Background: Accurate diagnosis and staging are crucial to ensure uniform allocation to the optimal treatment methods for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, but may differ among multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTs). Discordance between clinical and pathologic TNM stage is particularly important for patients with locally advanced NSCLC (stage IIIA) because it may influence their chance of allocation to curative-intent treatment. We therefore aimed to study agreement on staging and treatment to gain insight into MDT decision-making. Research Question: What is the level of agreement on clinical staging and treatment recommendations among MDTs in stage IIIA NSCLC patients? Study Design and Methods: Eleven MDTs each evaluated the same 10 pathologic stage IIIA NSCLC patients in their weekly meeting (n = 110). Patients were selected purposively for their challenging nature. All MDTs received exactly the same clinical information and images per patient. We tested agreement in cT stage, cN stage, cM stage (TNM 8th edition), and treatment proposal among MDTs using Randolph's free-marginal multirater kappa. Results: Considerable variation among the MDTs was seen in T staging (κ, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.75]), N staging (κ, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.35-0.83]), overall TNM staging (κ, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.35-0.72]), and treatment recommendations (κ, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.32-0.56]). Most variation in T stage was seen in patients with suspicion of invasion of surrounding structures, which influenced such treatment recommendations as induction therapy and type. For N stage, distinction between N1 and N2 disease was an important source of discordance among MDTs. Variation occurred between 2 patients even regarding M stage. A wide range of additional diagnostics was proposed by the MDTs. Interpretation: This study demonstrated high variation in staging and treatment of patients with stage IIIA NSCLC among MDTs in different hospitals. Although some variation may be unavoidable in these challenging patients, we should strive for more uniformity.@en

Background The clinical stage of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) determines the initial treatment, whereas the pathologic stage best determines prognosis and the need for adjuvant treatment. In an era in which stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has become an alternative modality to surgical intervention, clinical staging is even more important, because pathologic staging is omitted in the case of SABR. The objective of this study was to determine the concordance between clinical and pathologic stage in routine clinical practice for patients with early-stage NSCLC. Methods Prospective data were derived from the Dutch Lung Surgery Audit (DLSA) in 2013 and 2014. Patients with clinical stage I NSCLC who underwent surgical resection and had a positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) scan in their clinical workup were selected. Clinical and pathologic TNM (cTNM and pTNM) stages were compared. Results From a total of 1,790 patients with clinical stage I, 1,555 (87%) patients were included in this analysis. Concordance between cTNM and pTNM was 59.9%. Of the patients with clinical stage I, 22.6% were upstaged to pathologic stage II or higher. In total, 14.9% of all patients with clinical stage I had nodal metastases, and 5.5% of all patients had unforeseen N2 disease. In patients with clinical stage T2a tumors, 21.3% had nodal metastases, 14.5% being N1 and 6.7% being N2 disease. Conclusions Concordance between clinical and pathologic stage is 59.9%. In patients with clinical stage I NSCLC, 22.6% were upstaged to pathologic stage II or higher, which is an indication for adjuvant chemotherapy. Improvement in accuracy of staging is thus needed, particularly for these patients.@en

Background Clinical staging of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) determines the initial treatment offered to a patient. The similarity between clinical and pathologic staging in some studies is as low as 50%, and others publish results as high as 91%. The Dutch Lung Surgery Audit is a clinical database that registers the clinical and pathologic TNM of almost all NSCLC patients who undergo operations in the Netherlands. The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of clinical staging of NSCLC. Methods Prospective data were derived from the Dutch Lung Surgery Audit in 2013 and 2014. Patients were included if they had undergone a surgical resection for stage IA to IIIB NSCLC without neoadjuvant treatment and had a positron emission tomography–computed tomography scan as part of the clinical workup. Clinical (c)TNM and pathologic (p)TNM were compared, and whether discrepancy was based on tumor or nodal staging was determined. Results From 2,834 patients identified, 2,336 (82.4%) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and had complete data. Of these 2,336, 1,276 (54.6%) were staged accurately, 707 (30.3%) were clinically understaged, and 353 (15.1%) were clinically overstaged. In the understaged group, 346 patients had a higher pN stage (14.8%), of which 148 patients had unforeseen N2 disease (6.3%). In the overstaged group, 133 patients had a cN that was higher than the pN (5.7%). Conclusions Accuracy of NSCLC staging in the Netherlands is low (54.6%), even in the era of positron emission tomography–computed tomography. Especially accurate nodal staging remains challenging. Future efforts should include the identification of specific pitfalls in NSCLC staging.@en