Management of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the modern era: A national Italian survey on diagnosis, treatment and multidisciplinary approach.

Concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy (cCRT) is considered the standard treatment of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC). Unfortunately, management is still heterogeneous across different specialists. A multidisciplinary approach is needed in this setting due to recent, promising results obtained by consolidative immunotherapy. The aim of this survey is to assess current LA-NSCLC management in Italy. From January to April 2018, a 15-question survey focusing on diagnostic/therapeutic LA-NSCLC management was sent to 1,478 e-mail addresses that belonged to pneumologists, thoracic surgeons, and radiation and medical oncologists. 421 answers were analyzed: 176 radiation oncologists, 86 medical oncologists, 92 pneumologists, 64 thoracic surgeons and 3 other specialists. More than a half of the respondents had been practicing for >10 years after completing residency training. Some discrepancies were observed in clinical LA-NSCLC management: the lack of a regularly planned multidisciplinary tumor board, the use of upfront surgery in multistation stage IIIA, and territorial diffusion of cCRT in unresectable LA-NSCLC. Our analysis demonstrated good compliance with international guidelines in the diagnostic workup of LA-NSCLC. We observed a relationship between high clinical experience and good clinical practice. A multidisciplinary approach is mandatory for managing LA-NSCLC.

Introduction

Concomitant radiotherapy and chemotherapy (cCRT) represents the standard of care in “fit patients” (defined as patients with good performance status, no or mild comorbidities, and potentially able to undergo a multimodal approach as reported in the RTOG0617 trial) with a diagnosis of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) [1-2]. This combination is widely adopted due to strong, evidence-based results on overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and local control (LC) [3-4] when compared to a sequential approach. Despite the introduction of and improvements in image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) (e.g. using pre-planned positron emission tomography–PET-CT) and radiation technologies (e.g. intensity modulated radiotherapy–IMRT), OS is still disappointing and generally unimpacted by the addition of surgery [5]. In particular, cCRT is characterized by a higher risk of developing acute and late toxicities (i.e. esophagitis and pneumonitis), and only 40% of LA-NSCLC patients are candidates for this approach [6]. Particularly, “fit patients” (e.g. perfomance status 0–1, median age < 65 years, Caucasian, few comorbidities) are reported to have interesting OS, such as in the RTOG0617 trial in which the control group had a median OS of 28.7 months and a 2-year OS of 57.6% [5]. Recently, good results were obtained using immunotherapy (IT) after cCRT with a significant improvement in PFS and OS, with no impact in severe acute/late toxicity profiles [5,7-8].

The management of LA-NSCLC seems to be inhomogeneous between oncological centers and specialists due to the challenges of selecting fit patients, the recent introduction of IT, and the consequentially differing expertise in LA-NSCLC management. The aim of this survey was to assess the management of LA-NSCLC in Italy, asking all involved specialists (pneumologists [PN], thoracic surgeons [TS], radiation [RO] and medical oncologists [MO]) so as to illuminate potentially critical issues, improve good clinical practice, and better understand the different approaches between specialists.

Materials and methods

The survey was promoted on behalf of the Italian Radiation Oncologist Association (AIRO), as well as supported and endorsed by the Italian Pneumologists Association (AIPO) and Italian Thoracic Surgery Society (SICT). The questionnaire was divided into three sections: interviewer features, diagnostic management, and treatment approach.

An online, web-based survey was developed using a dedicated web platform (http://www.xsurvey.cloud). The survey was first planned in November 2016 and completed in April 2017. The questionnaire was written in Italian, and is provided in

Initially, all the written questions were submitted for analysis and approval by the Scientific Committee of AIRO (composed of national experts in clinical oncology). After initial AIRO Scientific Committee approval, the questions were then submitted to the AIRO Directory Board for final approval. Finally, in January of 2018, an initial e-mail with a link to the web-based questionnaire was sent to all AIRO members involved in thoracic oncology, and consequently to TS and PN dedicated to thoracic malignancy in daily clinical practice. The Medical Oncologists Society was also asked to forward the survey to physicians who manage lung cancer treatments. The survey was strictly confidential and anonymous, and designed to be completed in approximately 15 minutes. Initial responses were reviewed by AIRO Thoracic Oncology Group board members. A general reminder was sent one month later to obtain a greater rate of answers, and survey responses were collected until April 2018.

All responses (including partial responses) were deemed eligible and analyzed through descriptive statistics. Specifically, two statistical analyses were performed in order to investigate variability in answer distribution. First, subgroups were created from the total population based on specialization (PN, TS, radiation [RO] and medical oncologists [MO]), level of experience, workings hours spent on lung tumors issues, and rate of multidisciplinary case discussion. These subgroups were used to define current, clinical lung cancer practice in Italy by presenting interviewees with case studies for response. For this analysis, answers were given in a multi-choice format with no response considered “correct” or “incorrect”.

Second, these subgroups were correlated with a “correct” response rate using the responses to the same set of case studies. “Correct” answers were defined as adhering to international guidelines (such as the ESMO) by the core of experts who planned the survey (). Each subgroup was compared with the rest of the interviewed population in terms of answer distribution, indicating statistical significance when p <0.05.

Both the above analyses were conducted using the Pearson chi-square test. As a survey involving neither therapeutic choice on humans nor demographic data, it did not require any ethics committee approval.

Results

The survey was sent to 1,478 email-addresses. 421 responses were received (with an overall response rate of 28%), divided as follows: 176 (42%) RO, 86 (20%) MO, 92 (22%) PN, 64 (15%) TS and 3 (1%) other specialists. The features of all respondents are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

Features of 421 respondents (AIRO/AIOM/AIPO/SICT) to the survey.

Characteristics	Responsen (%)
Type of specialization:
Radiation Oncology	176 (42%)
Medical Oncology	86 (20%)
Pneumology	92 (22%)
Thoracic Surgery	64 (15%)
Other	3 (1%)
Type of practice:
Academic	165 (40%)
IRCCS	53 (13%)
General hospital	23 (6%)
Private	23 (6%)
Years in practice:
0–5 years	128 (31%)
5–10 years	51 (12%)
10–15 years	79 (19%)
> 15 years	158 (38%)
% of working hours spent on lung tumors
90–100%	53 (13%)
70–90%	85 (21%)
50–70%	108 (26%)
<50%	168 (41%)
Representative physician in diagnostic and staging process:
Radiation Oncologist	7 (2%)
Medical Oncologist	12 (27%)
Pneumologist	208 (50%)
Thoracic Surgeon
Geographic location:
North	182 (44%)
Central	150 (36%)
South	56 (14%)
Islands	25 (6%)
Rate of multidisciplinary case discussion:
Yes, with weekly meetings	295 (72%)
Yes, with meetings every two weeks	34 (8%)
Yes, but not regularly	41 (10%)
None	41 (10%)
Number of patients with LA-NSCLC treated in the last year:
> 30 pts	30 (34%)
20–30 pts	108 (26%)
10–20 pts	117 (29%)
<10 pts	45 (11%)

Regarding second level staging in LA-NSCLC, most respondents (63%) declared that a patient with a new LA-NSCLC diagnosis with mediastinal PET positivity required complete staging with endobronchial ultrasound-guided/trans-bronchial needle aspiration (EBUS/TBNA) (Fig 1). Interestingly, being a RO or TS seemed to positively influence the chance of reporting correct answers, as defined previously (p = 0.001 and p = 0.0001, respectively). Other characteristics with a statistically positive impact on the rate of correct answers were 10 to 15 years of experience (p = 0.025), the working hours spent on lung tumors (≥50%), the presence of a weekly multidisciplinary team meeting (p = 0.04), and the number of treated patients (at least 10 per year, p = 0.011). EBUS/TBNA was the diagnostic standard choice for 57% of responders, even in case of lymph nodal mediastinal PET negativity. No other additional diagnostic tests were necessary for 99 colleagues (24%) (Fig 2).

Fig 1

LA-NSCLC lymph nodal mediastinal PET positivity–question 9.

Fig 2

LA-NSCLC diagnosis with lymph nodal negativity–question 10.

Of note, almost half of the respondents (43%) considered at least a histological differential diagnosis between adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma mandatory before planning a radical treatment. On the other hand, 22% of lung specialists preferred to proceed with mutational analysis, and only 15% needed PDL-1 expression (question number 11). It is important to note that this survey was administered before the results of the PACIFIC trial [8]. Dedicating less than 50% of the total working hours to lungs predisposed one to a higher rate of wrong answers to this question (p = 0.021).

Questions about therapeutic choices were presented in the form of clinical cases. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) followed by surgery was recommended by 43% of specialists (Fig 3) in a patient with cT1b cN2, single station involvement lung adenocarcinoma (stage IIIA), and fit for surgery. Instead, in a patient fit for surgery with clinical stage cT2 cN2 and multiple positive lymph node stations (stage IIIA), 32% of respondents declared a preference for radical cCRT (Fig 4). Even in this case, experience with lung tumors was essential: more than 15 years of experience and dedicating more than 70% of the total working hours to lung cancer were positively correlated with a correct answer (p = 0.009 and p = 0.041, respectively). Almost half of respondents (48%) thought that radical cCRT, if not performed in a neoadjuvant setting, was the best approach for inoperable lung adenocarcinoma in partial response/stability (ycN2) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Surgery (only with a feasible lobectomy) and radiotherapy (RT) alone (if not administered in a neoadjuvant setting) were the best treatment options for 23% and 19% of lung specialists, respectively. The remaining part voted for CT alone or surgery, independently from the applied technique (Fig 5).

Fig 3

LA-NSCLC clinical stage cT1b cN2, single station, fit for surgery—question number 12.

Fig 4

LA-NSCLC clinical stage cT2cN2, multiple stations, IIIB—question number 13.

Fig 5

LA-NSCLC inoperable in partial response/stability (ycN2) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy—question number 14.

54% of respondents declared that upfront cCRT should be the preferred treatment for stage IIIA-B NSCLC patients; cCRT followed by consolidation CT was the best choice for 33%. Moreover, sequential CTRT was a reasonable treatment option for the remaining 13% of the interviewees (question number 15). For most respondents, acute toxicity and logistical barriers were reasonable contraindications for a concomitant approach in a patient fit for surgery with stage IIIA-B NSCLC or cCRT in stage IIIA-B (question number 16).

After the first analysis, a significant difference was observed between the average response of the entire population and the various subgroups for each question analyzed both in diagnosis management and in therapeutic management ().

The results of the second statistical analysis comparing subgroups according to correct answers are shown in and . The p-value indicates whether a significant difference exists between each subgroup and the total population, and the percentage reflects the correct answer rate.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first multidisciplinary survey in Europe that collected data about the management of Stage III NSCLC. Focusing on diagnostic approaches, we observed global agreement on the management of second level staging in mediastinal histopathological proof in accordance with ESMO (European Society of Medical Oncology) and ESTS (European Society of Thoracic Surgeons) clinical guidelines [9]. In particular, EBUS with FNA (fine-needle aspiration) was preferred over video-assisted mediastinoscopy (VAM) because it is minimally invasive and has acceptable sensitivity (83% and 94%) [10-11].

In our survey, over 70% of physicians agreed with an invasive histopathological proof in suspect mediastinal lymph nodes, and EBUS was considered the main invasive staging approach. The answers were conditioned by the availability of procedural equipment or resources.

Regarding histopathological and molecular analysis, nearly half of the physicians (43%) considered a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma acceptable for a locoregional oncological approach. Surprisingly, 22% recommended a molecular analysis (EGFR, ROS, ALK1 status) in unresectable LA-NSCLC, in which platinum-based chemotherapy and radiotherapy represent the standard of care [12].

The PACIFIC trial demonstrated that durvalumab improved progression-free survival (HR 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P<0.001) [7] and overall survival (HR, 0.68; 99.73% CI, 0.47 to 0.997; p = 0.0025) [8] compared to placebo. This approach has since modified clinical management (excluding patients with a PD-L1 level < 1%), and the evaluation of PD-L1 status would be systematically requested in this setting. These findings could justify the answer given by 15% of survey responders, according to EMA approval.

Regarding diagnostic management, we observed some heterogeneity in the subgroup analysis, as reported in and . In particular, there was a close correlation between high expertise, over >50% of working hours being dedicated to the management of LA-NSCLC, weekly multidisciplinary discussions, and good clinical practice.

The clinical guidelines recognize the importance of multidisciplinary meetings (MDM) in the management of lung cancer patients, as an early diagnosis can significantly impact survival, while the most appropriate treatments must be selected based on the clinical condition of the lung cancer patient [13, 14], especially in stage III NSCLC [15].

In general terms, dedicated lung cancer MDMs should feature the participation of key professionals: radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pneumologists, radiologists, nuclear medicine physicians, pathologists, and specialist nurses.

Another finding from this survey was the clinical management of different, locally advanced NSCLC disease, including potentially resectable and unresectable cases. In our survey, in cT1bN2 (Stage IIIA—single station), 43% of physicians proposed neoadjuvant CT followed by resection, while for 23%, upfront surgical resection was considered appropriate. These results underline that lobectomy and lymph node dissection are considered feasible in single N2 lymph node and limited T-stage cancer.

Certainly, surgery is accepted by the international community as the cornerstone approach in the management of lung cancer. In the ESMO guidelines [11], for patients with single N2 station involvement and early stage primary NSCLC, a lung resection followed by adjuvant systemic therapy or neoadjuvant CT and surgery are both considered acceptable, even though it remains an open issue.

Regarding the correct approach for a patient with unresectable stage III NSCLC who had been treated with neoadjuvant CT and persistent N2 (ycN2), almost half of physicians (48%) considered cCRT the standard of care.

Finally, for cT2N2 (Stage IIIA—multiple stations, no bulky disease), there was diversity among the answers: 32% of physicians supported a radical cCRT treatment, 27% considered neoadjuvant CT as a feasible strategy, and 23% proposed surgery after CT or cCRT.

In both scenarios, cCRT (Level IA) is the most appropriate therapeutic approach according to ESMO guidelines. However, in centers with an experienced multidisciplinary team, a multimodality approach including surgery can be considered in select cases (Level of Evidence IV C) [12].

Nevertheless, surgical resection could be considered even if different clinical experiences do not significantly impact clinical outcomes after a trimodality approach. In the Lung Intergroup 0139 trial, the induction of CT and RT followed by surgery did not prove advantageous for OS when compared to radical cCRT due to higher pneumonectomy-related toxicities. [16]. More recently, two additional studies explored the use of a neoadjuvant CTRT combination, but without a clear benefit for clinical outcomes [17, 18]. For these reasons, trimodality therapy cannot be considered the standard of care in locally advanced NSCLC.

When a locally advanced NSCLC patient was not considered eligible for surgery, upfront cCRT was considered the standard of care by 54% of physicians. This clinical approach agrees with the principal international guidelines and meta-analysis, confirming the advantage of cCRT compared to sequential RT [1, 12].

Despite the consideration of acute toxicity as the primary impetus for avoiding cCRT treatments, we still observed that in 8% of physicians, prescribing sequential C-RT was correlated to logistical limitations. Also, in the management of clinical cases, we observed a relationship between large clinical experience and good clinical practice, underlying the role of a multidisciplinary approach and expertise in LA-NSCLC management.

The results from the PACIFIC trial will modify daily clinical practice, and it is critical to improve education and multidisciplinary approaches in the management of LA-NSCLC to define the most appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic management strategy.

Study limitations, strengths, and future perspectives

During the planning stage of the present survey, a discussion was held among the members of the AIRO Thoracic Oncology Group to clarify the main research goals. The promoters were aware of the reservations regarding surveys, which are generally a poor method for collecting data and opinions on current clinical practice. We could not verify the self-reported data, and respondents’ memories are often unreliable. Moreover, we could not quantify practice outcomes, but we did obtain data on expert opinions, beliefs, and ideas regarding LA-NSCLC management in Italy. We now have a sense of the extent of agreement and disagreement among the various specialists regarding LA-NSCLC approaches. Such information could serve as the proof of principle for a consensus conference, designed to establish multidisciplinary indications for the staging and treatment of pulmonary LA-NSCLC. Moreover, this information could help to identify targets for future research projects and investigations.

Questionnaire.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Correct answers accepted by NSCLC experts.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Statistical analysis for diagnostic management comparing subgroups and entire population [table].

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Statistical analysis for therapeutic management comparing subgroups and entire population [table].

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Statistical analysis for diagnostic management comparing subgroups and correct answers [table].

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Statistical analysis for therapeutic management comparing subgroups and correct answers [table].

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

1 Aug 2019

PONE-D-19-18372

Management of Locally advanced Non Small Cell Lung Cancer in the modern era: a National Italian Survey on diagnosis, treatment and multidisciplinary approach

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr bruni,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Specifically, the authors must improve the English grammar in the manuscript for it to be suitable for publication. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Sep 15 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Stephen Chun

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please remove the tracked changes from page 6 of your manuscript.

3.  Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

[The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.]

Please provide an amended Funding Statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support received during this specific study (whether external or internal to your organization) as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funder. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

*Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please include a copy of Tables 2 and 3 which you refer to in your text on page 13.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a survey of several multidisciplinary members of a thoracic oncology team regarding management of LA-NSCLC. Comments to the authors follow.

- Complete English language review recommended by a native speaker. There are too many grammatical and tense errors in the document to correct.

- Line 105: "9617" should be "0617"

- If you are making a discussion of what "fit" means, perhaps it's best to state the types of patients enrolled on those trials like 0617 and PACIFIC. (e.g. performance status, age, etc)

- Please state the overall response rate of the survey

- Lines 168-170: confusing, please reword.

- Please comment in the Discussion why so many responders may have wanted a diagnosis of adeno vs SCC beforehand, since that usually does not change management. What about the diagnosis "NSCLC not otherwise specified" in which the pathologist cannot tell if it's adeno or SCC?

- The Discussion is long and the authors should make efforts to streamline this information better.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting survey report from the University Hospital of Modena in Italy.

It seeks to gather information from different specialists (radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, pulmonologists, and thoracic surgeons) who treat locally advanced lung cancer in Italy. The survey uses 15 questions regarding both the best way to diagnose/stage and treat this cancer. The cases presented use imaging which is quite good. The survey questions were reviewed by the scientific committee of the Italian Radiation Oncologist Association. The authors evaluated responses as either “correct” or “not correct” based on “main international guidelines” (ESMO) and “following the rules of good clinical practice” by the core of experts who designed the survey. Overall, I liked this concept though “following the rules of good clinical practice” probably shouldn’t be suggested as acceptable for peer review.

I believe there is valuable data here.

My main problem with the manuscript has to do with its presentation

For example, what’s going on with page 6 lines 123-128?

It’s good to edit your manuscript, but do this before submitting it for peer review.

Finally, the American grammar is just not acceptable for publication in an American journal.

A few examples:

1) Page 12 line 229 “is preferred because minimally invasive” should be “is preferred because it is minimally invasive”.

2) Page 13 line 247 “will be systematically request in this setting” should be “will be systematically requested in this setting”.

3) Page 13 line 250 “disomogeneity” is not a word.

4) Page 15 line 298 “this negative result should be related to a higher toxicity” should be “this negative result is related to a higher toxicity”.

Reviewer #3: The authors are to be commended for seeking multidisciplinary perspectives on the management of Stage III NSCLC. The paper describes survey results. It would be helpful to know how correct answers were chosen. The paper also contains many grammatical and vocabulary errors and the paper would benefit from additional writing assistance.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: John M. Holland, MD

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

27 Aug 2019

Dear Editor,

thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript entitled “Management of locally advanced non small cell lung cancer in the modern era: a national Italian survey on diagnosis, treatment and multidisciplinary approach”. According the reviewers advices, we revised our manuscript and highlighted all changes in the manuscript. The response to the reviewers are listed as follows. We hope that our modifications would meet your requirements.

We look forward to hearing from you, and are hopeful of a positive response.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you and best regards.

Editor

I removed the tracked changes from page 6 of your manuscript

At page 13, I replaced “Table 2” and “Table 3” with “S3 Appendix” and “S4 Appendix” due to the complexity of the tables reported (as you suggested in a previous review).

I included captions for the supporting information files at the end of the manuscript, and I updated any in-text citations to match accordingly.

Reviewer #1

I submitted the paper to a native speaker to have a complete English language review and to correct all the grammatical and tense errors

To better explain what “fit” means, I maintained what we proposed as definition and I also reported the main features of patients enrolled in RTOG0617.

I added the overall response rate (in percentage of responders) of the survey at the beginning of graph “Results”

I reworded the Lines 168-170 that were confusing.

Together with all the co-aouthors, I tried to reduce the lenght of the graph “Discussion” underlying the most significative findings.

Reviewer #2

I modified the tense at page 6 line 123-128 trying to make it clearer

I accepted all the corrections/suggestions :

Page 12 line 229

Page 13 line 247

Page 13 line 250

Page 15 line 298

Reviewer #3

We reported in the text that answers were assumed as “correct” by the experts taking into account the main International Guidelines such as ESMO ones.

Waiting for hearing from you,

kind regards

Alessio Bruni, MD

Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter PLOSONE.docx

Click here for additional data file.

30 Aug 2019

PONE-D-19-18372R1

Management of Locally advanced Non Small Cell Lung Cancer in the modern era: a National Italian Survey on diagnosis, treatment and multidisciplinary approach

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Bruni,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 14 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Stephen Chun

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The manuscript is improved, but continues to have linguistic issues that must be addressed prior to publication.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have made substantial strides to revise their paper, but there are still some English language issues. E.g. "Both the above analyses were conducted using Person chi-square test. As a survey not involving either therapeutic choice on humans or demographic data, it does not need any ethics committee approval."

- "the Pearson" not "Person"

- 2nd sentence should be past tense like the rest

E.g. "thought a radical cCRT" remove 'a'

Please have the native English speaker carefully look over the English, tense, usage, and flow one more time carefully

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

3 Oct 2019

Dear Editor,

thank you again for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript entitled “Management of locally advanced non small cell lung cancer in the modern era: a national Italian survey on diagnosis, treatment and multidisciplinary approach”. According the reviewers advices, we revised again our manuscript and highlighted all changes in the manuscript.

The response to the reviewers are listed as follows.

We hope that our modifications would meet your requirements.

I re-submitted the paper to a native speaker to have a complete English language review and to correct all the grammatical and tense errors

We accepted all the corrections/suggestions:

- “Person" was changed in “the Pearson"

- “ […]it does not need any ethics committee approval." Was changed in “[..] it did not need any ethics committee approval”

- "thought a radical cCRT" was changed in "thought radical cCRT"

- Other imprecisions were again corrected by our native speaker reviewer

We look forward to hearing from you, and are hopeful of a positive response.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you and best regards.

Alessio Bruni, MD

Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter PLOSONE.docx

Click here for additional data file.

4 Oct 2019

Management of Locally advanced Non Small Cell Lung Cancer in the modern era: a National Italian Survey on diagnosis, treatment and multidisciplinary approach

PONE-D-19-18372R2

Dear Dr. Bruni,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Stephen Chun

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

While the manuscript is accepted, there remain minor issues with grammar and flow. In the publication process, the authors are expected to further improve the English of the manuscript.

Reviewers' comments:

21 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-18372R2

Management of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the modern era: a national Italian survey on diagnosis, treatment and multidisciplinary approach.

Dear Dr. Bruni:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Stephen Chun

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE