Search Results

Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States and is projected to account for 127,070 deaths in 2023. Although the lung cancer mortality rate has been decreasing over the last decade, demographic disparities in mortality still exist. We sought to determine the impact of demographic factors on lung cancer mortality and trends in the United States. Patients and Methods: We queried the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) database for mortality statistics with an underlying cause of death of lung and bronchus cancer from 1999 through 2020. Age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMR) were calculated per 100,000 people. We assessed the AAMR by demographic variables, including race, geographic density, sex, age, and US census region. Temporal trends were evaluated using Joinpoint regression software, and average annual percent change (APC) was calculated. Results: From 1999 through 2020, lung cancer led to 3,380,830 deaths. The AAMR decreased by 55.1 to 31.8, with an associated average APC of −2.6%. In 1999, men had an AAMR almost twice as high as women, but these differences became less pronounced over time. Rural populations experienced the highest AAMR and the slowest rate of decrease compared with urban populations, who experienced the lowest AAMR and fastest decrease. Non-Hispanic Black individuals experienced the highest AAMR, with an annual decrease of −3.0%. The West experienced the fastest decrease at −3.1% annually, whereas the Midwest experienced the slowest decrease at −2.0% annually. Conclusions: Although the mortality rate of lung cancer has been decreasing since 1999, not all demographic groups have experienced the same rates of decrease, and disparities in outcomes are still prevalent. Vulnerable subgroups need targeted interventions, such as the incorporation of patient navigators, improved screening chest CT scan access and follow-up, and telehealth expansion, which will improve the likelihood of earlier-stage diagnoses and the potential for curative treatments.

Purpose: National guidelines do not include routine pGCSF as primary prophylaxis (PP) for patients receiving chemotherapy associated with a low risk for febrile neutropenia (FN). Inappropriate pGCSF can increase patient morbidity, financial burden, and overall health care costs. In 2013, an interdisciplinary group at TCI implemented a QI project to reduce inappropriate PP pGCSF in patients with lung cancer; this included prescriber education and modification of chemotherapy orders by risk of FN in the electronic medical record (EMR). Inappropriate pGCSF was reduced from 28% to 4%. In this 5-year follow up study we analyzed pGCSF use in lung cancer patients. Methods: We conducted a review of lung cancer patients who received pGCSF with chemotherapy initiated between January 2016 and August 2018. PP pGCSF use was appropriate if prescribed with chemotherapy regimens with a high risk (>20%) for FN, or intermediate risk (10%–20%) if other accepted FN risk factors were present. PP use with FN low-risk (<10%) chemotherapy was considered inappropriate. Treating physicians were anonymously surveyed about their practices. Results: 294 patients with lung cancer received 1,353 doses of pGCSF during the study period. 58 (20%) were treated at TCI by subspecialty thoracic oncologists and 236 (80%) were treated at regional network sites. 100/294 (34%) patients received low-risk regimens. 62/100 (62%) patients treated with low-risk regimens received 311 doses of PP pGCSF (inappropriate use). 5/62 (8%) of inappropriate use occurred at TCI; 57/62 (92%) at network sites. Of 130 patients who received an intermediate risk regimen, 99 (76%) received PP pGCSF. At least one risk factor for FN was identified in 80/99 (80%) of these patients; age >65 and prior chemotherapy or radiation were the top-cited factors. 33/294 (11%) patients were hospitalized for FN during the study period; 7/100 (7%) received low-risk regimens, 15/130 (11.5%) intermediate-risk, and 11/46 (24%) high-risk regimens. All physicians responding to the survey indicated awareness of guidelines and EMR risk identification. Conclusion: After initial success at our center, we found that guideline-based alignment of pGCSF prescribing in lung cancer patients was not sustained. Despite reported familiarity with guidelines for PP pGCSF use, this analysis suggests an opportunity for re-education and further EMR modification. Based on July 2018 CMS average sales price, reduction in inappropriate use presents a potential cost savings of $1.5 million during the study.

These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates in the 2016 NCCN Guidelines for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC; Versions 1–4). These NCCN Guidelines Insights will discuss new immunotherapeutic agents, such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab, for patients with metastatic NSCLC. For the 2016 update, the NCCN panel recommends immune checkpoint inhibitors as preferred agents (in the absence of contraindications) for second-line and beyond (subsequent) therapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC (both squamous and nonsquamous histologies). Nivolumab and pembrolizumab are preferred based on improved overall survival rates, higher response rates, longer duration of response, and fewer adverse events when compared with docetaxel therapy.

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) focuses on targeted therapies and immunotherapies for metastatic NSCLC, because therapeutic recommendations are rapidly changing for metastatic disease. For example, new recommendations were added for atezolizumab, ceritinib, osimertinib, and pembrolizumab for the 2017 updates.

The NCCN Guidelines for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) address all aspects of management for NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the targeted therapy and immunotherapy sections in the NCCN Guidelines. For the 2018 update, a new section on biomarkers was added.

These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM). These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss systemic therapy regimens and surgical controversies for MPM. The NCCN panel recommends cisplatin/pemetrexed (category 1) for patients with MPM. The NCCN panel also now recommends bevacizumab/cisplatin/pemetrexed as a first-line therapy option for patients with unresectable MPM who are candidates for bevacizumab. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for MPM, available at NCCN.org, addresses all aspects of management for MPM including diagnosis, evaluation, staging, treatment, surveillance, and therapy for recurrence and metastasis; NCCN Guidelines are intended to assist with clinical decision-making.

The NCCN Guidelines for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) provide recommendations for management of disease in patients with NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on neoadjuvant and adjuvant (also known as perioperative) systemic therapy options for eligible patients with resectable NSCLC.

NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) provide recommended management for patients with NSCLC, including diagnosis, primary treatment, surveillance for relapse, and subsequent treatment. Patients with metastatic lung cancer who are eligible for targeted therapies or immunotherapies are now surviving longer. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for NSCLC focuses on targeted therapies for patients with metastatic NSCLC and actionable mutations.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) address all aspects of management for NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines regarding targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and their respective biomarkers.