JTO Clinical and Research Reports (May 2022)
Real-World Perspectives From Surgeons and Oncologists on Resectability Definition and Multidisciplinary Team Discussion of Stage III NSCLC in People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, and Macau: A Physician Survey
Abstract
Introduction: Decision-making in diagnosis and management of stage III NSCLC remains complex owing to disease heterogeneity and diverse treatment options, and often warrants multidisciplinary team discussion. Specifically, the selection of patients for multimodality approaches involving surgical resection presents notable challenges owing to heterogeneity in guideline definitions and the subjective, case-specific nature of evaluating resectability on the basis of preoperative assessments. Methods: An internet- and paper-based survey was conducted in 2020 among lung cancer specialists in the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, and Macau. This survey captured perspectives on stage III NSCLC on real-world diagnosis/staging practice, definition and evaluation of resectability using case scenarios, and preferred treatment paradigms. Results: A total of 60 completed responses were obtained (60.0% surgeons; 40.0% oncologists). The surgeons’ and oncologists’ responses differed most in the assessment of resectability in specific case scenarios despite overall agreement on top factors determining resectability (T stage, lymph node size, and lymph node location). Of the 17 scenarios, specialists agreed (≥80%) on four “resectable” and six “unresectable” scenarios; of the seven scenarios with less than 80% agreement, surgeons and oncologists had diverging responses for six scenarios. Multidisciplinary team discussions were available in most of the respondents’ institutions but usually covered only selected (<50%) stage III cases. Conclusions: This survey used a comprehensive set of stage III NSCLC case scenarios to understand how working definitions of resectability may differ between surgeons and oncologists, and thus, identify types of cases to prioritize for multidisciplinary discussions to maximize limited resources. In parallel, the development of a multidisciplinary expert consensus on treatment approaches could complement local institutional expertise as a reference for decision-making.
