Purpose: In response to advances in the field, the College of American Pathologists (CAP), the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC), and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) recently updated their recommendations for molecular testing for the selection of patients with lung cancer for treatment with targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. Methods: The molecular testing guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. Then an ASCO Expert Panel reviewed the content and the recommendations. Results: The ASCO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the CAP/IASLC/AMP molecular testing guideline are clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorsed the guideline with minor modifications. Recommendations: This update clarifies that any sample with adequate cellularity and preservation may be tested and that analytical methods must be able to detect mutation in a sample with as little as 20% cancer cells. It strongly recommends against evaluating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression by immunohistochemistry for selection of patients for EGFR-targeted therapy. New for 2018 are recommendations for stand-alone ROS1 testing with additional confirmation testing in all patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma, and RET, ERBB2 (HER2), KRAS, and MET testing as part of larger panels. ASCO also recommends stand-alone BRAF testing in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma. Recommendations are also provided for testing methods for lung cancers that have a nonadenocarcinoma non–small-cell component, for patients with targetable mutations who have relapsed on targeted therapy, and for testing the presence of circulating cell-free DNA. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing clinicians on management of patients with stage III non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: An Expert Panel of medical oncology, thoracic surgery, radiation oncology, pulmonary oncology, community oncology, research methodology, and advocacy experts was convened to conduct a literature search, which included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 1990 through 2021. Outcomes of interest included survival, disease-free or recurrence-free survival, and quality of life. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The literature search identified 127 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evidence-based recommendations were developed to address evaluation and staging workup of patients with suspected stage III NSCLC, surgical management, neoadjuvant and adjuvant approaches, and management of patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines .

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2017 ASCO guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with driver alterations. A guideline update for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV NSCLC without driver alterations was published separately. METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) NSCLC Expert Panel updated recommendations based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from December 2015 to January 2020 and meeting abstracts from ASCO 2020. RESULTS: This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Twenty-seven RCTs, 26 observational studies, and one meta-analysis provide the evidence base (total 54). Outcomes of interest included efficacy and safety. Additional literature suggested by the Expert Panel is discussed. RECOMMENDATIONS: All patients with nonsquamous NSCLC should have the results of testing for potentially targetable mutations (alterations) before implementing therapy for advanced lung cancer, regardless of smoking status recommendations, when possible, following other existing high-quality testing guidelines. Most patients should receive targeted therapy for these alterations: Targeted therapies against ROS-1 fusions, BRAF V600e mutations, RET fusions, MET exon 14 skipping mutations, and NTRK fusions should be offered to patients, either as initial or second-line therapy when not given in the first-line setting. New or revised recommendations include the following: Osimertinib is the optimal first-line treatment for patients with activating epidermal growth factor receptor mutations (exon 19 deletion, exon 21 L858R, and exon 20 T790M); alectinib or brigatinib is the optimal first-line treatment for patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase fusions. For the first time, to our knowledge, the guideline includes recommendations regarding RET, MET, and NTRK alterations. Chemotherapy is still an option at most stages. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines .

BACKGROUND: Foreign body aspiration is an uncommon entity in adults. Herein, we describe our experience with flexible bronchoscopy in the removal of tracheobronchial foreign bodies in adults. We also conducted a systematic review of the literature on the topic of foreign body inhalation in adults managed with flexible bronchoscopy. METHODS: The bronchoscopy database (from 1979 to 2014) was reviewed for subjects > 12 y of age with a history of foreign body aspiration managed with flexible bronchoscopy. Demographic, clinical, and bronchoscopy data were collected and analyzed. PubMed was reviewed for studies describing the use of flexible bronchoscopy for foreign body extraction in adults. RESULTS: During the study period, a total of 25,998 flexible bronchoscopies were performed. Of these, 65 subjects (mean age of 32.8 y, 49 males) were identified who had undergone bronchoscopy for foreign body aspiration. Nonresolving pneumonia (30.6%), direct foreign body visualization (24.6%), and segmental collapse (18.4%) were the most common radiological abnormalities. Foreign bodies were identified in 49 cases during bronchoscopy and successfully removed in 45 (91.8%) subjects with no major complications. Metallic (41%) and organic (25.6%) foreign bodies were the most common. Shark-tooth (44.9%) and alligator (32.6%) were the most commonly used forceps in retrieving the foreign bodies. The systematic review yielded 18 studies (1,554 subjects with foreign body inhalation). In adults, the proportion of flexible bronchoscopy (6 studies, 354/159,074 procedures) performed for the indication of foreign bodies among the total flexible bronchoscopies was 0.24% (95% CI 0.18–0.31). The overall success of flexible bronchoscopy (18 studies, 1,185 subjects) for foreign body extraction was 89.6% (95% CI 86.1–93.2). CONCLUSIONS: Foreign body aspiration is a rare indication for flexible bronchoscopy in adults. Flexible bronchoscopy has a high success rate in removal of inhaled foreign body and can be considered the preferred initial procedure for management of airway foreign bodies in adults.

Lung cancer has become a global problem, from a rare disease to an emerging public health issue. The current data of GLOBOCAN 2018, indicates that this disease has recorded highest mortality among all types of cancer. The etiological factors of lung cancer have become more multiplex because of increasing industrialization and environmental pollution around the world, especially in India. There is a rise in incidence of lung cancer among non-smokers and this can be attributed to environmental and occupational exposure to various kinds of hazardous substances. Target mutations are high in Lung cancer among non-smokers when compared to smokers. Some developed countries have guidelines and policies for prevention and control of risk factors focusing on these issues. Intervention aiming for primary prevention can be an important and cost-effective tool in developing countries to deal with increasing incidence of lung cancer. There is a need to define high risk group among non-smokers after taking into account environmental and occupational determinants as important risk factors. Research on etiology of lung cancer and prevention provides evidence to work on global incidence and prevalence of lung cancer, and for designing cost effective lung cancer prevention strategies. Research in the area of lung cancer prevention should be considered to recognize the areas where action is required to prevent environment and occupation related lung cancer. The government and occupational health and safety organizations have taken many steps in the last few years that can help to protect workers from these exposures. But the dangers are still there, so there is a need to do more to limit these exposures around workplace. This whole situation guides us to advocate population-based intervention along with policy implementation.

BACKGROUND: Thoracoscopic pleural biopsy increases the diagnostic yield of pleural effusions undiagnosed after thoracentesis and is superior to closed pleural biopsy. Medical thoracoscopy can be performed using the rigid thoracoscope or the semirigid thoracoscope (pleuroscope). In this randomized trial, we compare the efficacy and safety of the 2 thoracoscopes. METHODS: Subjects with undiagnosed exudative pleural effusions were randomly assigned to undergo pleural biopsy with either the rigid or the semirigid thoracoscope. The primary outcome was the diagnostic yield of the procedure, while the secondary outcomes were requirement of sedative/analgesic agents, scar size, biopsy sample size, and the operator's view of the procedure. RESULTS: Of the 145 screened subjects with exudative pleural effusions, 90 were randomized to undergo thoracoscopy with the 2 thoracoscopes ( n = 45 each). The diagnostic yield of rigid thoracoscopy was superior to semirigid thoracoscopy (97.8% vs 73.3%, P = .002) on an intention-to-treat analysis but was similar (100% vs 94.3%, P = .18) in those with successful biopsy. The requirement of sedative/analgesic agents was higher in the rigid thoracoscopy arm. The scar size was slightly larger (mean ± SD, 23.1 ± 4 vs 18.7 ± 3.2 mm, P = .0001), whereas the biopsy sample size was distinctly larger in the rigid arm (mean ± SD, 13.9 ± 4.4 vs 4.4 ± 1.4 mm, P = .001). The operator-rated visual analog scale score for the ease of taking a biopsy sample was significantly higher with the rigid instrument (mean ± SD, visual analog scale 86 ± 12 vs 79 ± 12 mm, P = .01), while the quality of image was superior in the semirigid arm (mean ± SD, visual analog scale 88 ± 7 vs 92 ± 5 mm, P = .002). The number of complications were similar in the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rigid thoracoscopy was found to be superior to semirigid thoracoscopy overall, but the diagnostic yield was similar if pleural biopsy could be successfully performed. Due to the small sample size, a larger study is required to define the usefulness and choice between the 2 procedures. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT01726556)