Search

Objective: To examine how lung cancer screening (LCS) is coordinated across healthcare systems, specifically Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA settings., Data Sources and Study Setting: We conducted primary qualitative data collection in six VA medical centers with established LCS programs from November 2020 to November 2021., Study Design and Data Collection Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 48 primary care providers, LCS program coordinators and directors, and pulmonologists. Thematic analysis examined spontaneously raised narratives related to initiating and coordinating LCS for Veterans screened in non-VA settings. We mapped coordination challenges to each step of the LCS care continuum., Principal Findings: While non-VA options increased access to LCS for Veterans, VA medical centers lacked clear processes for initiating LCS referrals and tracking Veterans across the LCS continuum when screening occurred in non-VA settings. The responsibility of coordinating LCS with community providers often fell to VA primary care providers rather than LCS programs. Gaps in communication and data transfer contributed to delayed evaluation of potentially cancerous nodules post-screening, raising concerns about compromised care quality when LCS was shared with non-VA settings., Conclusions: While policies expanding LCS for Veterans in non-VA settings increase access, lack of consistent processes to initiate referrals, obtain results, and promote timely downstream evaluation fragmented care and delayed evaluation of concerning nodules. These unintended consequences highlight a need to address cross-system coordination challenges. Strategies to better coordinate LCS between VA and non-VA settings are essential to achieve high quality LCS and prevent Veterans from falling through the cracks., (Published 2024. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Health Services Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Objective: Experts recommend structured shared decision making when discussing lung cancer screening (LCS) and reporting low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) results. We examined patients' reactions to pre- and post-LDCT results communication processes at three medical centers in the US with established LCS programs., Methods: Multicenter, qualitative, longitudinal study of patients considering and receiving LCS using data from semi-structured interviews guided by a patient-centered communication model using conventional content analysis. We conducted 61 interviews among 32 patients (sixteen of whom had a nodule on their LDCT) at one month and 12 months after an initial LCS decision making interaction., Results: Participants were mostly satisfied with LCS communication processes pre- and post-LDCT even though guideline concordant shared decision making was rare. Most participants reported no more than mild distress even if the LDCT detected a pulmonary nodule, felt relief after getting the results, and reported the perceived benefits of LCS outweighed their distress. Nearly all participants were satisfied with recommended follow-up plans. They reported that they trusted their clinicians and health care system to provide appropriate care and recommendations. They did not appear to regret their decision since almost all participants planned to get their next LDCT. However, they were at risk of non-adherence to follow-up recommendations since they often relied on the health care system to ensure they received timely follow-up., Conclusions: Despite receiving guideline discordant decision-making communication, patients seem very satisfied, rarely experience severe distress, and have low decisional regret after LCS decision making and receiving the results of their LDCT., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: All authors declare no conflicts of interest with the work presented in this manuscript. ACM and CGS are medical directors of lung cancer screening programs at the institutions where they are employed but do not receive additional compensation for these roles., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: The phase 3 Veterans Affairs Lung Cancer Surgery Or Stereotactic Radiotherapy study implemented centralized quality assurance (QA) to mitigate risks of protocol deviations. This report summarizes the quality and compliance of the first 100 participants treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in this study., Methods and Materials: A centralized QA program was developed to credential and monitor study sites to ensure standard-of-care lung SBRT treatments are delivered to participants. Requirements were adapted from protocols established by the National Cancer Institute's Image and Radiation Oncology Core, which provides oversight for clinical trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute's National Clinical Trials Network., Results: The first 100 lung SBRT treatment plans were reviewed from April 2017 to October 2022. Tumor contours were appropriate in all submissions. Planning target volume (PTV) expansions were less than the minimum 5 mm requirement in 2% of cases. Critical organ-at-risk structures were contoured accurately for the proximal bronchial tree, trachea, esophagus, spinal cord, and brachial plexus in 75%, 92%, 100%, 100%, and 95% of cases, respectively. Prescriptions were appropriate in 98% of cases; 2 central tumors were treated using a peripheral tumor dose prescription while meeting organ-at-risk constraints. PTV V100% (the percentage of target volume that receives 100% or more of the prescription) values were above the protocol-defined minimum of 94% in all but 1 submission. The median dose maximum (Dmax) within the PTV was 125.4% (105.8%-149.0%; SD ± 8.7%), where values reference the percentage of the prescription dose. High-dose conformality (ratio of the volume of the prescription isodose to the volume of the PTV) and intermediate-dose compactness [R50% (ratio of the volume of the half prescription isodose to the volume of the PTV) and D2cm (the maximum dose beyond a 2 cm expansion of the PTV expressed as a percentage of the prescription dose)] were acceptable or deviation acceptable in 100% and 94% of cases, respectively., Conclusions: The first 100 participants randomized to SBRT in this study were appropriately treated without safety concerns. A response to the incorrect prescriptions led to preventative measures without further recurrences. The program was developed in a health care system without prior experience with a centralized radiation therapy QA program and may serve as a reference for other institutions., Competing Interests: Disclosures Timothy A. Ritter reports salary support from the VA Cooperative Studies Program (CSP), Hines, IL, as an employee of the Veterans Health Administration. Robert D. Timmerman reports grant support from Varian Medical Systems, Elekta Oncology, and Accuray, Inc. Domenic J. Reda reports support from the Department of Veterans Affairs; support for attending meetings and/or travel from the Society for Clinical Trials; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Abeona Therapeutics, D-CARE, and GWICTIC; an unpaid leadership or fiduciary role for the Society for Clinical Trials; and support from the University of Illinois at Chicago for his role as an instructor. Catherine R Sears reports support from VA CSP and VA BLR&D. Lorraine D. Cornwell reports support from VA CSP and support for travel to training and educational events from Edwards, Angiodynamics, Medtronic, Abbott, and Intuitive. Jatinder Palta reports contract support from Senior Medical Physics Services to VHA National Radiation Oncology 11SPEC 22 and a Chair role with the Intranational Council of AAPM. Drew Moghanaki reports support from the VA CSP, payment or honoraria for presentations from Varian Medical Systems, and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Varian Medical Systems. The other authors have nothing to disclose. No artificial intelligence tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Aims: Clinical equipoise exists regarding early-stage lung cancer treatment among patients as trials comparing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and surgical resection are unavailable. Given the potential differences in treatment effectiveness and side-effects, we sought to determine the associations between treatment type, decision regret and depression., Materials and Methods: A multicentre, prospective study of patients with stage IA-IIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with planned treatment with SBRT or surgical resection was conducted. Decision regret and depression were measured using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS) and Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) at 3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment, respectively. Mixed linear regression modelling examined associations between treatment and decision regret adjusting for patient sociodemographics., Results: Among 211 study participants with early-stage lung cancer, 128 (61%) patients received SBRT and 83 (39%) received surgical resection. The mean age was 73 years (standard deviation = 8); 57% were female; 79% were White non-Hispanic. In the entire cohort at 3 months post-treatment, 72 (34%) and 57 (27%) patients had mild and severe decision regret, respectively. Among patients who received SBRT or surgery, 71% and 46% of patients experienced at least mild decision regret at 3 months, respectively. DRS scores increased at 6 months and decreased slightly at 12 months of follow-up in both groups. Higher DRS scores were associated with SBRT treatment (adjusted mean difference = 4.18, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 7.54) and depression (adjusted mean difference = 3.49, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 6.47). Neither patient satisfaction with their provider nor decision-making role concordance was associated with DRS scores., Conclusions: Most early-stage lung cancer patients experienced at least mild decision regret, which was associated with SBRT treatment and depression symptoms. Findings suggest patients with early-stage lung cancer may not be receiving optimal treatment decision-making support. Therefore, opportunities for improved patient-clinician communication probably exist., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Specialist palliative care improves quality of life (QOL), symptom burden, and may prolong survival among patients with advanced lung cancer. Previous trials focused on advanced disease, and less is known about patients across a broad range of stages. Objective: We sought to assess the effect of a nurse-led telephone-based primary palliative care intervention that focused on patients across a broad range of stages. Design, Setting, and Participants: We conducted a multisite randomized controlled trial in the United States involving patients diagnosed within two months with any stage or histology of lung cancer to compare the effects of a telephone-based palliative care intervention delivered by registered nurses trained in primary palliative care versus usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung Scale Total Outcome Index (FACT-L TOI), which measures QOL and symptoms. We estimated having 80% power to detect a 5-point change from baseline to three months. Secondary outcome was a change in satisfaction of care, measured by the FAMCARE-P13. Results: A total of 151 patients were enrolled over 30 months. Patients were, on average, male (98%), age 70 years, White (85%), and 36% diagnosed with stage I-II, and 64% had stage III-IV. In comparison to usual care, patients in the nurse-led intervention did not report improvement in QOL from baseline to three months follow-up or demonstrate differences in treatment effect by site or cancer stage: FACT-L TOI 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.98 to 6.04). Satisfaction with care did not significantly improve: 0.66 (95% CI: -2.01 to 3.33). Conclusions: Among patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer, a nurse-led, primary palliative care intervention did not significantly improve QOL, symptom burden, or satisfaction of care. In contrast to several clinical trials demonstrating the effectiveness of delivering specialty palliative care with disease-modifying treatments on QOL among patients with advanced lung cancer, this intervention did not significantly improve QOL among patients with any stage lung cancer. Future research should identify which specific components of primary palliative care improve outcomes for patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer.

Background: Adherence to annual low-dose CT was 95% in the National Lung Screening Trial and must be replicated to achieve mortality benefit from screening., Research Question: How do we determine adherence rates within the Veterans Affairs Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project and identify factors predictive of adherence?, Study Design and Methods: A secondary data analysis of the Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project that was conducted at eight Veterans Affairs medical centers was performed to determine adherence to follow up imaging and to determine factors predictive of adherence., Results: A total of 2,103 patients were screened. The adherence to screening from baseline scan (T0) to first follow-up scan (T1) was 82.2% and 65.2% from T1 to second follow-up scan (T2). Logistic regression modeling showed that presence of a nodule and the site of lung cancer screening were predictive of adherence. After three rounds of screening, 1,343 patients (64%) who underwent baseline screening underwent both subsequent annual low-dose CT scans; 225 patients (11%) had only one subsequent low-dose CT; 0.4% did not have a T1 scan but did have a T2 scan; 70 patients (3%) died, and 36 patients (1.7%) were diagnosed with lung cancer. There was significant variation in screening adherence across the eight sites, which ranged from 63% to 94% at T1 and 52% to 82% at T2 (P < .05)., Interpretation: Despite a centralized program design with dedicated navigator and registry to assist with adherence to annual lung cancer screening, variations between sites suggest that active follow-up strategies are needed to optimize adherence. For the mortality benefit from lung cancer screening to be recognized, adherence to annual screening must achieve higher rates., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Lung cancer risk models optimise screening by identifying subjects at highest risk, but none of them consider emphysema, a risk factor identifiable on baseline screen. Subjects with a negative baseline low-dose CT (LDCT) screen are at lower risk for subsequent diagnosis and may benefit from risk stratification prior to additional screening, thus we investigated the role of radiographic emphysema as an additional predictor of lung cancer diagnosis in participants with negative baseline LDCT screens of the National Lung Screening Trial., Methods: Our cohorts consist of participants with a negative baseline (T0) LDCT screen (n=16 624) and participants who subsequently had a negative 1-year follow-up (T1) screen (n=14 530). Lung cancer risk scores were calculated using the Bach, PLCOm2012 and Liverpool Lung Project models. Risk of incident lung cancer diagnosis at the end of the study and number screened per incident lung cancer were compared between participants with and without radiographic emphysema., Results: Radiographic emphysema was independently associated with nearly double the hazard of lung cancer diagnosis at both the second (T1) and third (T2) annual LDCT in all three risk models (HR range 1.9-2.0, p<0.001 for all comparisons). The number screened per incident lung cancer was considerably lower in participants with radiographic emphysema (62 vs 28 at T1 and 91 vs 40 at T2)., Conclusion: Radiographic emphysema is an independent predictor of lung cancer diagnosis and may help guide decisions surrounding further screening for eligible patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Limited data exist about patient-centered communication (PCC) and patient-centered outcomes among patients who undergo surgery or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to examine the relationship between PCC and decision-making processes among NSCLC patients, using baseline data from a prospective, multicenter study., Methods: Patients with stage 1 NSCLC completed a survey prior to treatment initiation. The survey assessed sociodemographic characteristics, treatment decision variables, and patient psychosocial outcomes: health-related quality of life (HRQOL), treatment self-efficacy, decisional conflict, and PCC., Results: Fifty-two percent (n = 85) of 165 individuals planned to receive SBRT. There were no baseline differences detected on patient psychosocial outcomes between those who planned to receive SBRT or surgery. All participants reported high HRQOL (M = 72.5, SD = 21.3) out of 100, where higher scores indicate better functioning; high self-efficacy (M = 1.5, SD = 0.5) out of 6, where lower numbers indicate higher self-efficacy; minimal decisional conflict (M = 15.2, SD = 12.7) out of 100, where higher scores indicate higher decisional conflict; and high levels of patient-centered communication (M = 2.4, SD = 0.8) out of 7 where higher scores indicate worse communication. Linear regression analyses adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical variables showed that higher quality PCC was associated with higher self-efficacy (β = 0.17, p = 0.03) and lower decisional conflict (β = 0.42, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Higher quality PCC was associated with higher self-efficacy and lower decisional conflict. Self-efficacy and decisional conflict may influence subsequent health outcomes. Therefore, our findings may inform future research and clinical programs that focus on communication strategies to improve these outcomes.

Introduction: Acute pulmonary embolism is the third leading cause of cardiovascular death. Management options include anticoagulation with or without thrombolysis. Concurrent persistent hypoxemia should be a clue to the existence of an intracardiac shunt., Case Presentation: A 46-year-old man experienced acute hypoxemic respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation after anesthesia induction for elective hip arthroplasty. He was found to have submassive bilateral pulmonary emboli with acute right ventricular dysfunction and a coexisting patent foramen ovale with right-to-left shunt. He remained profoundly hypoxemic despite catheter-directed thrombolysis. He underwent surgical embolectomy with partial endarterectomy, resulting in clinical improvement., Discussion: The management of acute submassive pulmonary embolism is undertaken on an individualized basis because of the wide spectrum of clinical presentations. In this report we review the literature and discuss the evidence behind the management of cases of acute pulmonary embolism complicated by hypoxemia from a patent foramen ovale. In a case of acute pulmonary embolism complicated by refractory hypoxemia from an intracardiac shunt, adjunctive therapies in addition to anticoagulation and thrombolysis must be considered.

Rationale: Little is known about vulnerable patients' perceptions and understanding of, and preferences for, lung cancer screening decision aids., Objectives: To determine, in a low-income, racially diverse population, (1) participants' experience, preferences, and reactions to web-based and paper decision aids, and (2) their understanding of harms and benefits of lung cancer screening., Methods: We enrolled outpatients at an urban county hospital in six focus group discussions that included review of a web-based and a paper-based lung-cancer screening decision aid. Participants completed surveys before and after the focus groups., Measurements and Main Results: Forty-five patients participated (mean age, 61 yr; 76% current smokers; 24% former smokers); 27% had not completed high school; 50% had an annual income not exceeding $15,000; 42% were nonwhite; and 96% reported chronic illness requiring at least three health care visits yearly. Comparing the proportion with correct answers on pre- and postsurveys, participants' understanding of lung cancer screening increased, particularly of the harms of screening including the potential for false positives, extra testing, and complications. However, after conclusion of the focus groups, more than 50% believed that screening lowered the chance of getting lung cancer. Five major themes emerged from qualitative analyses. Participants (1) were not aware of the purpose of lung cancer screening; (2) wanted to know about the benefits and harms; (3) believed physicians need to communicate more effectively; (4) found decision aids helpful and influential for decision-making about screening; and (5) wanted the discussion to be personalized and tailored. Participants expressed surprise that the magnitude of their lung cancer risk and benefits of screening were lower than anticipated., Conclusions: Vulnerable patients find lung cancer screening decision aids helpful and generally show increased knowledge after reviewing decision aids, particularly of harms. Our results can inform future implementation efforts.

Objectives: Among lung cancer patients depression symptoms are common and impact outcomes. The aims of this study were to determine risk factors that contribute to persistent or new onset depression symptoms during lung cancer treatment, and examine interactions between depression symptoms and health domains that influence mortality., Materials and Methods: Prospective observational study in five healthcare systems and 15 Veterans Affairs medical centers. Patients in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) Consortium with lung cancer were eligible. The 8-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale was administered at baseline and follow-up. Scores ≥4 indicated elevated depressive symptoms. Health domains were measured using validated instruments. We applied logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards modeling to explore the association between depression symptoms, health domains, and mortality., Results: Of 1790 participants, 38% had depression symptoms at baseline and among those still alive, 31% at follow-up. Risk factors for depression symptoms at follow-up included younger age (OR=2.81), female sex (OR=1.59), low income (OR=1.45), not being married (OR=1.74) and current smoking status (OR=1.80); high school education was associated with reduced odds of depression symptoms at follow-up, compared with lesser educational attainment (OR=0.74) (all p values <0.05). Patients with depression symptoms had worse health-related quality of life, vitality, cancer-specific symptoms, and social support than patients without depression symptoms (all p<0.001). The association between depression symptoms and increased mortality is greater among patients with more lung cancer symptoms (p=0.008) or less social support (p=0.04)., Conclusions: Patient risk factors for depression symptoms at follow-up were identified and these subgroups should be targeted for enhanced surveillance. Patients with depression symptoms suffer across all health domains; however, only more lung cancer symptoms or less social support are associated with worse mortality among these patients. These potentially modifiable health domains suggest targets for possible intervention in future studies., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Coexistence of multiple chronic conditions (i.e., multimorbidity) is the most common chronic health problem in adults. However, clinical practice guidelines have primarily focused on patients with a single disease, resulting in uncertainty about the care of patients with multimorbidity. The American Thoracic Society convened a workshop with the goal of establishing a strategy to address multimorbidity within clinical practice guidelines. In this Workshop Report, we describe a framework that addresses multimorbidity in each of the key steps of guideline development: topic selection, panel composition, identifying clinical questions, searching for and synthesizing evidence, rating the quality of that evidence, summarizing benefits and harms, formulating recommendations, and rating the strength of the recommendations. For the consideration of multimorbidity in guidelines to be successful and sustainable, the process must be both feasible and pragmatic. It is likely that this will be achieved best by the step-wise addition and refinement of the various components of the framework.

Aims: Among lung cancer patients, depression has been associated with increased mortality, although the mechanisms are unknown. We evaluated the association of depression with mortality and receipt of cancer therapies among depressed veterans with lung cancer., Materials and Methods: A retrospective, cohort study of lung cancer patients in the Veterans Affairs-Northwest Health Network from 1995 to 2010. Depression was defined by ICD-9 coding within 24 months before lung cancer diagnosis. Multivariable Cox proportional analysis and logistic regression were used., Results: In total, 3869 lung cancer patients were evaluated; 14% had a diagnosis of depression. A diagnosis of depression was associated with increased mortality among all stage lung cancer patients (hazard ratio = 1.14, 95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.27, P = 0.01). Among early-stage (I and II) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, the hazard ratio was 1.37 (95% confidence interval: 1.12-1.68, P = 0.003). There was no association of depression diagnosis with surgery (odds ratio = 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.56-1.22, P = 0.34) among early-stage NSCLC patients. A depression diagnosis was not associated with mortality (hazard ratio = 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.89-1.16, P = 0.78) or chemotherapy (odds ratio = 1.07, 95% confidence interval: 0.83-1.39, P = 0.59) or radiation (odds ratio = 1.04, 95% confidence interval: 0.81-1.34, P = 0.75) receipt among advanced-stage (III and IV) NSCLC patients. Increased utilisation of health services for depression was associated with increased mortality among depressed patients., Conclusions: Depression is associated with increased mortality in lung cancer patients and this association is higher among those with increased measures of depression care utilisation. Differences in lung cancer treatment receipt are probably not responsible for the observed mortality differences between depressed and non-depressed patients. Clinicians should recognise the significant effect of depression on lung cancer survival., (Copyright © 2013 The Royal College of Radiologists. All rights reserved.)