The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC) provide recommended management for patients with SCLC, including diagnosis, primary treatment, surveillance for relapse, and subsequent treatment. This selection for the journal focuses on metastatic (known as extensive-stage) SCLC, which is more common than limited-stage SCLC. Systemic therapy alone can palliate symptoms and prolong survival in most patients with extensive-stage disease. Smoking cessation counseling and intervention should be strongly promoted in patients with SCLC and other high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas. The “Summary of the Guidelines Updates” section in the SCLC algorithm outlines the most recent revisions for the 2022 update, which are described in greater detail in this revised Discussion text.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: As healthcare reimbursement shifts from being volume to value-focused, new delivery models aim to coordinate care and improve quality. The patientcentered medical home (PCMH) model is one such model that aims to deliver coordinated, accessible healthcare to improve outcomes and decrease costs. It is unclear how the types of delivery systems in which PCMHs operate differentially impact outcomes. We aim to describe economic, utilization, quality, clinical, and patient satisfaction outcomes resulting from PCMH interventions operating within integrated delivery and finance systems (IDFS), government systems including Veterans Administration, and non-integrated delivery systems. METHODS: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase from 2004 to 2017. Observational studies and clinical trials occurring within the USA that met PCMH criteria (as defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality), addressed ambulatory adults, and reported utilization, economic, clinical, processes and quality of care, or patient satisfaction outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies were included. Twenty-four percent were within IDFS, 29% were within government systems, and 47% were within non-IDFS. IDFS studies reported decreased emergency department use, primary care use, and cost relative to other systems after PCMH implementation. Government systems reported increased primary care use relative to other systems after PCMH implementation. Clinical outcomes, processes and quality of care, and patient satisfaction were assessed heterogeneously or infrequently. DISCUSSION: Published articles assessing PCMH interventions generally report improved outcomes related to utilization and cost. IDFS and government systems exhibit different outcomes relative to non-integrated systems, demonstrating that different health systems and populations may be particularly sensitive to PCMH interventions. Both the definition of PCMH interventions and outcomes measured are heterogeneous, limiting the ability to perform direct comparisons or meta-analysis.

ImportanceCetuximab-based and carboplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) are often used for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer who are ineligible for cisplatin. There are no prospective head-to-head data comparing cetuximab-based and carboplatin-based regimens for radiosensitization.ObjectiveTo compare survival with cetuximab-based and carboplatin-based CRT in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study included US veterans who received a diagnosis of HNSCC between January 2006 and December 2020 and were treated with systemic therapy and radiation. Data cutoff was March 1, 2022 and data analysis was conducted from April-May 2022.ExposuresCisplatin, cetuximab, or carboplatin-based systemic therapy as captured in VA medication data and cancer registry.Main Outcomes and MeasuresOverall survival by systemic therapy was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. We used propensity score and inverse probability weighting to achieve covariate balance between cetuximab-treated and carboplatin-treated patients and used Cox regression to estimate cause-specific hazard ratios of death associated with carboplatin vs cetuximab. We also performed subgroup analyses of patients with oropharynx vs nonoropharynx primary sites.ResultsA total of 8290 patients (median [IQR] age, 63 [58-68] years; 8201 men [98.9%]; 1225 [15.8%] Black or African American and 6424 [82.6%] White individuals) with nonmetastatic HNSCC were treated with CRT with cisplatin (5566 [67%]), carboplatin (1231 [15%]), or cetuximab (1493 [18%]). Compared with cisplatin-treated patients, patients treated with carboplatin and cetuximab were older with worse performance status scores and higher comorbidity burden. Median (IQR) overall survival was 74.4 (22.3-162.2) months in patients treated with cisplatin radiotherapy (RT), 43.4 (15.3-123.8) months in patients treated with carboplatin RT, and 31.1 (12.4-87.8) months in patients treated with cetuximab RT. After propensity score and inverse probability weighting, carboplatin was associated with improved overall survival compared with cetuximab (cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; P = .001). This difference was prominent in the oropharynx subgroup.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study of a US veteran population with HNSCC undergoing treatment with CRT, almost a third of patients were ineligible to receive treatment with cisplatin and received cetuximab-based or carboplatin-based radiosensitization. After propensity score matching, carboplatin-based systemic therapy was associated with 15% improvement in overall survival compared with cetuximab, suggesting that carboplatin may be the preferred radiosensitizer, particularly in oropharynx cancers.

No abstract