ArticleThe Journal of surgical research2025
Perspectives on Commission on Cancer Standard 5.8 on Lung Cancer: A Qualitative Study.
Article in The Journal of surgical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIn 2021, the Commission on Cancer implemented Standard 5.8, which requires that lymph nodes be sampled from ≥1 hilar and ≥3 different mediastinal lymph node stations for all curative-intent lung cancer resections. While 80% compliance is expected of all Commission on Cancer-accredited hospitals, recent data illustrates only half of sites are currently meeting criteria. We evaluated perceived barriers and facilitators in implementing Standard 5.8.
methodsIn this multicenter qualitative study, 20 semistructured interviews were conducted across academic and community-based institutions. We interviewed key stakeholders, including thoracic surgeons, pathologists, operating room staff, a cancer liaison physician, and clinical data analysts. Thematic analysis was facilitated by the tailored implementation for chronic disease checklist.
resultsThemes were mapped to six tailored implementation for chronic disease domains. Most participants felt the guideline was not burdensome and did not alter their clinical practices. Although many agreed that a minimum threshold for lymph node evaluation should exist, some participants were uncertain of the supporting evidence and identified potential technical and clinical barriers to implementation. Interdisciplinary collaboration was a key facilitator to compliance, as well as alignment with professional society guidelines. Higher compliance rates were thought to be driven by increased monitoring and performance feedback, in addition to departmental leadership and support.
conclusionsMixed opinions regarding Standard 5.8 align with currently low national compliance rates. Participants emphasized the need for additional evidence to support the standard, underscoring the importance of future prospective studies. Support for strong interdisciplinary communication, regularly scheduled feedback, endorsement by cardiothoracic societies and departmental leadership may improve compliance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.