Lung Cancer

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) and lung cancer (LC) are the most common cancers among men, accounting for almost 50% of all cancer cases each year in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).

Purpose: The objectives of this analysis were to evaluate characteristics and trends in prostate and lung cancer incidence and survival (both overall and cancerspecific) among veterans receiving care in the VHA.

Methods: Data were obtained from the VA Central Cancer Registry for patients diagnosed with prostate or lung cancer. Vital status was obtained from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse and cause of death from the National Death Index. Age-adjusted incidence rates were calculated for patients diagnosed 2005-2014. Rates were based on U.S. 2010 adult population estimates and VHA user population in each fiscal year. All incidence rates are per 100,000 person-years. Fiveyear survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method for patients diagnosed 2002-2012.

Results: For PCa, the age-adjusted incidence 2005- 2014 was 133, with an overall decrease ranging from 161 in 2007 to 94 in 2014. The median age at PCa diagnosis was 65 years, and approximately 86% of patients were diagnosed with clinical stage I/II disease. Five-year overall and PCa-specific survival were 80% and 95%, respectively. Between 2002-2012, overall survival increased from 74% to 82% and PCa-specific survival increased slightly from 93.1% to 94.4%. For LC, the age-adjusted incidence 2005-2014 was 77, with an overall decrease ranging from 88 in 2009 to 62 in 2014. Among males, incidence was 78 and median age at diagnosis was 68 years; corresponding incidence and age among females was 55 and 62 years. Five-year overall survival improved from 10% for 2002 diagnoses to 15% for 2012 diagnoses; similarly, LC-specific survival increased from 16% to 35% during this time.

Implications: Incidence and survival rates for lung and prostate cancer have improved over time in both in VHA, as well as non-veteran specific populations such as the SEER cancer registry, mostly due to advances in cancer detection and treatment options. Evaluating trends and patterns of care can help inform the increasing demand for high-quality cancer care in the VA healthcare system.

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) and lung cancer (LC) are the most common cancers among men, accounting for almost 50% of all cancer cases each year in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).

Purpose: The objectives of this analysis were to evaluate characteristics and trends in prostate and lung cancer incidence and survival (both overall and cancerspecific) among veterans receiving care in the VHA.

Methods: Data were obtained from the VA Central Cancer Registry for patients diagnosed with prostate or lung cancer. Vital status was obtained from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse and cause of death from the National Death Index. Age-adjusted incidence rates were calculated for patients diagnosed 2005-2014. Rates were based on U.S. 2010 adult population estimates and VHA user population in each fiscal year. All incidence rates are per 100,000 person-years. Fiveyear survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method for patients diagnosed 2002-2012.

Results: For PCa, the age-adjusted incidence 2005- 2014 was 133, with an overall decrease ranging from 161 in 2007 to 94 in 2014. The median age at PCa diagnosis was 65 years, and approximately 86% of patients were diagnosed with clinical stage I/II disease. Five-year overall and PCa-specific survival were 80% and 95%, respectively. Between 2002-2012, overall survival increased from 74% to 82% and PCa-specific survival increased slightly from 93.1% to 94.4%. For LC, the age-adjusted incidence 2005-2014 was 77, with an overall decrease ranging from 88 in 2009 to 62 in 2014. Among males, incidence was 78 and median age at diagnosis was 68 years; corresponding incidence and age among females was 55 and 62 years. Five-year overall survival improved from 10% for 2002 diagnoses to 15% for 2012 diagnoses; similarly, LC-specific survival increased from 16% to 35% during this time.

Implications: Incidence and survival rates for lung and prostate cancer have improved over time in both in VHA, as well as non-veteran specific populations such as the SEER cancer registry, mostly due to advances in cancer detection and treatment options. Evaluating trends and patterns of care can help inform the increasing demand for high-quality cancer care in the VA healthcare system.

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) and lung cancer (LC) are the most common cancers among men, accounting for almost 50% of all cancer cases each year in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).

Purpose: The objectives of this analysis were to evaluate characteristics and trends in prostate and lung cancer incidence and survival (both overall and cancerspecific) among veterans receiving care in the VHA.

Methods: Data were obtained from the VA Central Cancer Registry for patients diagnosed with prostate or lung cancer. Vital status was obtained from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse and cause of death from the National Death Index. Age-adjusted incidence rates were calculated for patients diagnosed 2005-2014. Rates were based on U.S. 2010 adult population estimates and VHA user population in each fiscal year. All incidence rates are per 100,000 person-years. Fiveyear survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method for patients diagnosed 2002-2012.

Results: For PCa, the age-adjusted incidence 2005- 2014 was 133, with an overall decrease ranging from 161 in 2007 to 94 in 2014. The median age at PCa diagnosis was 65 years, and approximately 86% of patients were diagnosed with clinical stage I/II disease. Five-year overall and PCa-specific survival were 80% and 95%, respectively. Between 2002-2012, overall survival increased from 74% to 82% and PCa-specific survival increased slightly from 93.1% to 94.4%. For LC, the age-adjusted incidence 2005-2014 was 77, with an overall decrease ranging from 88 in 2009 to 62 in 2014. Among males, incidence was 78 and median age at diagnosis was 68 years; corresponding incidence and age among females was 55 and 62 years. Five-year overall survival improved from 10% for 2002 diagnoses to 15% for 2012 diagnoses; similarly, LC-specific survival increased from 16% to 35% during this time.

Implications: Incidence and survival rates for lung and prostate cancer have improved over time in both in VHA, as well as non-veteran specific populations such as the SEER cancer registry, mostly due to advances in cancer detection and treatment options. Evaluating trends and patterns of care can help inform the increasing demand for high-quality cancer care in the VA healthcare system.

Background: Durvalumab is a category 1 recommendation per National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for patients with unresectable Stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy (CRT). Evidence-based guidelines provide guidance to providers and can improve patient survival across several cancer types. Concordance rates with guidelines have been variable across health institutions. We aim to study the adherence and identify barriers to concordance with Durvalumab usage at our center (Plan).

Methods: This is a retrospective analysis using a QI framework to develop potential process changes for guidelines concordance. All veterans with newly diagnosed stage III unresectable NSCLC seen at the Birmingham VA from October 2017 to the present were reviewed. (Do) Data including demographics, dates of diagnosis and CRT completion, Durvalumab usage and reasons for not prescribing durvalumab were collected.

Results: Forty-two patients with stage III lung cancer were identified between October 2017 and April 2019. Thirty-five patients were evaluable. Twenty out of these patients received concurrent CRT. While 50% of eligible patients (those that had CRT) received Durvalumab only 28% percent of the initial cohort with stage III lung cancer got the therapy. Of the ten eligible patients that did not receive the drug, reasons cited included intolerance to CRT, progression on CRT and refusal by patient. One patient did not have a clearly documented reason for not receiving Durvalumab (Study).

Conclusion: Twenty-eight percent of all stage III lung cancer patients received Durvalumab. However, when looking at patients that completed CRT, usage improved to fifty percent. This discordancy with guidelines is likely explained by the difference between clinical trial populations and real-world populations, though we will work on more aggressive consideration of upfront CRT vs sequential therapy to improve eligibility (Act). In most cases, the reason for the patients not receiving concordant therapy was the listed performance status. Only one patient did not have clear documentation as to why Durvalumab was not given. Our next PDSA cycle will include measures to study reasons for low concordance with focus on patient and system level barriers.

Background: Durvalumab is a category 1 recommendation per National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for patients with unresectable Stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy (CRT). Evidence-based guidelines provide guidance to providers and can improve patient survival across several cancer types. Concordance rates with guidelines have been variable across health institutions. We aim to study the adherence and identify barriers to concordance with Durvalumab usage at our center (Plan).

Methods: This is a retrospective analysis using a QI framework to develop potential process changes for guidelines concordance. All veterans with newly diagnosed stage III unresectable NSCLC seen at the Birmingham VA from October 2017 to the present were reviewed. (Do) Data including demographics, dates of diagnosis and CRT completion, Durvalumab usage and reasons for not prescribing durvalumab were collected.

Results: Forty-two patients with stage III lung cancer were identified between October 2017 and April 2019. Thirty-five patients were evaluable. Twenty out of these patients received concurrent CRT. While 50% of eligible patients (those that had CRT) received Durvalumab only 28% percent of the initial cohort with stage III lung cancer got the therapy. Of the ten eligible patients that did not receive the drug, reasons cited included intolerance to CRT, progression on CRT and refusal by patient. One patient did not have a clearly documented reason for not receiving Durvalumab (Study).

Conclusion: Twenty-eight percent of all stage III lung cancer patients received Durvalumab. However, when looking at patients that completed CRT, usage improved to fifty percent. This discordancy with guidelines is likely explained by the difference between clinical trial populations and real-world populations, though we will work on more aggressive consideration of upfront CRT vs sequential therapy to improve eligibility (Act). In most cases, the reason for the patients not receiving concordant therapy was the listed performance status. Only one patient did not have clear documentation as to why Durvalumab was not given. Our next PDSA cycle will include measures to study reasons for low concordance with focus on patient and system level barriers.

Background: Durvalumab is a category 1 recommendation per National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for patients with unresectable Stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy (CRT). Evidence-based guidelines provide guidance to providers and can improve patient survival across several cancer types. Concordance rates with guidelines have been variable across health institutions. We aim to study the adherence and identify barriers to concordance with Durvalumab usage at our center (Plan).

Methods: This is a retrospective analysis using a QI framework to develop potential process changes for guidelines concordance. All veterans with newly diagnosed stage III unresectable NSCLC seen at the Birmingham VA from October 2017 to the present were reviewed. (Do) Data including demographics, dates of diagnosis and CRT completion, Durvalumab usage and reasons for not prescribing durvalumab were collected.

Results: Forty-two patients with stage III lung cancer were identified between October 2017 and April 2019. Thirty-five patients were evaluable. Twenty out of these patients received concurrent CRT. While 50% of eligible patients (those that had CRT) received Durvalumab only 28% percent of the initial cohort with stage III lung cancer got the therapy. Of the ten eligible patients that did not receive the drug, reasons cited included intolerance to CRT, progression on CRT and refusal by patient. One patient did not have a clearly documented reason for not receiving Durvalumab (Study).

Conclusion: Twenty-eight percent of all stage III lung cancer patients received Durvalumab. However, when looking at patients that completed CRT, usage improved to fifty percent. This discordancy with guidelines is likely explained by the difference between clinical trial populations and real-world populations, though we will work on more aggressive consideration of upfront CRT vs sequential therapy to improve eligibility (Act). In most cases, the reason for the patients not receiving concordant therapy was the listed performance status. Only one patient did not have clear documentation as to why Durvalumab was not given. Our next PDSA cycle will include measures to study reasons for low concordance with focus on patient and system level barriers.

Purpose: Approximately 10% of patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are managed without definitive therapy. We therefore investigated whether this rate is similar among veterans cared for by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and explored the outcomes and factors associated with under- utilization of these standard of care management strategies.

Methods: The Veterans Affairs (VA) Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) was queried for all patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2003 and 2016. Receipt of definitive therapy was determined using VHA cancer registry data, CPT codes and ICD-9/ICD-10 procedure codes within a year after diagnosis. We also captured receipt of chemotherapy as the primary course of treatment, whenever this was the case. Vital status data were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results: A total of 19,971 veterans were diagnosed with biopsy-proven clinical stage I NSCLC. The primary treatment for 13,080 (65.5%), 4,889 (24.5%), and 2,002 (10.0%) patients was surgery, RT, or no documented surgery or RT, respectively. The 5-year overall survival for these 3 groups was 53.1%, 19.7%, and 8.9%, respectively. The proportion of patients without documentation of definitive therapy was highest in 2004 at 16.9%, decreasing to 6.3% by 2016. Patients treated at a VA medical center with an on-site radiation oncology service were more likely to receive definitive therapy (chi-square P<0.01). However, this difference was driven by higher utilization of surgery instead of radiation therapy. Among patients without documentation of definitive therapy, 17.4% received systemic chemotherapy as their first reported treatment course.

Conclusion: The proportion of patients without documentation of definitive surgery or RT was similar to previous publications. The rate of no definitive therapy has declined by more than 50% over the past decade, and is coincident with the increased availability of onsite radiotherapy services, as well as minimally invasive thoracic surgery and stereotactic radiotherapy within and outside the VHA. Future investigations of this dataset are likely to increase our understanding about the reasons for treatment delay or avoidance, and its consequences for patients with a highly curable stage I NSCLC.

Purpose: Approximately 10% of patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are managed without definitive therapy. We therefore investigated whether this rate is similar among veterans cared for by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and explored the outcomes and factors associated with under- utilization of these standard of care management strategies.

Methods: The Veterans Affairs (VA) Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) was queried for all patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2003 and 2016. Receipt of definitive therapy was determined using VHA cancer registry data, CPT codes and ICD-9/ICD-10 procedure codes within a year after diagnosis. We also captured receipt of chemotherapy as the primary course of treatment, whenever this was the case. Vital status data were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results: A total of 19,971 veterans were diagnosed with biopsy-proven clinical stage I NSCLC. The primary treatment for 13,080 (65.5%), 4,889 (24.5%), and 2,002 (10.0%) patients was surgery, RT, or no documented surgery or RT, respectively. The 5-year overall survival for these 3 groups was 53.1%, 19.7%, and 8.9%, respectively. The proportion of patients without documentation of definitive therapy was highest in 2004 at 16.9%, decreasing to 6.3% by 2016. Patients treated at a VA medical center with an on-site radiation oncology service were more likely to receive definitive therapy (chi-square P<0.01). However, this difference was driven by higher utilization of surgery instead of radiation therapy. Among patients without documentation of definitive therapy, 17.4% received systemic chemotherapy as their first reported treatment course.

Conclusion: The proportion of patients without documentation of definitive surgery or RT was similar to previous publications. The rate of no definitive therapy has declined by more than 50% over the past decade, and is coincident with the increased availability of onsite radiotherapy services, as well as minimally invasive thoracic surgery and stereotactic radiotherapy within and outside the VHA. Future investigations of this dataset are likely to increase our understanding about the reasons for treatment delay or avoidance, and its consequences for patients with a highly curable stage I NSCLC.

Purpose: Approximately 10% of patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are managed without definitive therapy. We therefore investigated whether this rate is similar among veterans cared for by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and explored the outcomes and factors associated with under- utilization of these standard of care management strategies.

Methods: The Veterans Affairs (VA) Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) was queried for all patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2003 and 2016. Receipt of definitive therapy was determined using VHA cancer registry data, CPT codes and ICD-9/ICD-10 procedure codes within a year after diagnosis. We also captured receipt of chemotherapy as the primary course of treatment, whenever this was the case. Vital status data were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results: A total of 19,971 veterans were diagnosed with biopsy-proven clinical stage I NSCLC. The primary treatment for 13,080 (65.5%), 4,889 (24.5%), and 2,002 (10.0%) patients was surgery, RT, or no documented surgery or RT, respectively. The 5-year overall survival for these 3 groups was 53.1%, 19.7%, and 8.9%, respectively. The proportion of patients without documentation of definitive therapy was highest in 2004 at 16.9%, decreasing to 6.3% by 2016. Patients treated at a VA medical center with an on-site radiation oncology service were more likely to receive definitive therapy (chi-square P<0.01). However, this difference was driven by higher utilization of surgery instead of radiation therapy. Among patients without documentation of definitive therapy, 17.4% received systemic chemotherapy as their first reported treatment course.

Conclusion: The proportion of patients without documentation of definitive surgery or RT was similar to previous publications. The rate of no definitive therapy has declined by more than 50% over the past decade, and is coincident with the increased availability of onsite radiotherapy services, as well as minimally invasive thoracic surgery and stereotactic radiotherapy within and outside the VHA. Future investigations of this dataset are likely to increase our understanding about the reasons for treatment delay or avoidance, and its consequences for patients with a highly curable stage I NSCLC.

Background: In the US, Lung cancer is the second most common malignancy, but the most common cause of cancer deaths. In 2010, the National Lung Screening Trial described a 20.3% reduction in lung cancer mortality in high-risk patients screened by low-dose spiral CT (LDCT). In 2012, multiple groups established screening guidelines. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommended yearly screening for patients aged 55 to 75 years, ≥30 packyears of smoking, or smoking cessation within 15 years. In late 2013, LDCT screening for lung cancer was initiated at the Providence VA Medical Center. It was anticipated that over time there would be a rise in early stage cancers and decrease in late stage cancers. We submitted preliminary data at AVAHO in 2015 with increased earlier detection as anticipated. We have now completed 5 years of screening and are presenting data from 2014 through 2018.

Results: The number of screening CTs has increased almost every year (1929, 1875, 1916, 2201, 2336 respectively), and the number with cancer decreased from 1.34% (2014) to 0.008% (2018). The majority of NSCLCs found have been early stage, but with Small Cell Lung Cancer, 50% had limited and 50% extensive disease. Yearly screening is not likely to increase early detection of Small Cell Lung Cancer. Percentages of stage I & II for NSCLC prior to screening were 30% and 27% in 2012 and 2013 respectively. In 2014 – 2018 percentages were 69%, 60%, 50%, 83% and 50%. In 2016 and 2018, several veterans came to the VA to establish care with a known nodule, or had their first screening CT here, and they were found to have late stage disease. When we subtracted those first time screens the percentages of stage I & II were 69%, 60%, 78%, 83%, and 56%.

Discussion: As expected, for NSCLC yearly LDCT screening increased “pickup” of early stage disease. Unanswered questions include: How long should annual screening continue; What is the financial, emotional and radiation exposure impact of frequent screening, especially for those who need to be followed at more frequent intervals.

Background: In the US, Lung cancer is the second most common malignancy, but the most common cause of cancer deaths. In 2010, the National Lung Screening Trial described a 20.3% reduction in lung cancer mortality in high-risk patients screened by low-dose spiral CT (LDCT). In 2012, multiple groups established screening guidelines. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommended yearly screening for patients aged 55 to 75 years, ≥30 packyears of smoking, or smoking cessation within 15 years. In late 2013, LDCT screening for lung cancer was initiated at the Providence VA Medical Center. It was anticipated that over time there would be a rise in early stage cancers and decrease in late stage cancers. We submitted preliminary data at AVAHO in 2015 with increased earlier detection as anticipated. We have now completed 5 years of screening and are presenting data from 2014 through 2018.

Results: The number of screening CTs has increased almost every year (1929, 1875, 1916, 2201, 2336 respectively), and the number with cancer decreased from 1.34% (2014) to 0.008% (2018). The majority of NSCLCs found have been early stage, but with Small Cell Lung Cancer, 50% had limited and 50% extensive disease. Yearly screening is not likely to increase early detection of Small Cell Lung Cancer. Percentages of stage I & II for NSCLC prior to screening were 30% and 27% in 2012 and 2013 respectively. In 2014 – 2018 percentages were 69%, 60%, 50%, 83% and 50%. In 2016 and 2018, several veterans came to the VA to establish care with a known nodule, or had their first screening CT here, and they were found to have late stage disease. When we subtracted those first time screens the percentages of stage I & II were 69%, 60%, 78%, 83%, and 56%.

Discussion: As expected, for NSCLC yearly LDCT screening increased “pickup” of early stage disease. Unanswered questions include: How long should annual screening continue; What is the financial, emotional and radiation exposure impact of frequent screening, especially for those who need to be followed at more frequent intervals.

Background: In the US, Lung cancer is the second most common malignancy, but the most common cause of cancer deaths. In 2010, the National Lung Screening Trial described a 20.3% reduction in lung cancer mortality in high-risk patients screened by low-dose spiral CT (LDCT). In 2012, multiple groups established screening guidelines. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommended yearly screening for patients aged 55 to 75 years, ≥30 packyears of smoking, or smoking cessation within 15 years. In late 2013, LDCT screening for lung cancer was initiated at the Providence VA Medical Center. It was anticipated that over time there would be a rise in early stage cancers and decrease in late stage cancers. We submitted preliminary data at AVAHO in 2015 with increased earlier detection as anticipated. We have now completed 5 years of screening and are presenting data from 2014 through 2018.

Results: The number of screening CTs has increased almost every year (1929, 1875, 1916, 2201, 2336 respectively), and the number with cancer decreased from 1.34% (2014) to 0.008% (2018). The majority of NSCLCs found have been early stage, but with Small Cell Lung Cancer, 50% had limited and 50% extensive disease. Yearly screening is not likely to increase early detection of Small Cell Lung Cancer. Percentages of stage I & II for NSCLC prior to screening were 30% and 27% in 2012 and 2013 respectively. In 2014 – 2018 percentages were 69%, 60%, 50%, 83% and 50%. In 2016 and 2018, several veterans came to the VA to establish care with a known nodule, or had their first screening CT here, and they were found to have late stage disease. When we subtracted those first time screens the percentages of stage I & II were 69%, 60%, 78%, 83%, and 56%.

Discussion: As expected, for NSCLC yearly LDCT screening increased “pickup” of early stage disease. Unanswered questions include: How long should annual screening continue; What is the financial, emotional and radiation exposure impact of frequent screening, especially for those who need to be followed at more frequent intervals.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have tremendously changed the paradigm of management for advanced stage cancers such as lung malignancies. Two unique patterns of response to immunotherapy have recently been described: pseudoprogression and hyperprogression. Hyperprogression is defined as a  2-fold increase in the tumor growth rate within 8 weeks of ICI administration.

Case Presentation: A 58-year-old female presented with left-sided chest pain for two weeks. CT-chest with contrast showed an 8.6 × 6.1 × 7.6 cm3 left upper lobe mass. An endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided biopsy revealed poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma. Staging FDG-18 PET scan revealed no metastases, resulting in a stage IIIA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (T4N0M0) on presentation. Per NCCN guidelines, she received standard of care definitive concurrent chemoradiation. Follow-up scans showed significant response in local disease without distant metastases. The patient then received cycle 1 consolidation immunotherapy with Durvalumab. Two weeks after, she complained of fatigue, new-onset headache and worsening dyspnea. CT-chest revealed development of a right upper lobe opacity, MRI brain showed the development of multiple brain metastases and PET scan uncovered hypermetabolic activity in a left adrenal nodule. Biopsy of the adrenal nodule confirmed metastatic adenocarcinoma, consistent with hyperprogression. Molecular testing of the standard lung tumor markers was negative (EGFR(-) ALK(-) BRAF(-) ROS-1 (-) PD-L1 <1%). Given her hyperprogression on ICIs, we opted to treat her with systemic chemotherapy with Carboplatin and Pemetrexed.

Conclusion: We herein report the first case report of hyperprogression in the non-metastatic setting. As ICIs become more incorporated in oncology practice, physicians should be aware of hyperprogression and its diagnostic criteria. Current molecular predictors of hyperprogression include MDM2/4 and EGFR mutations. Further elucidation of predictors of hyperprogressive disease will help guide better selection of ICI candidates.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have tremendously changed the paradigm of management for advanced stage cancers such as lung malignancies. Two unique patterns of response to immunotherapy have recently been described: pseudoprogression and hyperprogression. Hyperprogression is defined as a  2-fold increase in the tumor growth rate within 8 weeks of ICI administration.

Case Presentation: A 58-year-old female presented with left-sided chest pain for two weeks. CT-chest with contrast showed an 8.6 × 6.1 × 7.6 cm3 left upper lobe mass. An endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided biopsy revealed poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma. Staging FDG-18 PET scan revealed no metastases, resulting in a stage IIIA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (T4N0M0) on presentation. Per NCCN guidelines, she received standard of care definitive concurrent chemoradiation. Follow-up scans showed significant response in local disease without distant metastases. The patient then received cycle 1 consolidation immunotherapy with Durvalumab. Two weeks after, she complained of fatigue, new-onset headache and worsening dyspnea. CT-chest revealed development of a right upper lobe opacity, MRI brain showed the development of multiple brain metastases and PET scan uncovered hypermetabolic activity in a left adrenal nodule. Biopsy of the adrenal nodule confirmed metastatic adenocarcinoma, consistent with hyperprogression. Molecular testing of the standard lung tumor markers was negative (EGFR(-) ALK(-) BRAF(-) ROS-1 (-) PD-L1 <1%). Given her hyperprogression on ICIs, we opted to treat her with systemic chemotherapy with Carboplatin and Pemetrexed.

Conclusion: We herein report the first case report of hyperprogression in the non-metastatic setting. As ICIs become more incorporated in oncology practice, physicians should be aware of hyperprogression and its diagnostic criteria. Current molecular predictors of hyperprogression include MDM2/4 and EGFR mutations. Further elucidation of predictors of hyperprogressive disease will help guide better selection of ICI candidates.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have tremendously changed the paradigm of management for advanced stage cancers such as lung malignancies. Two unique patterns of response to immunotherapy have recently been described: pseudoprogression and hyperprogression. Hyperprogression is defined as a  2-fold increase in the tumor growth rate within 8 weeks of ICI administration.

Case Presentation: A 58-year-old female presented with left-sided chest pain for two weeks. CT-chest with contrast showed an 8.6 × 6.1 × 7.6 cm3 left upper lobe mass. An endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided biopsy revealed poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma. Staging FDG-18 PET scan revealed no metastases, resulting in a stage IIIA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (T4N0M0) on presentation. Per NCCN guidelines, she received standard of care definitive concurrent chemoradiation. Follow-up scans showed significant response in local disease without distant metastases. The patient then received cycle 1 consolidation immunotherapy with Durvalumab. Two weeks after, she complained of fatigue, new-onset headache and worsening dyspnea. CT-chest revealed development of a right upper lobe opacity, MRI brain showed the development of multiple brain metastases and PET scan uncovered hypermetabolic activity in a left adrenal nodule. Biopsy of the adrenal nodule confirmed metastatic adenocarcinoma, consistent with hyperprogression. Molecular testing of the standard lung tumor markers was negative (EGFR(-) ALK(-) BRAF(-) ROS-1 (-) PD-L1 <1%). Given her hyperprogression on ICIs, we opted to treat her with systemic chemotherapy with Carboplatin and Pemetrexed.

Conclusion: We herein report the first case report of hyperprogression in the non-metastatic setting. As ICIs become more incorporated in oncology practice, physicians should be aware of hyperprogression and its diagnostic criteria. Current molecular predictors of hyperprogression include MDM2/4 and EGFR mutations. Further elucidation of predictors of hyperprogressive disease will help guide better selection of ICI candidates.

Background: In 2018, a male aged 62 years with a history of squamous cell tonsillar cancer, which was successfully treated by concurrent chemoradiation and selective neck dissection in 2014, was diagnosed with primary right sided lung adenocarcinoma (Stage IV, cT4c cN3 cM1a) after presenting with post-obstructive pneumonia. Molecular analysis was about 100% positive for PDL-1 and negative for EGFR, ALK, BRAF, and ROS. The patient was started on Pembrolizumab. After 5 cycles, he developed worsening dyspnea. A CT scan of his chest revealed a large pericardial effusion and decrease in size of right upper lobe lesion. An echocardiogram confirmed cardiac tamponade physiology. 400 ml of fluid was removed by emergent pericardial window and surgical drain was placed. Cytopathological analysis of pericardial fluid returned negative for malignant cells. The patient was treated with high dose prednisone with tapering, and pembrolizumab was discontinued. Patient responded very well. A repeat CT and ECHO after 3 months of treatment confirmed nearresolution of effusion.

Discussion: Distinguishing immune mediated pericardial effusion from malignant effusion is vital. Development of pericardial effusion with concurrent improvement or stability of malignant lesion, negative cytology and brisk response to corticosteroids indicates an immune etiology.

Pericardiocentesis or pericardial window is the key intervention in acute management. The critical step in immune mediated pericardial effusions is initiation of high-dose corticosteroids (1-2 mg/kg of Prednisone) with tapering of at least 4 weeks in severe cases. In unresponsive cases, corticosteroids at transplant rejection dose (1 g methylprednisone daily) and addition of mycophenolate mofetil, in iximab or antithymocyte globulin should be considered. As per ‘ASCO Practice Guideline’, any grade of cardiotoxicity above grade 1 warrants holding or permanently discontinuing the immunotherapy. For pericardial effusions secondary to pseudoprogression, immunotherapy can be continued.

Based on our literature review, concurrence of other immune related adverse events and recurrence of effusions with discontinuation of corticosteroids is reported with immune mediated pericardial effusions.

Conclusion: Early identification of immune related adverse events is very important. In immune mediated pericardial effusion, pericardial fluid should be drained, and corticosteroids should be started promptly. Permanent discontinuation of immunotherapy is recommended for grade 3 and 4 cardiotoxicity. Re-challenge of immunotherapy after treating the adverse event is a subject that needs further research.

Background: In 2018, a male aged 62 years with a history of squamous cell tonsillar cancer, which was successfully treated by concurrent chemoradiation and selective neck dissection in 2014, was diagnosed with primary right sided lung adenocarcinoma (Stage IV, cT4c cN3 cM1a) after presenting with post-obstructive pneumonia. Molecular analysis was about 100% positive for PDL-1 and negative for EGFR, ALK, BRAF, and ROS. The patient was started on Pembrolizumab. After 5 cycles, he developed worsening dyspnea. A CT scan of his chest revealed a large pericardial effusion and decrease in size of right upper lobe lesion. An echocardiogram confirmed cardiac tamponade physiology. 400 ml of fluid was removed by emergent pericardial window and surgical drain was placed. Cytopathological analysis of pericardial fluid returned negative for malignant cells. The patient was treated with high dose prednisone with tapering, and pembrolizumab was discontinued. Patient responded very well. A repeat CT and ECHO after 3 months of treatment confirmed nearresolution of effusion.

Discussion: Distinguishing immune mediated pericardial effusion from malignant effusion is vital. Development of pericardial effusion with concurrent improvement or stability of malignant lesion, negative cytology and brisk response to corticosteroids indicates an immune etiology.

Pericardiocentesis or pericardial window is the key intervention in acute management. The critical step in immune mediated pericardial effusions is initiation of high-dose corticosteroids (1-2 mg/kg of Prednisone) with tapering of at least 4 weeks in severe cases. In unresponsive cases, corticosteroids at transplant rejection dose (1 g methylprednisone daily) and addition of mycophenolate mofetil, in iximab or antithymocyte globulin should be considered. As per ‘ASCO Practice Guideline’, any grade of cardiotoxicity above grade 1 warrants holding or permanently discontinuing the immunotherapy. For pericardial effusions secondary to pseudoprogression, immunotherapy can be continued.

Based on our literature review, concurrence of other immune related adverse events and recurrence of effusions with discontinuation of corticosteroids is reported with immune mediated pericardial effusions.

Conclusion: Early identification of immune related adverse events is very important. In immune mediated pericardial effusion, pericardial fluid should be drained, and corticosteroids should be started promptly. Permanent discontinuation of immunotherapy is recommended for grade 3 and 4 cardiotoxicity. Re-challenge of immunotherapy after treating the adverse event is a subject that needs further research.

Background: In 2018, a male aged 62 years with a history of squamous cell tonsillar cancer, which was successfully treated by concurrent chemoradiation and selective neck dissection in 2014, was diagnosed with primary right sided lung adenocarcinoma (Stage IV, cT4c cN3 cM1a) after presenting with post-obstructive pneumonia. Molecular analysis was about 100% positive for PDL-1 and negative for EGFR, ALK, BRAF, and ROS. The patient was started on Pembrolizumab. After 5 cycles, he developed worsening dyspnea. A CT scan of his chest revealed a large pericardial effusion and decrease in size of right upper lobe lesion. An echocardiogram confirmed cardiac tamponade physiology. 400 ml of fluid was removed by emergent pericardial window and surgical drain was placed. Cytopathological analysis of pericardial fluid returned negative for malignant cells. The patient was treated with high dose prednisone with tapering, and pembrolizumab was discontinued. Patient responded very well. A repeat CT and ECHO after 3 months of treatment confirmed nearresolution of effusion.

Discussion: Distinguishing immune mediated pericardial effusion from malignant effusion is vital. Development of pericardial effusion with concurrent improvement or stability of malignant lesion, negative cytology and brisk response to corticosteroids indicates an immune etiology.

Pericardiocentesis or pericardial window is the key intervention in acute management. The critical step in immune mediated pericardial effusions is initiation of high-dose corticosteroids (1-2 mg/kg of Prednisone) with tapering of at least 4 weeks in severe cases. In unresponsive cases, corticosteroids at transplant rejection dose (1 g methylprednisone daily) and addition of mycophenolate mofetil, in iximab or antithymocyte globulin should be considered. As per ‘ASCO Practice Guideline’, any grade of cardiotoxicity above grade 1 warrants holding or permanently discontinuing the immunotherapy. For pericardial effusions secondary to pseudoprogression, immunotherapy can be continued.

Based on our literature review, concurrence of other immune related adverse events and recurrence of effusions with discontinuation of corticosteroids is reported with immune mediated pericardial effusions.

Conclusion: Early identification of immune related adverse events is very important. In immune mediated pericardial effusion, pericardial fluid should be drained, and corticosteroids should be started promptly. Permanent discontinuation of immunotherapy is recommended for grade 3 and 4 cardiotoxicity. Re-challenge of immunotherapy after treating the adverse event is a subject that needs further research.

Background: Palliative radiotherapy plays an important role in metastatic lung cancer (LC) treatment. Of VHA LC patients, 46% present with metastatic disease. The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has developed evidenced-based guidelines regarding management of metastatic LC.

Methods: In May 2016, an electronic survey of 84 VHA Radiation Oncologists (ROs) was conducted to assess metastatic LC management. Information on years in practice, employment status, academic appointment, board certification, and familiarity with ASTRO lung cancer guidelines was obtained. Two clinical scenarios were presented to glean opinions on dose/fractionation schemes preferred, preferences for/ against concurrent chemotherapy, and use of endobronchial brachytherapy (EBB) and/or YAG laser technology. Survey results were assessed for concordance with ASTRO guidelines.

Results: The survey response rate was 64%. Among respondents, 96% were board certified, 90% held academic appointments, 85% were full-time employees, 11% were part-time employees, and 3% were employed on contract. When asked about use of palliative radiotherapy for lung cancer, 88% were familiar with ASTRO guidelines, 13% had used Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for palliation, and 26% referred to outside centers for EBB.

Clinical Scenarios: Case 1 – Metastatic (M1b) disease with local chest wall pain and 3 month life expectancy: All respondents recommended palliative radiotherapy, and most (98%) did not recommend concurrent chemotherapy. The fractionation schemes most often used were 20 Gy in 5 fractions (69%) and 30 Gy in 10 fractions (22%).

Case 2 – Metastatic (M1a) disease with endobronchial tumor blockage: 87% of the respondents would use conventional radiotherapy for symptoms such as hemoptysis, intractable cough, and pain, and the remainder would use SBRT. Almost half of respondents (49%) recommended EBB or YAG lung re-expansion before external beam radiotherapy.

Conclusion: In our study of VHA ROs and their knowledge of management of advanced (M1a/M1b) lung cancer, we found no distinction in clinical decisions based on demographic profiles. Almost all reported knowledge of evidence-based treatment guidelines for palliative radiotherapy of lung cancer and most recommended treatment according to current guidelines.”

Background: Palliative radiotherapy plays an important role in metastatic lung cancer (LC) treatment. Of VHA LC patients, 46% present with metastatic disease. The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has developed evidenced-based guidelines regarding management of metastatic LC.

Methods: In May 2016, an electronic survey of 84 VHA Radiation Oncologists (ROs) was conducted to assess metastatic LC management. Information on years in practice, employment status, academic appointment, board certification, and familiarity with ASTRO lung cancer guidelines was obtained. Two clinical scenarios were presented to glean opinions on dose/fractionation schemes preferred, preferences for/ against concurrent chemotherapy, and use of endobronchial brachytherapy (EBB) and/or YAG laser technology. Survey results were assessed for concordance with ASTRO guidelines.

Results: The survey response rate was 64%. Among respondents, 96% were board certified, 90% held academic appointments, 85% were full-time employees, 11% were part-time employees, and 3% were employed on contract. When asked about use of palliative radiotherapy for lung cancer, 88% were familiar with ASTRO guidelines, 13% had used Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for palliation, and 26% referred to outside centers for EBB.

Clinical Scenarios: Case 1 – Metastatic (M1b) disease with local chest wall pain and 3 month life expectancy: All respondents recommended palliative radiotherapy, and most (98%) did not recommend concurrent chemotherapy. The fractionation schemes most often used were 20 Gy in 5 fractions (69%) and 30 Gy in 10 fractions (22%).

Case 2 – Metastatic (M1a) disease with endobronchial tumor blockage: 87% of the respondents would use conventional radiotherapy for symptoms such as hemoptysis, intractable cough, and pain, and the remainder would use SBRT. Almost half of respondents (49%) recommended EBB or YAG lung re-expansion before external beam radiotherapy.

Conclusion: In our study of VHA ROs and their knowledge of management of advanced (M1a/M1b) lung cancer, we found no distinction in clinical decisions based on demographic profiles. Almost all reported knowledge of evidence-based treatment guidelines for palliative radiotherapy of lung cancer and most recommended treatment according to current guidelines.”

Background: Palliative radiotherapy plays an important role in metastatic lung cancer (LC) treatment. Of VHA LC patients, 46% present with metastatic disease. The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has developed evidenced-based guidelines regarding management of metastatic LC.

Methods: In May 2016, an electronic survey of 84 VHA Radiation Oncologists (ROs) was conducted to assess metastatic LC management. Information on years in practice, employment status, academic appointment, board certification, and familiarity with ASTRO lung cancer guidelines was obtained. Two clinical scenarios were presented to glean opinions on dose/fractionation schemes preferred, preferences for/ against concurrent chemotherapy, and use of endobronchial brachytherapy (EBB) and/or YAG laser technology. Survey results were assessed for concordance with ASTRO guidelines.

Results: The survey response rate was 64%. Among respondents, 96% were board certified, 90% held academic appointments, 85% were full-time employees, 11% were part-time employees, and 3% were employed on contract. When asked about use of palliative radiotherapy for lung cancer, 88% were familiar with ASTRO guidelines, 13% had used Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for palliation, and 26% referred to outside centers for EBB.

Clinical Scenarios: Case 1 – Metastatic (M1b) disease with local chest wall pain and 3 month life expectancy: All respondents recommended palliative radiotherapy, and most (98%) did not recommend concurrent chemotherapy. The fractionation schemes most often used were 20 Gy in 5 fractions (69%) and 30 Gy in 10 fractions (22%).

Case 2 – Metastatic (M1a) disease with endobronchial tumor blockage: 87% of the respondents would use conventional radiotherapy for symptoms such as hemoptysis, intractable cough, and pain, and the remainder would use SBRT. Almost half of respondents (49%) recommended EBB or YAG lung re-expansion before external beam radiotherapy.

Conclusion: In our study of VHA ROs and their knowledge of management of advanced (M1a/M1b) lung cancer, we found no distinction in clinical decisions based on demographic profiles. Almost all reported knowledge of evidence-based treatment guidelines for palliative radiotherapy of lung cancer and most recommended treatment according to current guidelines.”