Search

The accurate diagnosis of mesothelioma is critical for the appropriate clinical management of this cancer. Many issues complicate making the diagnosis of mesothelioma including the presence of reactive mesothelial cells in benign pleural effusions, the heterogeneity of mesothelioma histopathology, the relatively high incidence of other epithelial malignancies that metastasize to the pleura, and primary sarcomas that arise within the pleura. Given the rapidly evolving field of molecular profiling and the need for translational correlates in mesothelioma clinical trials, the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer-Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation Clinical Trials Planning Meeting was convened in March 2017 to develop a consensus on standard pathology guidelines for future NCI-sponsored clinical trials in mesothelioma. This consensus statement covers recommendations for specimen handling, pathologic classification and diagnosis, biobanking, and tissue correlative studies.

Introduction To maximize the benefits of computed tomographic screening for lung cancer, optimal treatment for small, early lung cancers is needed. Limiting the extent of surgery spares lung tissue, preserves pulmonary function, and decreases operative time, complications, and morbidities. It also increases the likelihood of resecting future new primary lung cancers. The goal is to assess alternative treatments in a timely manner. Methods The focus sessions with patients and physicians separately highlighted the need to consider their perceptions. Literature reviews and analyses of treatment results using large databases were performed to formulate critical questions about long-term treatment outcomes, recurrence, and quality of life of alternative treatments. Based on these analyses, the investigators developed a prospective multi-institutional cohort study, the Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research for Treatment, to compare treatments for stage I NSCLC. HIPAA compliant institutional review board approval was obtained and we performed a feasibility study of the first 206 surgical patients. Results Lobectomy was performed in 89 (43.2%) patients, and sublobar resection was performed in 117 (56.7%) patients. Mediastinal lymph node resection was performed in 173 (84.0%) patients, 8 had N1 and 3 N2 lymph node metastases. Patients stated that both the surgeon's opinion (93%) and the patient's own opinion (93%) were extremely important, followed by the patients' view that the chosen procedure would provide the best quality of life (90%). Conclusions It was feasible to obtain pre- and postsurgical information from patients and surgeons. We anticipate statistically meaningful results about treatment alternatives in 3 to 5 years.

Introduction: Patients with lung cancer (LC) were reported to have a high case fatality rate (30-40%) from SARS-CoV-2 infection, raising the question of whether LC patients mount a weaker antibody response to natural infection and/or vaccination, compared to healthy controls (HCs). We previously analyzed antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in several hundred healthy individuals, stratified by previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status. Using a validated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to the full-length spike protein (PMC8183627, PMC7235504), we found strong responses to infection and a robust neutralizing antibody response to vaccination. We compare these results to data from individuals diagnosed with LC undergoing different types of cancer treatment. Methods: This is an ongoing, prospective, control-matched longitudinal cohort study of 750 LC patients in all stages with or without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or vaccination, comparing SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers at baseline (time of enrollment) and at 3-, 6-, 12- and 24-month intervals. We examine the quality, magnitude, and duration of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers against the full-length spike protein compared to the matched (age, tobacco history, sex and ethnicity) HC cohort. Types of Analysis and Data Reporting: ELISAs are performed in a CLIA-certified laboratory using an FDA-approved antibody assay along with other well-established, research-grade assays. We hypothesized that LC patients have a weaker antibody response to SARS-Cov-2 infection and/or vaccination due to cancer or its treatment compared to matched HCs. The non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test was used to test this hypothesis. If confirmed, a tailored vaccination program would be necessary to ensure immune protection in patient with LC. Results: 111 LC patients have been enrolled to date;with 78 receiving at least one vaccination and 33 unvaccinated. Median age is 69, with 58% female. 39 patients were fully vaccinated (defined as 14+ days after second vaccination). Partially vaccinated (after 1st vaccine dose) LC patients had a lower median antibody level than partially vaccinated HCs (p=0.01). Fully vaccinated LC patients had substantial antibody titers but a lower median antibody level than fully vaccinated HCs (p=0.01) with a subset not raising large antibody titers. Especially important were the 30% of partially vaccinated LC patients who did not develop neutralizing antibodies. To date, there were no significant differences in median antibody levels in LC patients by gender, smoking status, age ( 65 years old), or treatment (with or without chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, or targeted therapy). Conclusion: While most (∼70%+) of LC patients mounted a good antibody response to vaccination, a subgroup had significantly lower anti-spike antibody/neutralizing levels compared to controls. Further studies are required to evaluate the role of further boost vaccinations in this patient population with a particular focus on patients not producing neutralizing antibodies to further understand the lack of response. We will continue to analyze the effect of systemic anti-cancer therapies as more data becomes available. Keywords: SARS-CoV-2, lung cancer, covid-19

Introduction Surgery is the treatment of choice for early-stage lung cancer (LC). Although lobectomy (L) is the historic standard treatment, the issue of whether long-term outcomes of sublobar resection (SL) are comparable is still under debate. The objective of this study was to perform a review of the literature on 5-year survival rates after SL compared to L for patients with early-stage LC. Methods A priori inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) observational studies, (2) L compared to SL for early-stage LC, (3) radiographic staging by computed tomography scan, and (4) 5-year survival reported. A Medline search through January 2015 resulted in 31 studies representing 23 distinct datasets. The absolute difference in 5-year survival was calculated and plotted for each study. Results L was performed in 4564 patients and SL in 2287 patients. Of 19 studies reporting the reason for SL, 11 indicated that SL was performed because of comorbidities or impaired cardiopulmonary function. Four studies showed no difference in 5-year survival, 13 favored L, and six favored SL. One propensity score study favored L and the other favored SL. Of 20 studies reporting recurrence rate, 11 favored L and nine favored SL. Conclusions Studies comparing 5-year survival rates of SL to L are sufficiently heterogeneous to prevent carrying out traditional meta-analysis. SL survival is often similar to L when adjustments are made for age, comorbidities, or impaired cardiopulmonary function. New approaches are needed for the comparison of L to SL.