The influence of provider characteristics on resection rates and survival in patients with localized non-small cell lung cancer

European Respiratory Society guideline on various aspects of quality in lung cancer care

This European Respiratory Society guideline is dedicated to the provision of good quality recommendations in lung cancer care. All the clinical recommendations contained were based on a comprehensive systematic review and evidence syntheses based on eight PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) questions. The evidence was appraised in compliance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Evidence profiles and the GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to summarise results and to make the decision-making process transparent. A multidisciplinary Task Force panel of lung cancer experts formulated and consented the clinical recommendations following thorough discussions of the systematic review results. In particular, we have made recommendations relating to the following quality improvement measures deemed applicable to routine lung cancer care: 1) avoidance of delay in the diagnostic and therapeutic period, 2) integration of multidisciplinary teams and multidisciplinary consultations, 3) implementation of and adherence to lung cancer guidelines, 4) benefit of higher institutional/individual volume and advanced specialisation in lung cancer surgery and other procedures, 5) need for pathological confirmation of lesions in patients with pulmonary lesions and suspected lung cancer, and histological subtyping and molecular characterisation for actionable targets or response to treatment of confirmed lung cancers, 6) added value of early integration of palliative care teams or specialists, 7) advantage of integrating specific quality improvement measures, and 8) benefit of using patient decision tools. These recommendations should be reconsidered and updated, as appropriate, as new evidence becomes available.

Optimal and actual rates of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR) utilisation for primary lung cancer in Australia

•

Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR) plays a major role in the management of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

•

An evidence-based model is developed to estimate optimal rates of lung SABR utilisation within the Australian population.

•

Optimal utilisation rates are compared against actual utilisation rates to evaluate service provision.

Background and purpose

Radiotherapy utilisation rates considerably vary across different countries and service providers, highlighting the need to establish reliable benchmarks against which utilisation rates can be assessed. Here, optimal utilisation rates of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR) for lung cancer are estimated and compared against actual utilisation rates to identify potential shortfalls in service provision.

Materials and Methods

An evidence-based optimal utilisation model was constructed after reviewing practice guidelines and identifying indications for lung SABR based on the best available evidence. The proportions of patients likely to develop each indication were obtained, whenever possible, from Australian population-based studies. Sensitivity analysis was performed to account for variations in epidemiological data. Practice pattern studies were reviewed to obtain actual utilisation rates.

Results

A total of 6% of all lung cancer patients were estimated to optimally require SABR at least once during the course of their illness (95% CI: 4–6%). Optimal utilisation rates were estimated to be 32% for stage I and 10% for stage II NSCLC. Actual utilisation rates for stage I NSCLC varied between 6 and 20%. For patients with inoperable stage I, 27–74% received SABR compared to the estimated optimal rate of 82%.

Conclusion

The estimated optimal SABR utilisation rates for lung cancer can serve as useful benchmarks to highlight gaps in service delivery and help plan for more adequate and efficient provision of care. The model can be easily modified to determine optimal utilisation rates in other populations or updated to reflect any changes in practice guidelines or epidemiological data.

A comparison of outcomes and survival between Victoria and Denmark in lung cancer surgery: opportunities for international benchmarking

BACKGROUNDS

Victoria (Australia) and Denmark have comparable population sizes and high-quality healthcare systems. Lung cancer surgery, however, is performed in more than 20 Victorian hospitals compared to four in Denmark. Such differences in centralization may influence outcomes. We engaged clinical quality registries to enable international benchmarking by exploring patterns of lung cancer surgery including mortality and survival.

METHODS

All patients undergoing lung cancer surgery between 2015 and 2018 registered in the Victorian Lung Cancer Registry and the Danish Lung Cancer Registry were included. Analyses on stage concordance, 30 and 90-day mortality, and overall survival were restricted to a selected subgroup with NSCLC and no neo-adjuvant therapy or metastatic disease and only one operation.

RESULTS

We included 1554 Victorian and 4319 Danish patients. The resection rate was 26.3% in Victoria and 28% in Denmark, but a higher proportion of Victorian patients underwent wedge resection (19.1% versus 8.8%). Stage concordance was 59.6% and 54.9% in Victoria and Denmark, respectively. The 30- and 90-day mortality was 1.3% and 2.6% in Victoria, compared to 1.4% and 2.8% in Denmark with no difference in overall survival (p = 0.28) or risk-adjusted survival (HR: 1.10 (95% CI: 0.89-1.37); p = 0.38).

CONCLUSION

High-quality surgical lung cancer care was confirmed by similar high resection and low mortality rates including no overall survival difference. The drivers and consequences of stage discordance and differences in patterns of resection deserve further exploration. This study provides a model for international benchmarking using clinical quality registries, although caution remains in the interpretation given disparities in data completeness.

Effect of On-Site Cardiac Surgery Program on General Thoracic Surgery Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Limited data exist exploring the relationship between multispecialty surgical collaboration and outcomes in general thoracic surgery. To address this, the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was analyzed to determine whether the presence of an on-site cardiac surgery program is associated with improved general thoracic surgery outcomes.

METHODS

The NIS (1999-2008) was utilized to identify 389,959 patients who had a lobectomy, pneumonectomy, or esophagectomy. Short-term outcomes of patients undergoing these procedures were compared between hospitals with and without an on-site cardiac surgery program. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine patient and hospital predictors of mortality and morbidity.

RESULTS

During the study period, patients undergoing lobectomy (n = 314,130), pneumonectomy (n = 34,860), or esophagectomy (n = 40,969) were identified. Univariate analysis demonstrated lower mortality for lobectomy (P < 0.001) and esophagectomy (P < 0.001) but not pneumonectomy (P = 0.344) in hospitals with a cardiac surgery program. All-cause morbidity was significantly lower for all 3 procedures in hospitals with a cardiac surgery program. However, multivariate analysis demonstrated that a cardiac surgery program was not an independent predictor when adjusted for known confounders, particularly procedure volume and hospital academic teaching status.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of an on-site cardiac surgery program is not in and of itself associated with improved general thoracic surgery outcomes. The presence of a cardiac surgery program is likely a surrogate for other known predictors of improved outcomes such as hospital teaching status and procedure volume.

Patient and Facility Demographics Related Outcomes in Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Radiofrequency Ablation: A National Cancer Database Analysis

PURPOSE

To determine facility and patient demographics associated with survival in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with radiofrequency (RF) ablation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for cases of stage 1a NSCLC treated with RF ablation without chemotherapy or radiotherapy from 2004 to 2014. High-volume centers (HVCs) were defined as the top 95^th percentile of facilities by number of procedures performed. Overall survival (OS) was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and comparisons between survival curves were performed with the log-rank test. Propensity score-matched cohort analysis was performed. P values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

In the final cohort, 967 cases were included. Estimated median survival and follow-up were 33.1 and 62.5 months, respectively. Of 305 facilities, 15 were determined to be HVCs, treating 13 or more patients from 2004 to 2014. A total of 335 cases (34.6%) were treated at HVCs. On multivariate Cox regression analysis, treatment at an HVC was independently associated with improved OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.766; P = .006). After propensity score adjustment, 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS was 89.8%, 51.2%, and 27.7%, respectively, for patients treated at HVCs, compared to 85.2%, 41.5%, and 19.6%, respectively, for patients treated at non-HVCs (P = .015). Increasing age (HR = 1.012; P = .013) and higher T-classification (HR = 1.392; P < .001) were independently associated with worse OS.

CONCLUSION

Patients with early-stage NSCLC treated with RF ablation at HVCs experienced a significant increase in OS, suggesting regionalization of lung cancer management as a means of improving outcomes.

Variations in Receipt of Curative-Intent Surgery for Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) by State

BACKGROUND

Previous studies reported racial and socioeconomic disparities in receipt of curative-intent surgery for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the United States. We examined variation in receipt of surgery and whether the racial disparity varies by state.

METHODS

Patients in whom stage I or II NSCLC was diagnosed from 2007 to 2011 were identified from 38 state and the District of Columbia population-based cancer registries compiled by the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Percentage of patients receiving curative-intent surgery was calculated for each registry. Adjusted risk ratios were generated by using modified Poisson regression to control for sociodemographic (e.g., age, sex, race, insurance) and clinical (e.g., grade, stage) factors. Non-Hispanic (NH) whites and Massachusetts were used as references for comparisons because they had the lowest uninsured rates.

RESULTS

In all registries combined, 66.4% of patients with early-stage NSCLC (73,475 of 110,711) received curative-intent surgery. Receipt of curative-intent surgery for early-stage NSCLC varied substantially by state, ranging from 52.2% to 56.1% in Wyoming, Louisiana, and New Mexico to 75.2% to 77.2% in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Utah. In a multivariable analysis, the likelihood of receiving curative-intent surgery was significantly lower in all but nine states/registries compared with Massachusetts, ranging from 7% lower in California to 25% lower in Wyoming. Receipt of curative-intent surgery for early-stage NSCLC was lower for NH blacks than for NH whites in every state, although statistically significant in Florida and Texas.

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of curative-intent surgery for early-stage NSCLC varies substantially across states in the United States, with northeastern states generally showing the highest rates. Further, receipt of treatment appeared to be lower in NH blacks than in NH whites in every state, although statistically significant in Florida and Texas.

Nationwide quality improvement in lung cancer care: the role of the Danish Lung Cancer Group and Registry

INTRODUCTION

To improve prognosis and quality of lung cancer care the Danish Lung Cancer Group has developed a strategy consisting of national clinical guidelines and a clinical quality and research database. The first edition of our guidelines was published in 1998 and our national lung cancer registry was opened for registrations in 2000. This article describes methods and results obtained by multidisciplinary collaboration and illustrates how quality of lung cancer care can be improved by establishing and monitoring result and process indicators.

METHODS

A wide range of indicators was established, validated, and monitored. By registration of all lung cancer patients since the year 2000, data on more than 40,000 patients have been included in the database. Results are reported periodically/quarterly and submitted to formal auditing on an annual basis.

RESULTS

Improvements in all outcome indicators are documented and statistically significant. Thus the 1-year overall survival rate has increased between 2003 and 2011 from 36.6% to 42.7%, the 2-year survival rate from 19.8% to 24.3%, and the 5-year survival rate from 9.8% to 12.1%. Five-year survival after surgical resection has increased from 39.5% to 48.1%. Improvements of waiting times, accordance between cTNM and pTNM, and resection rates are documented.

CONCLUSION

The Danish experience shows that a national quality management system including national guidelines, a database with high data quality, frequent reports, audit and commitment from all stakeholders can contribute to improve clinical practice, improve core results, and reduce regional differences.

Treatment of stage I and II non-small cell lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

The treatment of stage I and II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients with good or low surgical risk is primarily surgical resection. However, this area is undergoing many changes. With a greater prevalence of CT imaging, many lung cancers are being found that are small or constitute primarily ground-glass opacities. Treatment such as sublobar resection and nonsurgical approaches such as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) are being explored. With the advent of minimally invasive resections, the criteria to classify a patient as too ill to undergo an anatomic lung resection are being redefined.

METHODS

The writing panel selected topics for review based on clinical relevance to treatment of early-stage lung cancer and the amount and quality of data available for analysis and relative controversy on best approaches in stage I and II NSCLC: general surgical care vs specialist care; sublobar vs lobar surgical approaches to stage I lung cancer; video-assisted thoracic surgery vs open resection; mediastinal lymph node sampling vs lymphadenectomy at the time of surgical resection; the use of radiation therapy, with a focus on SBRT, for primary treatment of early-stage NSCLC in high-risk or medically inoperable patients as well as adjuvant radiation therapy in the sublobar and lobar resection settings; adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage NSCLC; and the impact of ethnicity, geography, and socioeconomic status on lung cancer survival. Recommendations by the writing committee were based on an evidence-based review of the literature and in accordance with the approach described by the Guidelines Oversight Committee of the American College of Chest Physicians.

RESULTS

Surgical resection remains the primary and preferred approach to the treatment of stage I and II NSCLC. Lobectomy or greater resection remains the preferred approach to T1b and larger tumors. The use of sublobar resection for T1a tumors and the application of adjuvant radiation therapy in this group are being actively studied in large clinical trials. Every patient should have systematic mediastinal lymph node sampling at the time of curative intent surgical resection, and mediastinal lymphadenectomy can be performed without increased morbidity. Perioperative morbidity and mortality are reduced and long-term survival is improved when surgical resection is performed by a board-certified thoracic surgeon. The use of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II NSCLC is recommended and has shown benefit. The use of adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy for stage I NSCLC is of unproven benefit. Primary radiation therapy remains the primary curative intent approach for patients who refuse surgical resection or are determined by a multidisciplinary team to be inoperable. There is growing evidence that SBRT provides greater local control than standard radiation therapy for high-risk and medically inoperable patients with NSCLC. The role of ablative therapies in the treatment of high-risk patients with stage I NSCLC is evolving. Radiofrequency ablation, the most studied of the ablative modalities, has been used effectively in medically inoperable patients with small (&lt; 3 cm) peripheral NSCLC that are clinical stage I.

The relationship between volume or surgeon specialty and outcome in the surgical treatment of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether improvement of quality of surgical cancer care can be achieved by centralizing care in high-volume specialized centers is a subject of ongoing debate. We have conducted a meta-analysis of the literature on the effect of procedural volume or surgeon specialty on outcome of lung resections for cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of articles published between January 1, 1990 and January 20, 2011 on the effects of surgeon specialty and hospital or surgeon volume of lung resections on mortality and survival was conducted. After strict inclusion, meta-analysis assuming a random-effects model was performed. Meta-regression was used to identify volume cutoff values. Heterogeneity and the risk of publication bias were evaluated.

RESULTS

Nineteen relevant studies were found. Studies were heterogeneous, especially in defining volume categories. The pooled estimated effect size was significant in favor of high-volume hospitals regarding postoperative mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.71; confidence interval 0.62-0.81), but not for survival (OR 0.93; confidence interval 0.84-1.03). Surgeon volume showed no significant effect on outcome. General surgeons had significantly higher mortality risks than general thoracic (OR 0.78; 0.70-0.88) or cardiothoracic surgeons (OR 0.82; 0.69-0.96). A minimal annual volume of resections for lung cancer could not be identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital volume and surgeon specialty are important determinants of outcome in lung cancer resections, but evidence-based minimal-volume standards are lacking. Evaluation of individual institutions in a national audit program might help elucidate the influence of individual quality-of-care parameters, including hospital volume, on outcome.

Variation in treatment and outcome in patients with non-small cell lung cancer by region, hospital type and volume in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Care processes for patients with NSCLC can vary by provider, which may lead to unwanted variation in outcomes. Therefore, in modern health care an increased focus on guideline development and implementation is seen. It is expected that more guideline adherence leads to a higher number of patients receiving optimal treatment for their cancer which could improve overall survival.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate variations in treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with NSCLC treated in different (types of) hospitals and regions in the Netherlands. Especially, variation in the percentage of patients receiving the optimal treatment for the stage of their disease, according to the Dutch national guideline of 2004, was analyzed.

METHODS

All patients with a histological confirmed primary NSCLC diagnosed in the period 2001-2006 in all Dutch hospitals (N = 97) were selected from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Hospitals were divided in groups based on their region (N = 9), annual volume of NSCLC patients, teaching status and presence of radiotherapy facilities. Stage-specific differences in optimal treatment rates between (groups of) hospitals and regions were evaluated.

RESULTS

In the study period 43 544 patients were diagnosed with NSCLC. The resection rates for stage I/II NSCLC patients increased during the study period, but resection rates varied by region and were higher in teaching hospitals for thoracic surgeons (OR 1.5; 95%CI 1.2-1.9, p = 0.001) and in hospitals with a diagnostic volume of more than 50/year (OR 1.3; 95%CI 1.1-1.5, p = 0.001). Also the use of chemoradiation in stage III patients increased, though marked differences between hospitals in the use of chemoradiation for stage III patients were revealed. Differences in optimal treatment rates between hospitals led to differences in survival.

CONCLUSION

Treatment patterns and outcome of NSCLC patients in the Netherlands varied by region and the hospital their cancer was diagnosed in. Though resection rates were higher in hospitals training thoracic surgeons, variation between individual hospitals was much more distinct. Hospital characteristics like a high diagnostic volume, teaching status or availability of radiotherapy facilities proved no guarantee for optimal treatment rates.