Faculty Bibliography

RATIONALE:Smoking cessation counseling in conjunction with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening is recommended in multiple clinical practice guidelines. The best approach for integrating effective smoking cessation interventions within this setting is unknown. OBJECTIVES:To summarize evidence, identify research gaps, prioritize topics for future research, and propose standardized tools for use in conducting research on smoking cessation interventions within the LDCT lung cancer screening setting. METHODS:The American Thoracic Society convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in tobacco dependence treatment and/or LDCT screening. During an in-person meeting, evidence was reviewed, research gaps were identified, and key questions were generated for each of three research domains: (1) target population to study; (2) adaptation, development, and testing of interventions; and (3) implementation of interventions with demonstrated efficacy. We also identified standardized measures for use in conducting this research. A larger stakeholder panel then ranked research questions by perceived importance in an online survey. Final prioritization was generated hierarchically on the basis of average rank assigned. RESULTS:There was little consensus on which questions within the population domain were of highest priority. Within the intervention domain, research to evaluate the effectiveness in the lung cancer screening setting of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions shown to be effective in other contexts was ranked highest. In the implementation domain, stakeholders prioritized understanding strategies to identify and overcome barriers to integrating smoking cessation in lung cancer screening settings. CONCLUSIONS:This statement offers an agenda to stimulate research surrounding the integration and implementation of smoking cessation interventions with LDCT lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND:Molecular biomarkers have the potential to improve the current state of early lung cancer detection. The goal of this project was to develop a policy statement that provides guidance about the level of evidence required to determine that a molecular biomarker, used to support early lung cancer detection, is appropriate for clinical use. METHODS:An ad hoc project steering committee was formed, to include individuals with expertise in the early detection of lung cancer and molecular biomarker development, from inside and outside of the Assembly on Thoracic Oncology. Key questions, generated from the results of a survey of the project steering committee, were discussed at an in-person meeting. Results of the discussion were summarized in a policy statement that was circulated to the steering committee and revised multiple times to achieve consensus. RESULTS:With a focus on the clinical applications of lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation, the policy statement outlines categories of results that should be reported in the early phases of molecular biomarker development, discusses the level of evidence that would support study of the clinical utility, describes the outcomes that should be proven to consider a molecular biomarker clinically useful, and suggests study designs capable of assessing these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:The application of molecular biomarkers to assist with the early detection of lung cancer has the potential to substantially improve our ability to select patients for lung cancer screening, and to assist with the characterization of indeterminate lung nodules. We have described relevant considerations and have suggested standards to apply when determining whether a molecular biomarker for the early detection of lung cancer is ready for clinical use.

BACKGROUND:The annual incidence of pulmonary nodules is estimated at 1.57 million. Guidelines recommend using an initial assessment of nodule probability of malignancy (pCA). A previous study found that despite this recommendation, physicians did not follow guidelines. METHODS:Physician assessments (N = 337) and two previously validated risk model assessments of pretest probability of cancer were evaluated for performance in 337 patients with pulmonary nodules based on final diagnosis and compared. Physician-assessed pCA was categorized into low, intermediate, and high risk, and the next test ordered was evaluated. RESULTS:The prevalence of malignancy was 47% (n = 158) at 1 year. Physician-assessed pCA performed better than nodule prediction calculators (area under the curve, 0.85 vs 0.75; P < .001 and .78; P = .0001). Physicians did not follow indicated guidelines when selecting the next test in 61% of cases (n = 205). Despite recommendations for serial CT imaging in those with low pCA, 52% (n = 13) were managed more aggressively with PET imaging or biopsy; 12% (n = 3) underwent biopsy procedures for benign disease. Alternatively, in the high-risk category, the majority (n = 103 [75%]) were managed more conservatively. Stratified by diagnosis, 92% (n = 22) with benign disease underwent more conservative management with CT imaging (20%), PET scanning (15%), or biopsy (8%), although three had surgery (8%). CONCLUSIONS:Physician assessment as a means for predicting malignancy in pulmonary nodules is more accurate than previously validated nodule prediction calculators. Despite the accuracy of clinical intuition, physicians did not follow guideline-based recommendations when selecting the next diagnostic test. To provide optimal patient care, focus in the areas of guideline refinement, implementation, and dissemination is needed.

AIM/OBJECTIVE:We compared three statistical methods in selecting a panel of serum lipid biomarkers for mesothelioma and asbestos exposure. MATERIALS & METHODS/METHODS:Serum samples from mesothelioma, asbestos-exposed subjects and controls (40 per group) were analyzed. Three variable selection methods were considered: top-ranked predictors from univariate model, stepwise and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator. Crossed-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to compare the prediction performance. RESULTS:Lipids with high crossed-validated area under the curve were identified. Lipid with mass-to-charge ratio of 372.31 was selected by all three methods comparing mesothelioma versus control. Lipids with mass-to-charge ratio of 1464.80 and 329.21 were selected by two models for asbestos exposure versus control. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Different methods selected a similar set of serum lipids. Combining candidate biomarkers can improve prediction.

Cancer treatment decisions are complex and may be challenging for patients, as multiple treatment options can often be reasonably considered. As a result, decisional support tools have been developed to assist patients in the decision-making process. A commonly used intervention to facilitate shared decision-making is a decision aid, which provides evidence-based outcomes information and guides patients towards choosing the treatment option that best aligns with their preferences and values. To ensure high quality, systematic frameworks and standards have been proposed for the development of an optimal aid for decision making. Studies have examined the impact of these tools on facilitating treatment decisions and improving decision-related outcomes. In radiation oncology, randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that decision aids have the potential to improve patient outcomes, including increased knowledge about treatment options and decreased decisional conflict with decision-making. This article provides an overview of the shared-decision making process and summarizes the development, validation, and implementation of decision aids as patient educational tools in radiation oncology. Finally, this article reviews the findings from decision aid studies in radiation oncology and offers various strategies to effectively implement shared decision-making into clinical practice.

The past century has witnessed a transformative shift in lung cancer from a rare reportable disease to the leading cause of cancer death among men and women worldwide. This historic shift reflects the increase in tobacco consumption worldwide, spurring public health efforts over the past several decades directed at tobacco cessation and control. Although most lung cancers are still diagnosed at a late stage, there have been significant advances in screening high-risk smokers, diagnostic modalities, and chemopreventive approaches. Improvements in surgery and radiation are advancing our ability to manage early-stage disease, particularly among patients considered unfit for traditional open resection. Arguably, the most dramatic progress has occurred on the therapeutic side, with the development of targeted and immune-based therapy over the past decade. This article reviews the major shifts in the lung cancer landscape over the past 100 years. Although many ongoing clinical challenges remain, this review will also highlight emerging molecular and imaging-based approaches that represent opportunities to transform the prevention, early detection, and treatment of lung cancer in the years ahead.