant variability among participants in the proportion of current smokers undergoing lobectomy (3% to 48.6%; P < .001). Major morbidity or mortality (composite) was greater in current smokers (12.1%) than in former smokers (8.6%) and never smokers (4.2%) (P < .001). Using the current risk adjustment model, participant star ratings were as follows: 1 star, n = 6 (3.2%); 2 stars, n = 170 (91.4%); and 3 stars, n = 10 (5.4%). When smoking status was excluded from the model, 1 participant shifted from a 2-star to a 3-star program.ConclusionsThere is substantial variability among STS database participants with regard to the proportion of current smokers undergoing lobectomy. However, exclusion of smoking status from the model did not significantly affect participant star rating.

Lung nodules are frequently detected on low‐dose computed tomography scans performed for lung cancer screening and incidentally detected on imaging performed for other reasons. There is wide variability in how lung nodules are managed by general practitioners and subspecialists, with high rates of guideline‐discordant care. This may be due in part to the level of evidence underlying current practice guideline recommendations (primarily based on findings from uncontrolled studies of diagnostic accuracy). The primary aims of lung nodule management are to minimize harms of diagnostic evaluations while expediting the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of lung cancer. Potentially useful tools such as lung cancer probability calculators, automated methods to identify patients with nodules in the electronic health record, and multidisciplinary team evaluation are often underused due to limited availability, accessibility, and/or provider knowledge. Finally, relatively little attention has been paid to identifying and reducing disparities among individuals with screening‐detected or incidentally detected lung nodules. This contribution to the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable Strategic Plan aims to identify and describe these knowledge gaps in lung nodule management and propose recommendations to advance clinical practice and research. Major themes that are addressed include improving the quality of evidence supporting lung nodule evaluation guidelines, strategically leveraging information technology, and placing emphasis on equitable approaches to nodule management. The recommendations outlined in this strategic plan, when carried out through interdisciplinary efforts with a focus on health equity, ultimately aim to improve early detection and reduce the morbidity and mortality of lung cancer. Plain Language Summary: Lung nodules may be identified on chest scans of individuals who undergo lung cancer screening (screening‐detected nodules) or among patients for whom a scan was performed for another reason (incidental nodules).Although the vast majority of lung nodules are not lung cancer, it is important to have evidence‐based, standardized approaches to the evaluation and management of a lung nodule.The primary aims of lung nodule management are to diagnose lung cancer while it is still in an early stage and to avoid unnecessary procedures and other harms. Given the need to balance the benefits of early‐detection of lung cancer and the risks of diagnostic tests, it is imperative to develop evidence‐based strategies for lung nodule management. This report identifies six gaps in knowledge about lung nodule management and proposes six recommendations to improve the management approaches described in clinical practice guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accurate staging improves lung cancer survival by increasing the chances of delivering stage‐appropriate therapy. However, there is underutilization of, and variability in, the use of guideline‐recommended diagnostic tests used to stage lung cancer. Consequently, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (ACS NLCRT) convened the Triage for Appropriate Treatment Task Group—a multidisciplinary expert and stakeholder panel—to identify knowledge and/or resource gaps contributing to guideline‐discordant staging and make recommendations to overcome these gaps. The task group determined the following: Gap 1: facilitators of and barriers to guideline‐concordant staging are incompletely understood; Recommendation 1: identify facilitators of and barriers to guideline‐concordant lung cancer staging; Gap 2: the level of evidence supporting staging algorithms is low‐to‐moderate; Recommendation 2: prioritize comparative‐effectiveness studies evaluating lung cancer staging; Gap 3: guideline recommendations vary across professional societies; Recommendation 3: harmonize guideline recommendations across professional societies; Gap 4: existing databases do not contain sufficient information to measure guideline‐concordant staging; Recommendation 4: augment existing databases with the information required to measure guideline‐concordant staging; Gap 5: health systems do not have a performance feedback mechanism for lung cancer staging; Recommendation 5: develop and implement a performance feedback mechanism for lung cancer staging; Gap 6: patients rarely self‐advocate for guideline‐concordant staging; Recommendation 6: increase opportunities for patient self‐advocacy for guideline‐concordant staging; and Gap 7: current health policies do not motivate guideline‐concordant lung cancer staging; Recommendation 7: organize a representative working group under the ACS NLCRT that promotes policies that motivate guideline‐concordant lung cancer staging. Plain language summary: Staging—determining the degree of cancer spread—is important because it helps clinicians choose the best cancer treatment. Receiving the best cancer treatment leads to the best possible patient outcomes. Practice guidelines are intended to help clinicians stage patients with lung cancer. However, lung cancer staging in the United States often varies from practice guideline recommendations. This report identifies seven opportunities to improve lung cancer staging. Lung cancer staging is a key determinant of appropriate treatment selection and optimal patient outcomes. This report identifies seven gaps in care delivery and proposes seven recommendations for increasing guideline‐concordant lung cancer staging rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comprehensive biomarker testing for patients with non–small cell lung cancer is critical for selecting appropriate targeted therapy or immunotherapy. Ensuring timely ordering, processing, and reporting is key to optimizing patient outcomes. However, various factors can prevent or delay patients from being offered the option of treatment selection based on comprehensive biomarker testing. These factors include problems with access to testing, tissue adequacy, turnaround time, and health insurance coverage and billing practices. Turnaround time depends on several logistical and tissue handling factors, which involve institutional policies, processes, resources, testing methodology, and testing algorithms that vary across different practices. In this article, the authors identify key factors that prolong biomarker testing turnaround time, propose strategies to reduce it, and present a process map to aid physicians and key organizational stakeholders in improving testing efficiency. Ensuring timely ordering, processing, and reporting of comprehensive biomarker testing for patients with non–small cell lung cancer is key to optimizing patient outcomes. The authors identify key factors that prolong biomarker testing turnaround time, propose strategies to reduce it, and present a process map to aid physicians and key organizational stakeholders in improving testing efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comprehensive biomarker testing is a crucial requirement for the optimal treatment of advanced‐stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with emerging relevance in the adjuvant treatment setting. To advance its goal of ensuring optimal therapy for persons diagnosed with lung cancer, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (ACS NLCRT) held The Summit on Optimizing Lung Cancer Biomarkers in Practice in September 2020 to align its partners toward the goal of ensuring comprehensive biomarker testing for all eligible patients with NSCLC. The ACS NLCRT's Strategic Plan for Advancing Comprehensive Biomarker Testing in NSCLC, a product of the summit, comprises actions to promote comprehensive biomarker testing for all eligible patients. The approach is multifaceted, including policy‐level advocacy and the development and dissemination of targeted educational materials, clinical decision tools, and guides to patients, physicians, and payers aimed at ameliorating barriers to testing experienced by each of these groups. Plain language summary: The ACS NLCRT works to improve care for patients with lung cancer.The ACS NLCRT supports comprehensive biomarker testing as essential to determine treatment options for all eligible patients with non–small cell lung cancer.Many factors lead to some patients not receiving optimal biomarker testing.The ACS NLCRT held a collaborative summit and developed a strategic plan to achieve and promote comprehensive biomarker testing for all patients.These plans include developing educational materials and physician tools and advocating for national policies in support of biomarker testing. Comprehensive biomarker testing is a crucial component of care for patients with non–small cell lung cancer, informing treatment decisions regarding targeted therapies and immunotherapies. The National Lung Cancer Roundtable's Strategic Plan to Optimize Biomarker Testing aims to reduce barriers to testing with a goal of universal comprehensive testing for eligible patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IntroductionSeveral European studies suggest that some patients with appendicitis can be treated safely with antibiotics. A portion of patients eventually undergo appendectomy within a year, with 10%-15% failing to respond in the initial period and a similar additional proportion with suspected recurrent episodes requiring appendectomy. Nearly all patients with appendicitis in the USA are still treated with surgery. A rigorous comparative effectiveness trial in the USA that is sufficiently large and pragmatic to incorporate usual variations in care and measures the patient experience is needed to determine whether antibiotics are as good as appendectomy.ObjectivesThe Comparing Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial for acute appendicitis aims to determine whether the antibiotic treatment strategy is non-inferior to appendectomy.Methods/analysisCODA is a randomised, pragmatic non-inferiority trial that aims to recruit 1552 English-speaking and Spanish-speaking adults with imaging-confirmed appendicitis. Participants are randomised to appendectomy or 10 days of antibiotics (including an option for complete outpatient therapy). A total of 500 patients who decline randomisation but consent to follow-up will be included in a parallel observational cohort. The primary analytic outcome is quality of life (measured by the EuroQol five dimension index) at 4 weeks. Clinical adverse events, rate of eventual appendectomy, decisional regret, return to work/school, work productivity and healthcare utilisation will be compared. Planned exploratory analyses will identify subpopulations that may have a differential risk of eventual appendectomy in the antibiotic treatment arm.Ethics and disseminationThis trial was approved by the University of Washington's Human Subjects Division. Results from this trial will be presented in international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT02800785.