Although lung cancer is most commonly diagnosed in elderly patients, evidence about tumor-directed therapy in elderly patients is sparse, and it is unclear to what extent this affects treatment and care. Our study aimed to discover potential disparities in care between elderly patients and those under 65 years of age. We studied claims from 13 283 German patients diagnosed with lung cancer in 2009 who survived for at least 90 days after diagnosis. We classified patients as “non-elderly” (≤ 65), “young-old” (65–74), “middle-old” (75–84), and “old-old” (≥ 85). We compared receipt of tumor-directed therapy (6 months after diagnosis), palliative care, opioids, antidepressants, and pathologic diagnosis confirmation via logistic regression. We used generalized linear regression (gamma distribution) to compare group-specific costs of care for 3 months after diagnosis. We adjusted all models by age, nursing home residency, nursing care need, comorbidity burden, and area of residence (urban, rural). The age group “non-elderly” served as reference group. Compared with the reference group “non-elderly”, the likelihood of receiving any tumor-directed treatment was significantly lower in all age groups with a decreasing gradient with advancing age. Elderly lung cancer patients received significantly fewer resections and radiotherapy than non-elderly patients. In particular, treatment with antineoplastic therapy declined with increasing age (“young-old” (OR = 0.76, CI = [0.70,0.83]), “middle-old” (OR = 0.45, CI = [0.36,0.50]), and “old-old” (OR = 0.13, CI = [0.10,0.17])). Patients in all age groups were less likely to receive structured palliative care than “non-elderly” (“young-old” (OR = 0.84, CI = [0.76,0.92]), “middle-old” (OR = 0.71, CI = [0.63,0.79]), and “old-old” (OR = 0.57, CI = [0.44,0.73])). Moreover, increased age was significantly associated with reduced quotas for outpatient treatment with opioids and antidepressants. Costs of care decreased significantly with increasing age. This study suggests the existence of age-dependent care disparities in lung cancer patients, where elderly patients are at risk of potential undertreatment. To support equal access to care, adjustments to public health policies seem to be urgently required.

Purpose: Evaluating patients and treatment decisions in a multidisciplinary tumor board has led to better quality of care and longer survival in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate tumor board recommendations for thoracic oncology patients regarding guideline adherence and transferal of recommendations into clinical practice. Methods: We evaluated tumor board recommendations of the thoracic oncology tumor board at Ludwig-Maximilians University (LMU) Hospital Munich between 2014 and 2016. We compared patient characteristics between guideline-adherent and non-guideline-adherent recommendations, as well as between transferred and non-transferred recommendations. We used multivariate logistic regression models to evaluate factors associated with guideline adherence. Results: Over 90% of recommendations by the tumor board were either adherent to the guidelines (75.5%) or over fulfilling guidelines (15.6%). Almost 90% of recommendations were transferred to clinical practice. If a recommendation was not according to the guidelines, the reason was mostly associated with the general condition (age, Charlson comorbidity index, ECOG) of the patient or due to the patients’ request. Surprisingly, sex also had a significant influence on the guideline adherence of recommendations, with females being more likely to get recommendations not according to the guidelines. Conclusion: In conclusion, the results of this study are promising, as the guideline adherence of recommendations as well as the transferal of recommendations into clinical practice were high. In the future, a special focus should be put on fragile patients as well as female patients.

Background: The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has caused a global COVID-19 pandemic, leading to worldwide changes in public health measures. In addition to changes in the public sector (lockdowns, contact restrictions), hospitals modified care to minimize risk of infection and to mobilize resources for COVID-19 patients. Our study aimed to assess the impact of these measures on access to care and behaviour of patients with thoracic malignancies.Methods: Thoracic oncology patients were surveyed in October 2020 using paper-based questionnaires to assess access to ambulatory care services and tumor-directed therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, behaviour regarding social distancing and wearing of face masks were assessed, as well as COVID-19 exposure, testing and vaccination. Results are presented as absolute and relative frequencies for categorical variables and means with standard deviation for numerical variables. We used t-test, and ANOVA to compare differences in metric variables and Chi²-test to compare proportions between groups.Results: 93 of 245 (38%) patients surveyed completed the questionnaire. Respiration therapy and physical therapy were unavailable for 57% to 70% of patients during March/April. Appointments for tumor-directed therapy, tumor imaging, and follow-up care were postponed or cancelled for 18.9%, 13.6%, and 14.8% of patients, respectively. Patients reported their general health as mostly unaffected. The majority of patients surveyed did not report reducing their contacts with family. The majority reduced contact with friends. Most patients wore community masks, although a significant proportion reported respiratory difficulties during prolonged mask-wearing. 74 patients (80%) reported willingness to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.Conclusions: This survey provides insights into the patient experience during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Munich, Germany. Most patients reported no negative changes to cancer treatments or general health; however, allied health services were greatly impacted. Patients reported gaps in social distancing, but were prepared to wear community masks. The willingness to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 was high. This information is not only of high relevance to policy makers, but also to health care providers.