Search

Background Worldwide, lung cancer (LC) is the second most frequent cancer and the leading cause of cancer related mortality. Low-dose CT (LDCT) screening reduced LC mortality by 20–24% in randomised trials of high-risk populations. A significant proportion of those screened have nodules detected that are found to be benign. Consequently, many individuals receive extra imaging and/or unnecessary procedures, which can have a negative physical and psychological impact, as well as placing a financial burden on health systems. Therefore, there is a need to identify individuals who need no interval CT between screening rounds.Methods and analysis The aim of this study is to identify risk factors predictive of LC, which are known at the time of the scan, in patients with LDCT screen-detected lung nodules. The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases will be searched and articles that are on cohorts or mention cohorts of screenees with nodules will be identified. A data extraction framework will ensure consistent extraction across studies. Individual participant data (IPD) will be collected to perform a one-stage IPD meta-analysis using hierarchical univariate models. Clustering will be accounted for by having separate intercept terms for each cohort. Where IPD is not available, the effects of risk factors will be extracted from publications, if possible. Effects from IPD cohorts and aggregate data will be reported and compared. The PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) will be used for assessment of quality of the studies.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was not required as this study is a secondary analysis. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration number CRD42022309515

Introduction: Single-station N2 (ssN2) versus multi-station N2 has been used as a selection criterion for treatment recommendations between surgical versus non-surgical multimodality treatment in stage III-N2 NSCLC. We hypothesized that clinical staging would be susceptible to upstaging on pathologic staging and, therefore, challenge this practice. Methods: A retrospective study of prospectively collected routine clinical data for patients with stage III-N2 NSCLC that had completed computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), and staging endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) and had been confirmed clinical stage III-ssN2 at multidisciplinary team discussion and went on to complete surgical resection as the first treatment to provide pathologic staging. The study was completed in two cohorts (A) across a single cancer alliance in England (Greater Manchester) January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018 and (B) across five United Kingdom centers to validate the findings in part A January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020. Results: A total of 115 patients met the inclusion criteria across cohort A (56 patients) and cohort B (59 patients) across 15 United Kingdom hospitals. The proportion of cases in which clinical stage III-ssN2 was upstaged to pathologic stage III-multi-station N2 was 34% (19 of 56) in cohort A, 32% in cohort B (19 of 59), and 33% across the combined study cohort (38 of 115). Most patients had a single radiologically abnormal lymph node on CT and PET (88%, 105 of 115). In the majority, the reasons for missed N2 disease on staging EBUS were due to inaccessible (stations 5, 6, 8, 9) N2 nodes at EBUS (34%, 13 of 38) and accessible lymph nodes not sampled during staging EBUS as not meeting sampling threshold (40%, 15 of 38) rather than false-negative sampling during EBUS (26%, 10 of 38). Conclusions: During multidisciplinary team discussions, clinicians must be aware that one-third of patients with stage III-ssN2 on the basis of CT, PET, and staging EBUS do not truly have ssN2 and this questions the use of this criterion to define treatment recommendations.

Methods and analysis The Yorkshire Cancer Research-funded Prehabilitation Radiotherapy Exercise, smoking Habit cessation and Balanced diet Study (PREHABS) (L426) is a single-centre prospective feasibility study to assess embedding behavioural changes into the radical radiotherapy pathway of patients with lung cancer. Feasibility will be assessed by measuring acceptability, demand and implementation. The duration of the study is 24 months. PREHABS has two workstreams: the intervention study and the theory of change (ToC) study.Intervention study: PREHABS will commence at the R-IDEAL phase 2 trial (exploratory) based on existing evidence and includes support for smoking cessation, increasing activity and dietary well-being. Patients undergoing radical radiotherapy for lung cancer will be recruited from the oncology department at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (LTHT). ToC study: to maximise the acceptability and adherence to the PREHABS, we will use a ToC approach to qualitatively explore the key barriers and enablers of implementing a tailored programme of ‘prehabilitation’. The PREHABS ToC study participants will be recruited from patients with lung cancer undergoing radical radiotherapy and staff from the LTHT oncology department.Analysis The primary endpoint analysis will report the number of participants and adherence to the study interventions. Secondary endpoints include continued engagement with study interventions post-treatment. The analysis will focus on descriptive statistics. Thematic analysis of the qualitative data from the ToC study will identify consensus on intervention optimisation and delivery.Ethics and dissemination On 12 May 2021, the Cambridge East Ethics Committee granted ethical approval (21/EE/0048). The study is registered in the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) portfolio. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at conferences.Trial registration number NIHR portfolio 48420.

Introduction In a small percentage of patients, pulmonary nodules found on CT scans are early lung cancers. Lung cancer detected at an early stage has a much better prognosis. The British Thoracic Society guideline on managing pulmonary nodules recommends using multivariable malignancy risk prediction models to assist in management. While these guidelines seem to be effective in clinical practice, recent data suggest that artificial intelligence (AI)-based malignant-nodule prediction solutions might outperform existing models.Methods and analysis This study is a prospective, observational multicentre study to assess the clinical utility of an AI-assisted CT-based lung cancer prediction tool (LCP) for managing incidental solid and part solid pulmonary nodule patients vs standard care. Two thousand patients will be recruited from 12 different UK hospitals. The primary outcome is the difference between standard care and LCP-guided care in terms of the rate of benign nodules and patients with cancer discharged straight after the assessment of the baseline CT scan. Secondary outcomes investigate adherence to clinical guidelines, other measures of changes to clinical management, patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness.Ethics and dissemination This study has been reviewed and given a favourable opinion by the South Central—Oxford C Research Ethics Committee in UK (REC reference number: 22/SC/0142).Study results will be available publicly following peer-reviewed publication in open-access journals. A patient and public involvement group workshop is planned before the study results are available to discuss best methods to disseminate the results. Study results will also be fed back to participating organisations to inform training and procurement activities.Trial registration number NCT05389774.

Introduction Mesothelioma remains a lethal cancer. To date, systemic therapy with pemetrexed and a platinum drug remains the only licensed standard of care. As the median survival for patients with mesothelioma is 12.1 months, surgery is an important consideration to improve survival and/or quality of life. Currently, only two surgical trials have been performed which found that neither extensive (extra-pleural pneumonectomy) or limited (partial pleurectomy) surgery improved survival (although there was some evidence of improved quality of life). Therefore, clinicians are now looking to evaluate pleurectomy decortication, the only radical treatment option left.Methods and analysis The MARS 2 study is a UK multicentre open parallel group randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgery—(extended) pleurectomy decortication—versus no surgery for the treatment of pleural mesothelioma. The study will test the hypothesis that surgery and chemotherapy is superior to chemotherapy alone with respect to overall survival. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life, progression-free survival, measures of safety (adverse events) and resource use to 2 years. The QuinteT Recruitment Intervention is integrated into the trial to optimise recruitment.Ethics and dissemination Research ethics approval was granted by London – Camberwell St. Giles Research Ethics Committee (reference 13/LO/1481) on 7 November 2013. We will submit the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numbers ISRCTN—ISRCTN44351742 and ClinicalTrials.gov—NCT02040272.

Purpose This brief report describes a planned, interim, 6-patient toxicity analysis that confirms the safety of pemetrexed, carboplatin, radiation with subsequent surgery, as prescribed in the North Central Cancer Treatment Group trial N044E, in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. Methods Six patients with locally advanced, potentially resectable esophageal cancer received pemetrexed 500 mg/m 2 and carboplatin AUC = 6 on days 1 and 22 with 5040 centigray of concomitant radiation in 28 fractions over 5.5 weeks followed by esophagectomy as a prelude to a phase II multi-institutional trial. Results Only 1 of the 6 patients experienced a grade 4 adverse event (neutropenia). This patient also experienced a grade 3 depression. Of the remaining 5 patients, three experienced at least one grade 3 adverse event (neutropenia, nausea/vomiting, and esophagitis). There were no deaths. Incidentally, one patient manifested a complete pathologic response, three a partial pathologic response, and one stable disease. Conclusion These preliminary observations on safety suggest that this regimen can be further studied in this clinical setting.