Variations in lung cancer care and outcomes: How best to identify and improve standards of care?

The TSANZ and Lung Foundation Australia 2023 landscape survey of lung cancer care across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand

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.

International standards of care in thoracic oncology: A narrative review of clinical quality indicators

Unwarranted variations in lung cancer care are widely described. Clinical Quality Indicators (CQIs) enable the systematic identification and alleviation of variations in care and other evidence-practice gaps. The aim of this review was to describe and evaluate lung cancer CQIs utilised internationally, in order to provide a substrate for the development of Australasian lung cancer CQIs and future quality improvement initiatives. A literature search was performed to identify relevant publications; references were excluded if they did not explicitly define original lung cancer-specific quality indicators, or were review or opinion articles. Ultimately, 48 publications containing 661 individual CQIs were evaluated. Although almost all references were published in the last decade, CQIs did not always reflect contemporary standards of care. For example, there were just sixteen CQIs regarding biomarker profiling, eleven CQIs regarding multidisciplinary team review, and three clinical trial enrolment CQIs. Of 307 lung cancer treatment CQIs, almost half (137) pertain to surgical resection; a treatment option available to a minority of lung cancer patients. Consumer engagement during indicator development was uncommon. In conclusion, whilst CQIs are widely measured and reported, they are not always consistent with evidence-based practice, nor do they reliably support the holistic evaluation of the lung cancer care continuum. Moving forward, Australia and New Zealand must adopt a unified, evidence-based and patient-centred approach to drive meaningful improvements in practice.

Patterns of curative treatment for non-small cell lung cancer in New South Wales, Australia

INTRODUCTION

There is a lack of large population-based studies examining patterns of curative treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Australia. This study aimed to evaluate the utilization of curative treatment for NCSLC at a population level and identify factors associated with its use in New South Wales (NSW), Australia.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with localized or locoregional NSCLC between 2009 and 2014 were identified from the NSW Central Cancer Registry. Curative treatment was defined as surgery or radiotherapy with a 45 Gy minimum dose. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to investigate factors associated with the receipt of curative treatment. A Cox proportional-hazards regression model was used to analyze the factors associated with 2-year overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Of the 5722 patients diagnosed with NSCLC in the study period, 3355 (59%) patients received curative treatment and 2367 (41%) patients did not receive curative treatment. The receipt of curative treatment was significantly associated with younger patients, female gender, localized disease, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) = 0. The use of curative treatment increased significantly over time from 2009 (55%) to 2014 (63%) and varied significantly from 24% to 70% between local health districts (LHDs) of residence. Younger age, female gender, localized disease, CCI = 0, and overseas country of birth were significantly associated with 2-year OS. The 2-year OS significantly improved from 70% in 2009 to 77% in 2014 for patients who received curative treatment.

CONCLUSION

The use of curative treatment for patients with potentially curable NSCLC was low at 59%. However, the use of curative treatment and survival have increased over time. Significant variation was noted in the use of curative treatment between LHDs.

Contemporary Concise Review 2021: Pulmonary nodules from detection to intervention

The US Preventive Task Force (USPSTF) has updated screening criteria by expanding age range and reducing smoking history required for eligibility; the International Lung Screen Trial (ILST) data have shown that PLCOM2012 performs better for eligibility than USPSTF criteria. Screening adherence is low (4%-6% of potential eligible candidates in the United States) and depends upon multiple system and patient/candidate-related factors. Smoking cessation in lung cancer improves survival (past prospective trial data, updated meta-analysis data); smoking cessation is an essential component of lung cancer screening. Circulating biomarkers are emerging to optimize screening and early diagnosis. COVID-19 continues to affect lung cancer treatment and screening through delays and disruptions; specific operational challenges need to be met. Over 70% of suspected malignant lesions develop in the periphery of the lungs. Bronchoscopic navigational techniques have been steadily improving to allow greater accuracy with target lesion approximation and therefore diagnostic yield. Fibre-based imaging techniques provide real-time microscopic tumour visualization, with potential diagnostic benefits. With significant advances in peripheral lung cancer localization, bronchoscopically delivered ablative therapies are an emerging field in limited stage primary and oligometastatic disease. In advanced stage lung cancer, small-volume samples acquired through bronchoscopic techniques yield material of sufficient quantity and quality to support clinically relevant biomarker assessment.

Hospital-based multidisciplinary lung cancer care in Australia: a survey of the landscape in 2021

Introduction

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in Australia and has the highest cancer burden. Numerous reports describe variations in lung cancer care and outcomes across Australia. There are no data assessing compliance with treatment guidelines and little is known about lung cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) infrastructure around Australia.

Methods

Clinicians from institutions treating lung cancer were invited to complete an online survey regarding the local infrastructure for lung cancer care and contemporary issues affecting lung cancer.

Results

Responses from 79 separate institutions were obtained representing 72% of all known institutions treating lung cancer in Australia. Most (93.6%) held a regular MDT meeting although recommended core membership was only achieved for 42/73 (57.5%) sites. There was no thoracic surgery representation in 17/73 (23.3%) of MDTs and surgery was less represented in regional and low case volume centres. Specialist nurses were present in just 37/79 (46.8%) of all sites. Access to diagnostic and treatment facilities was limited for some institutions. IT infrastructure was variable and most sites (69%) do not perform regular audits against guidelines. The COVID-19 pandemic has driven most sites to incorporate virtual MDT meetings, with variable impact around the country. Clinician support for a national data-driven approach to improving lung cancer care was unanimous.

Discussion

This survey demonstrates variations in infrastructure support, provision and membership of lung cancer MDTs, in particular thoracic surgery and specialist lung cancer nurses. This heterogeneity may contribute to some of the well-documented variations in lung cancer outcomes in Australia.