Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Research Articles

Update on Practical Management of Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): A Report from the Ontario Forum.

Therapeutic strategies for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are advancing, with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted therapies making their way into neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. With recent advances, there was a need for multidisciplinary lung cancer healthcare providers from across Ontario to convene and review recent data from practical and implementation standpoints. The focus was on the following questions: (1) To what extent do patient (e.g., history of smoking) and disease (e.g., histology, tumor burden, nodal involvement) characteristics influence treatment approaches? (2) What are the surgical considerations in early-stage NSCLC? (3) What is the role of radiation therapy in the context of recent evidence? (4) What is the impact of biomarker testing on treatment planning? Ongoing challenges, treatment gaps, outstanding questions, and controversies with the data were assessed through a pre-meeting survey, interactive cases, and polling questions. By reviewing practice patterns across Ontario cancer centers in the context of evolving clinical data, Health Canada indications, and provincial (Cancer Care Ontario [CCO]) funding approvals, physicians treating lung cancer voiced their opinions on how new approaches should be integrated into provincial treatment algorithms. This report summarizes the forum outcomes, including pre-meeting survey and polling question results, as well as agreements on treatment approaches based on specific patient scenarios.

P2.04B.02 Eight Year Outcomes of a Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Screening Program at a Large Community Centre in Canada

P2.04B.02 Eight Year Outcomes of a Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Screening Program at a Large Community Centre in Canada

Development of clinically meaningful quality indicators for contemporary lung cancer care, and piloting and evaluation in a retrospective cohort; experiences of the Embedding Research (and Evidence) in Cancer Healthcare (EnRICH) Program

ObjectivesLung cancer continues to be the most common cause of cancer-related death and the leading cause of morbidity and burden of disease across Australia. There is an ongoing need to...

EP04.02-04 Screening Success: A Review of Outcomes from Lehigh Valley Health Network’s Multi-Disciplinary Lung Cancer Screening Program

EP04.02-04 Screening Success: A Review of Outcomes from Lehigh Valley Health Network’s Multi-Disciplinary Lung Cancer Screening Program

Customizable Health Literacy Appropriate Patient Education Materials: The Impact on Patient Satisfaction

Patient education materials (PEMs) empower patients to understand their diagnosis/treatment options and improve patient-provider communication. Current PEMs in radiation oncology are primarily text heavy or multiple-click Internet resources, exceeding the national recommendation of a 6th grade reading level. This prospective IRB-approved single institution trial assessed if a customizable health-literacy appropriate PEM improved patient satisfaction during consultation for lung cancer treatment. We hypothesized use of the PEM would improve patient satisfaction. All English or Spanish speaking adults scheduled for consultation during multidisciplinary lung cancer clinics were eligible for recruitment into this study. Weekly block randomization assigned patients to the control (standard of care encounter) vs. intervention group (standard of care and PEM). Patients completed a post-encounter survey covering sociodemographics, validated health literacy and satisfaction questions. Patient satisfaction was measured on a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics described the score in two groups, and t-tests or chi-square tests were used for between group comparisons as appropriate. Among 82 participants, there was no difference in overall patient satisfaction between control and intervention cohorts, with means of 4.7 and 4.3 (p = 0.07) respectively and a median of 5 for both groups. When stratified by health literacy, those with adequate levels were more satisfied having received the PEM (100% vs. 91.7%), whereas those with limited/marginal health literacy levels were less satisfied with the PEM (84.6% vs 96.4%). When assessing satisfaction with communication, there was some evidence that patients in the intervention cohort were more likely to disagree that doctors used medical words without explanation; however, this did not reach conventional levels of significance. The intervention group more often disagreed with the statement "I was allowed to say everything that was important to me" compared to the control, reported as mean scores of 4.29 vs. 4.63 (p = 0.04). The PEM did not improve overall patient satisfaction during consultations. Results could be confounded by the survey design. While efforts were made to ensure PEM readability was at an appropriate health literacy level, the assessment measure did not adhere to these guidelines, which may explain why patients with lower health literacy appear less satisfied. Introducing PEMs requires a balance between allowing patients the opportunity to feel heard while providing digestible information. With no evidence of detriment and some early signal of improved satisfaction in terms of communication when utilizing the PEM, efforts are underway to expand this resource to breast and head and neck cancers.

Variation in Incidence of Pneumothorax Complications After Percutaneous Lung Biopsies Among Veterans Health Administration Hospitals

Variation in Incidence of Pneumothorax Complications After Percutaneous Lung Biopsies Among Veterans Health Administration Hospitals

Lung cancer screening using low-dose CT and FDG-PET in liver transplant recipients.

To address the feasibility of implementing a lung cancer screening program in liver transplant recipients (LTR) targeted to detect early-stage lung cancer one hundred twenty-four LTR (89% male, 59.8+/-8.8y old), who entered the lung cancer screening program at our hospital were reviewed. The results of the diagnostic algorithm using low-dose CT and F-18-fluorodeoxyglycose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) were analyzed. Lung cancer was detected in 12 LTR (9.7%), most of which corresponded to the non-small cell subtype. Two of the 12 lung cancers were detected in the baseline study (prevalence of 1.6%), whereas 10 patients were diagnosed with lung cancer in the follow-up (incidence of 8.1%). Considering all cancers, 10 of 12 (83.3%) were diagnosed at stage I, one cancer was diagnosed at stage IIIA, and another one at stage IV. The sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values of F-18-fluorodeoxyglycose positron emission tomography to detect malignancy in our cohort were 81.8%,100%, 99.3%, 100%, and 99.3%, respectively. A carefully followed multidisciplinary lung cancer screening algorithm in LTR that includes F-18-fluorodeoxyglycose positron emission tomography and low-dose CT allows lung cancer to be diagnosed at an early stage while reducing unnecessary invasive procedures.

Diagnostic Approach to Solitary Pulmonary Nodules Discussed in Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Council

Diagnostic Approach to Solitary Pulmonary Nodules Discussed in Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Council

Multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic: An emerging model of care

Dear Editor, Lung cancer management is progressively complex and multidisciplinary input is often needed. The recent publication of CheckMate 816 heralds a paradigm shift in the treatment of resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC),1 with many other perioperative trials soon to follow.2 Oligometastasis and oligoprogression in stage IV NSCLC are now recognised as distinct entities.

Barriers and facilitators to early-stage lung cancer care in the USA: a qualitative study.

Improved outcomes in lung cancer treatment are seen in high-volume academic centers, making it important to understand barriers to accessing care at such institutions. Few qualitative studies examine the barriers and facilitators to early-stage lung cancer care at US academic institutions. Adult patients with suspected or diagnosed early-stage non-small cell lung cancer presenting to a multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic at a US academic institution over a 6-month period beginning in 2019 were purposively sampled for semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and a qualitative content analysis was performed using the framework method. Themes relating to barriers and facilitators to lung cancer care were identified through iterative team-based coding. The 26 participants had a mean age of 62years (SD: 8.4years) and were majority female (62%), white (77%), and urban (85%). We identified 6 major themes: trust with providers and health systems are valued by patients; financial toxicity negatively influenced the diagnostic and treatment experience; social constraints magnified other barriers; patient self-advocacy as a facilitator of care access; provider advocacy could overcome other barriers; care coordination and good communication were important to patients. We have identified several barriers and facilitators to lung cancer care at an academic center in the US. These factors need to be addressed to improve quality of care among lung cancer patients. Further work will examine our findings in a community setting to understand if our findings are generalizable to patients who do not access a tertiary cancer care center.

Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Care Within a Community-Based Health Care System.

Multidisciplinary lung cancer care is assumed to improve care delivery by increasing transparency, objectivity, and shared decision making; however, there is a lack of high-level evidence demonstrating its benefits, especially in community-based health care systems. We used implementation and team science principles to establish a colocated multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic in a large community-based health care system and evaluated patient experience and outcomes within and outside this clinic. We conducted a prospective frequency-matched comparative effectiveness study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02123797) evaluating the thoroughness of lung cancer staging, receipt of stage-appropriate treatment, and survival between patients receiving care in the multidisciplinary clinic and those receiving usual serial care. Target enrollment was 150 patients on the multidisciplinary arm and 300 on the serial care arm. We frequency-matched patients by clinical stage, performance status, insurance type, race, and age. A total of 526 patients were enrolled: 178 on the multidisciplinary arm and 348 on the serial care arm. After adjusting for other factors, multidisciplinary patients had significantly higher odds (odds ratio [OR]: 2.3 [95% CI, 1.5 to 3.4]) of trimodality staging compared with serial care. Patients on the multidisciplinary arm also had higher odds of receiving invasive stage confirmation (OR: 2.0 [95% CI, 1.4 to 3.1]) and mediastinal stage confirmation (OR: 1.9 [95% CI, 1.3 to 2.8]). Additionally, patients receiving multidisciplinary care were significantly more likely to receive stage-appropriate treatment (OR: 1.8 [95% CI, 1.1 to 3.0]). We found no significant difference in overall or progression-free survival between study arms. The multidisciplinary clinic delivered significant improvements in evidence-based quality care on multiple levels. Even in the absence of a demonstrable survival benefit, these findings provide a strong rationale for recommending this model of care.

Incidence of Radiation Therapy Among Patients Enrolled in a Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Nodule and Lung Cancer Screening Clinic

The number of pulmonary nodules discovered incidentally or through screening programs has increased markedly. Multidisciplinary review and management are recommended, but the involvement of radiation oncologists in this context has not been defined. To assess the role of stereotactic body radiation therapy among patients enrolled in a lung cancer screening program. This prospective cohort study was performed at a pulmonary nodule and lung cancer screening clinic from October 1, 2012, to September 31, 2019. Referrals were based on chest computed tomography with Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 finding or an incidental nodule 6 mm or larger. A multidisciplinary team of practitioners from radiology, thoracic surgery, pulmonology, medical oncology, and radiation oncology reviewed all nodules and coordinated workup and treatment as indicated. Patients referred to the pulmonary nodule and lung cancer screening clinic with an incidental or screen-detected pulmonary nodule. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients undergoing therapeutic intervention with radiation therapy, stratified by the route of detection of their pulmonary nodules (incidental vs screen detected). Secondary outcomes were 2-year local control and metastasis-free survival. Among 1150 total patients (median [IQR] age, 66.5 [59.3-73.7] years; 665 [57.8%] female; 1024 [89.0%] non-Hispanic White; 841 [73.1%] current or former smokers), 234 (20.3%) presented with screen-detected nodules and 916 (79.7%) with incidental nodules. For patients with screen-detected nodules requiring treatment, 41 (17.5%) received treatment, with 31 (75.6%) undergoing surgery and 10 (24.4%) receiving radiation therapy. Patients treated with radiation therapy were older (median [IQR] age, 73.8 [67.1 to 82.1] vs 67.6 [61.0 to 72.9] years; P < .001) and more likely to have history of tobacco use (67 [95.7%] vs 128 [76.6%]; P = .001) than those treated with surgery. Fifty-eight patients treated with radiation therapy (82.9%) were considered high risk for biopsy, and treatment recommendations were based on a clinical diagnosis of lung cancer after multidisciplinary review. All screened patients who received radiation therapy had stage I disease and were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy. For all patients receiving stereotactic body radiation therapy, 2-year local control was 96.3% (95% CI, 91.1%-100%) and metastasis-free survival was 94.2% (95% CI, 87.7%-100%). In this unique prospective cohort, 1 in 4 patients with screen-detected pulmonary nodules requiring intervention were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy. This finding highlights the role of radiation therapy in a lung cancer screening population and the importance of including radiation oncologists in the multidisciplinary management of pulmonary nodules.

Current Surgical Indications for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Simple SummaryThe management strategy for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been transformed by our improved understanding of the cancer biology and concomitant development of novel systemic therapies. Complete surgical resection of NSCLC continues to offer the best chance for cure or local and regional disease control, and with improvements in minimally invasive techniques and enhanced recovery, the morbidity associated with surgical resection has been reduced. Patient-centered multi-disciplinary discussions that consider surgical therapy are associated with improved outcomes. Provided with promising novel therapeutic modalities including immune checkpoint inhibitors with or without chemotherapy, stereotactic radiotherapy, and targeted systemic therapies, indications for surgery continue to evolve and have expanded to include selected patients with advanced and metastatic disease.With recent strides made within the field of thoracic oncology, the management of NSCLC is evolving rapidly. Careful patient selection and timing of multi-modality therapy to permit the optimization of therapeutic benefit must be pursued. While chemotherapy and radiotherapy continue to have a role in the management of lung cancer, surgical therapy remains an essential component of lung cancer treatment in early, locally and regionally advanced, as well as in selected, cases of metastatic disease. Recent and most impactful advances in the treatment of lung cancer relate to the advent of immunotherapy and targeted therapy, molecular profiling, and predictive biomarker discovery. Many of these systemic therapies are a part of the standard of care in metastatic NSCLC, and their indications are expanding towards surgically operable lung cancer to improve survival outcomes. Numerous completed and ongoing clinical trials in the surgically operable NSCLC speak to the interest and importance of the multi-modality therapy even in earlier stages of NSCLC. In this review, we focus on the current standard of care indications for surgical therapy in stage I-IV NSCLC as well as on the anticipated future direction of multi-disciplinary lung cancer therapy.

Implementation of Standardized Lecture to Improve Radiation Oncology Knowledge in Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Care Team: Initial Results of a Multi-Institutional Pilot Study

<h3>Purpose/Objective(s)</h3> Most lung cancer (LC) providers have had no exposure to radiation oncology (RO) in training and may not know when a patient should have RO consultation. Despite this, there is paucity of literature describing RO interdisciplinary educational initiatives in LC. In 2019, ASTRO began developing disease-site specific slide decks, the first of which was designed to teach the specialists about RO in management of LC. The deck has been downloaded over 1000 times since it was made public. The authors examined the feasibility of an introductory lecture using the slide deck and its impact on the providers' knowledge and practice. By understanding treatment modalities outside one's own, it is hoped that the providers can present a full spectrum of options needed for patient-centered decision-making. <h3>Materials/Methods</h3> Between November 2019 and May 2021, a total of 7 radiation oncologists offered lectures to attendings and fellows in pulmonology, thoracic surgery, and medical oncology at 8 academic institutions. Due to the pandemic, lectures were given both in-person as well as virtually. The participants were invited to take an anonymized pre-test online, consisting of demographics and 13 multiple choice questions about RO for LC. After the lectures, the attendees were asked to take a post-test identical to the pre-test, with two additional questions about knowledge gained, and comfort level in making appropriate referrals to RO. <h3>Results</h3> A total of 76 individuals completed the pre-test, and 25 completed the post-test. The vast majority of the participants have never had a RO rotation (86%), lecture (75%), or seen a LINAC (82%). The mean pre-test score was 53.5% (SD 17.6%), and the mean post-test score was 75.1% (SD 3.6%), (p<0.001). On the post-test, 12 participants(48.0%) reported feeling much more knowledgeable about the role of RO in LC treatment and 13 (52.0%) felt a little more knowledgeable. A total of 9 participants (36.0%) felt much more comfortable making appropriate referrals to RO after the lecture, whereas 15 (60.0%) felt a little more comfortable, and 1 (4.0%) felt not any more comfortable. The improvement in score and reported knowledge and comfort levels were similarly observed across all subspecialties and between attendings and fellows. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Introductory lecture on RO for LC given using a standard slide deck resulted in a statistically significant improvement in relevant knowledge of RO. Nearly all participants also reported improved comfort level in making appropriate referrals to RO. The current study demonstrates feasibility of implementing such lectures to multiple providers across various institutions even during a pandemic. An organized effort to provide such lectures at more institutions may result in more appropriate management and RO referral for LC patients, especially in practice settings where tumor board is not readily available.

Hospital-based multidisciplinary lung cancer care in Australia: a survey of the landscape in 2021

IntroductionLung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in Australia and has the highest cancer burden. Numerous reports describe variations in lung cancer care and outcomes across Australia. There...

Patient and caregiver’s satisfaction with multidisciplinary vs. serial lung cancer care in a community setting.

200 Background: Few existing studies examined lung cancer patients and caregivers’ satisfaction with the team-based multidisciplinary care (MD) in comparison to the usual serial care (SC). We hypothesized that MD, by providing early and concurrent input from key specialists collaborating as a team with patients and caregivers to develop a consensus care plan, can improve patients and caregivers’ satisfaction with care, compared to SC, in which multiple specialists independently screen, diagnose, and treat patients through a fragmented sequence of referrals. Methods: Data on newly diagnosed lung cancer patients, enrolled in a prospective matched cohort comparative effectiveness trial of MD or SC between Oct. 9th, 2014 and July 5th, 2017 in a Mid-South community hospital system, were collected at baseline, 3- and 6-month periods to assess patient and caregiver’s satisfaction with these two care-delivery models. Measures of satisfaction were adapted from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey. Multivariate mixed linear models were used to examine the cross-group differences, the time-related variances, and how the interaction between groups and time-periods influenced patients’ and caregivers’ satisfaction. Results: Compared with SC (N = 297), patients in MD (N = 159) were older (66 vs. 69 years), more in an early cancer stage (33% vs. 41% in stage I or II), and lower in performance score (35% vs. 45% asymptomatic). Demographic and social-economic characteristics of caregivers in MD (N = 97) and SC (N = 122) were not significantly different. Patients and caregivers in MD were more likely than those in SC to perceive their care to be better than that received by other patients (p =.003 and p &lt;.001 respectively). Greater satisfaction with their treatment plan at 6-month was observed among the MD patients (p =.004). Also, MD patients reported better overall satisfaction with team members (p =.038). Consistent with the findings among the patients in MD, caregivers in MD were more satisfied with the quality of care (p &lt;.001) and with care received from team members (p &lt;.001) than that reported by caregivers in SC. Conclusions: Coordinated MD care improved patients and caregivers’ satisfaction with lung cancer care in a community healthcare system. Further research will compare the quality of life and financial burden on patients in the MD and SC treatment models to provide more evidence for stakeholders to refine cancer care models.

A Structured Program Maximizes Benefit of Lung Cancer Screening in an Area of Endemic Histoplasmosis

BackgroundLung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography has demonstrated at least a 20% decrease in lung cancer–specific mortality, but it has the potential harm of unnecessary invasive procedures performed because of false-positive results. This study reports the outcomes of a structured multidisciplinary lung cancer screening program in an area of endemic histoplasmosis. MethodsA retrospective review of patients undergoing lung cancer screening from December 2012 to March 2019 was conducted. Findings suggestive of lung cancer were presented to a multidisciplinary thoracic tumor board. Patients were assigned to interval imaging follow-up, additional diagnostic imaging, or referral for an invasive procedure. Invasive procedures were then compared between benign and malignant diseases. ResultsA total of 4087 scans were performed on 2129 patients; 372 (9.1%) were suspicious and were presented to a multidisciplinary thoracic tumor board. Ultimately, 108 procedures were performed: 55 bronchoscopies, 7 percutaneous biopsies, and 46 operations. A total of 25 patients (1.2%) underwent bronchoscopy resulting in benign pathologic findings, significantly associated with an indication of an endobronchial lesion (P = .01). All percutaneous biopsy specimens revealed malignancy. Five patients (0.2%) who underwent resection had benign disease. Lung cancer was diagnosed in 67 patients (3.1% of the entire cohort), 46 of whom had stage I or II disease. ConclusionsLung cancer screening in a structured, multidisciplinary program successfully identifies patients with early-stage lung cancer with limited unnecessary surgical interventions. Patients with isolated endobronchial lesions should undergo short interval imaging follow-up to avoid bronchoscopy for benign disease. Future studies to minimize unnecessary procedures could incorporate biomarkers and advanced imaging analysis into risk assessment models.

Quantifying Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening in an Underserved Population: Results From a Prospective Study

Lung cancer screening with annual low-dose computed tomography reduces lung cancer death by 20-26%. However, potential harms of screening include false-positive results, procedures from false positives, procedural complications and failure to adhere to follow-up recommendations. In diverse, underserved populations, it is unknown if benefits of early lung cancer detection outweigh harms. We conducted a prospective observational study of lung cancer screening participants in an urban, safety-net institution from September 2014 to June 2020. We measured benefits of screening in terms of cancer diagnosis, stage, and treatment. We measured harms of screening by calculating false-positive rate, procedures as a result of false positive screens, procedural complications, and failure to follow-up with recommended care. Of patients with 3-year follow up, we measured these same outcomes in addition to compliance with annual screening. Of 1509 participants, 55.6% were African American, 35.2% White, 8.1% Hispanic, and 0.5% Asian. Screening resulted in cancer detection and treatment in 2.8%. False positive and procedure as a result of a false positive occurred in 9.2% and 0.8% of participants, respectively with no major complications from diagnostic procedures or treatment. Adherence to annual screening was low, 18.7%, 3.7%, and 0.4% at 1, 2, and 3 years after baseline screening respectively. Multidisciplinary lung cancer screening in a safety-net institution can successfully detect and treat lung cancer with few harms of false-positive screens, procedure after false-positive screens and major complications. However, adherence to annual screening is poor.

Health Resource and Cost Savings Achieved in a Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Clinic.

Background: Lung cancer (LC) care is resource and cost intensive. We launched a Multidisciplinary LC Clinic (MDC), where patients with a new LC diagnosis received concurrent oncology consultation, resulting in improved time to LC assessment and treatment. Here, we evaluate the impact of MDC on health resource utilization, patient and caregiver costs, and secondary patient benefits. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients in a rapid assessment clinic with a new LC diagnosis pre-MDC (September 2016–February 2017) and post-MDC implementation (February 2017–December 2018). Data are reported as means; unpaired t-tests and ANOVA were used to assess for significance. We also conducted a cost analysis. Resource utilization, out-of-pocket costs, procedure-related costs, and indirect costs were evaluated from the societal perspective and presented in 2019 Canadian dollars (CAD); multi-way worst/best case and threshold sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: We reviewed 428 patients (78 traditional model, 350 MDC). Patients in the MDC model required significantly fewer oncology visits from LC diagnosis to first LC treatment (1.62 vs. 2.68, p < 0.001), which was significant for patients with stage 1, 3, and 4 disease. Compared with the traditional model, there was no change in mean biopsies/patient (1.32 traditional vs. 1.17 MDC, p = 0.18) or staging investigations/patient (2.24 traditional vs. 2.02 MDC, p = 0.20). Post-MDC, there was an increase in invasive mediastinal staging for patients with stage 2/3 LC (15.0% vs. 60.0%, p < 0.001). Over 22 months, MDC resulted in savings of CAD 48,389 including CAD 24,167 CAD in direct patient out-of-pocket expenses. For the threshold analyses, MDC was estimated to cost CAD 25,708 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), considered to be below current willingness to pay thresholds (at CAD 80,000 per QALY). MDC also facilitated oncology assessment for 29 non-LC patients. Conclusions: An MDC led to a reduction in patient visits and direct patient and caregiver costs.

Mediastinal staging for non-small cell lung cancer

The staging of mediastinal lymph nodes for lung cancer is crucial for planning treatments or reinterventions. In potentially curable patients the aim of mediastinal staging is to exclude the presence of malignancy in mediastinal lymph nodes with a high level of accuracy while also considering clinical factors and the balance of the benefits and risks of tissue sampling techniques. Mediastinal staging is based on computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) and can be sufficient when no mediastinal abnormalities are present and the probability of unforeseen N2 disease is low. In the case of bulky lymph nodes with a high probability of malignancy in PET-CT, tissue confirmation is not normally required. If mediastinal sampling is needed it can be achieved by endosonographic techniques, including endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) or a combination of the two. Positive results do not need further confirmation. In the case of negative results, surgical techniques still play a role in the selected cases discussed by multidisciplinary lung cancer committees. New mediastinal surgical techniques including video-assisted cervical mediastinoscopy (VACM), video-assisted mediastinoscopic lymphadenectomy (VAMLA), and transcervical extended mediastinal lymphadenectomy (TEMLA) have been shown to be useful in selected patients. Final pathological staging is based on lymph node removal during surgery and can be achieved by taking one of two approaches: lymph node sampling or systematic lymph node sampling. The accuracy of PET-CT and mediastinal endosonography is lower for mediastinal restaging than it is for surgical techniques; their false positive and false negative (FN) rate is high and so, they require histological confirmation. Here we explain and revise the results from the most recent studies and current international guidelines.