Thanika Ketpueak

Background/Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic emerged in early 2020, disrupting global cancer services. We aimed to assess the pandemic’s impact on lung cancer diagnosis and treatment, including clinical characteristics, diagnostic methods, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 1832 patients visiting Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital from January 2019 to December 2021 with suspected lung cancer was conducted. We evaluated demographic characteristics, diagnostic methods, treatment modalities, and survival results across this period. Results: Among the 698 eligible patients, the pandemic led to a 13% to 17% decline in newly diagnosed lung cancer cases. However, demographic and lung cancer characteristics, including age, gender, and smoking status, remained unchanged. The pandemic also saw an increase in asymptomatic cases and a 1.3 to 2.2 times higher occurrence of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer cases. The rapid implementation of healthcare policies prioritized the diagnosis of suspected cancer patients and maintained cancer care throughout the pandemic, resulting in similar diagnostic methods and waiting times compared to the pre-pandemic era. Treatment patterns displayed continuity, with a notable rise in 2 to 3 times higher surgical interventions and an 8% to 11% decrease in the initial delivery of palliative care. The delivery of systemic therapy for patients with advanced-stage disease was also maintained. One-year survival rates remained consistent across various lung cancer stages during the pandemic. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a modest decrease in new diagnoses, with limited effects on the demographic and clinical profiles of lung cancer cases. Survival rates among patients diagnosed during the pandemic remained stable compared to those diagnosed before the pandemic. These findings underscore the adaptability of the healthcare system, alongside the capabilities of multidisciplinary teams, in providing timely and effective diagnosis and ensuring uninterrupted essential treatment of lung cancer during challenging circumstances.

Background: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations are presented in approximately 50% of East Asian populations with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are the standard treatment, patient outcomes are also influenced by host-related factors. This study aimed to investigate clinical and radiological factors associated with early mortality and develop a prognostic prediction model in advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Methods: A retrospective cohort was conducted in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC treated with first line EGFR-TKIs from January 2012 to October 2022 at Chiang Mai University Hospital. Clinical data and radiologic findings at the initiation of treatment were analyzed. A multivariable flexible parametric survival model was used to determine the predictors of death at 18 months. The predicted survival probabilities at 6, 12, and 18 months were estimated, and the model performance was evaluated. Results: Among 189 patients, 84 (44.4%) died within 18 months. Significant predictors of mortality included body mass index <18.5 or ≥23, bone metastasis, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio ≥ 5, albumin-to-globulin ratio < 1, and mean pulmonary artery diameter ≥ 29 mm. The model demonstrated good performance (Harrell’s C-statistic = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.66–0.78). Based on bootstrap internal validation, the optimism-corrected Harrell’s C-statistic was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.71–0.71), derived from an apparent C-statistic of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.74–0.75) and an estimated optimism of 0.04 (95% CI: 0.03–0.04). Estimated 18-month survival ranged from 87.1% in those without risk factors to 2.1% in those with all predictors. A web-based tool was developed for clinical use. Conclusions: The prognostic model developed from fundamental clinical and radiologic parameters demonstrated promising utility in predicting 18-month mortality in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC receiving first-line EGFR-TKI therapy.

Background/Objectives: The prolonged time to reach investigation and management decisions in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients can negatively impact long-term outcomes. This retrospective cohort study aims to assess the impact of a multidisciplinary team conference (MDT) on NSCLC care quality and outcomes. Methods: This retrospective study included resectable NSCLC patients who underwent pulmonary resection at Chiang Mai University Hospital, Thailand, from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2021. Patients were divided into two groups: non-MDT and MDT groups, based on the initiation of MDT on 1 March 2018. The study compared overall survival, disease-free survival, and waiting times for investigation and surgery between the two groups. The effect of MDT on these outcomes was analyzed using multivariable analysis with inverse-probability weighting propensity scores. Results: The study included 859 patients, with 583 in the non-MDT group and 276 in the MDT group. MDT groups had a higher proportion of stage I and II NSCLC patients undergoing pulmonary resection (78.6% vs. 59.69%, p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, patients in the MDT group had a significantly higher likelihood of longer survival compared to the non-MDT group (adjusted HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09–0.55). Median waiting times for bronchoscopy (3 days vs. 12 days, p = 0.012), pathologic report (7 days vs. 13 days, p < 0.001), and surgery scheduling (18 days vs. 25 days, p = 0.001) were significantly shorter in the MDT group. Conclusions: An MDT has a survival benefit in NSCLC care and improves waiting times for investigation and treatment steps. Further studies are needed to validate these results.

Background: Malnutrition harms treatment outcomes, QoL, and survival in lung cancer patients. Effective dietary counseling can improve nutrition, but few randomized controlled trials have focused on lung cancer patients. The objective of this study was to determine if dietary counseling improves nutritional and treatment outcomes when compared to routine care. Methods: This open-label parallel RCT was conducted at Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital in Thailand. The investigators used computer-generated blocked randomization to assign patients to dietary counseling by a nutritionist or routine care. The nutritionist sessions occurred before treatment, with follow-ups at 3–4 weeks and 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the mean percentage change in the body weight of patients at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included changes in the BMI, nutrition score, QoL, serum albumin level, lymphocyte count, energy and protein intake, treatment response, PFS, and OS. Results: Between April 2020 and May 2022, after completing recruitment, 80 lung cancer patients were randomized: 43 to dietary counseling and 37 to routine care. The dietary counseling group showed significant benefits, with smaller decreases in body weight at 3–4 weeks (−0.8% vs. −2.6%, p = 0.05) and 12 weeks (−1.1% vs. −4.3%, p = 0.05). They also had higher energy and protein intake levels and better treatment response rates. The secondary outcomes and significant adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. Conclusions: Dietary counseling helps to maintain body weight, maintain dietary intake, and enhance treatment responses in lung cancer patients. Although not all nutritional markers or survival outcomes were affected, these findings highlight the importance of early nutritional interventions.

Cancer patients, susceptible to severe COVID-19 outcomes, exhibit varied vaccine responses, particularly those who are receiving chemotherapy. This prospective cohort study enrolled 115 cancer patients, and data from 91 patients who received two doses of COVID-19 vaccines were analyzed. Blood was drawn at baseline, day 28, and 6 months post-second dose for neutralizing antibody analysis. The primary outcome was seroconversion rate against wild type and Omicron at day 28. Secondary outcomes included seroconversion at 6 months, factors associated with seroconversion, and safety. Of the 157 cancer patients screened, 91 were enrolled, with 45% receiving chemotherapy. Seroconversion rates at day 28 were 77% for the wild type and 62% for Omicron. Chemotherapy did not affect seroconversion (p=0.789 for wild type, p=0.597 for Omicron). Vaccine type positively correlated with seroconversion, with an adjusted ORR of 25.86 (p=0.029) for the wild type and 17.38 (p<0.001) for Omicron with the primary heterologous vaccine. Adverse events were grade 1 in 34.0% and grade 2 in 19.7% of participants. Despite lower seroconversion against Omicron, no difference was noted between chemotherapy and non-chemotherapy groups. COVID-19 vaccinations demonstrated good tolerability. This data underscores vaccine efficacy considerations in cancer patients, informing tailored strategies for this vulnerable population.