Number of patients with a test that provides tissue confirmation of the stage-defining lesion. Tests include a biopsy of any identified suspicious metastatic lesion or the primary lesion in the absence of any other suspicious lesion.

This measure compares 3 groups, instead of 2, because some patients in the serial care group were presented for discussion in a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology conference while still not being seen in the multidisciplinary clinic setting. Therefore, we split the serial care group in two in order to measure the potential impact of a multidisciplinary conference model, separate from the multidisciplinary clinic model.

Number of patients with a test (i.e., biopsy) that provides tissue confirmation of the presence or absence mediastinal nodal metastasis.

This measure compares 3 groups, instead of 2, because some patients in the serial care group were presented for discussion in a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology conference while still not being seen in the multidisciplinary clinic setting. Therefore, we split the serial care group in two in order to measure the potential impact of a multidisciplinary conference model, separate from the multidisciplinary clinic model.

Number of patients receiving two forms of staging tests (bi-modal staging). Bi-modal staging is defined as a CT scan plus any other type of radiologic scan or any biopsy.

This measure compares 3 groups, instead of 2, because some patients in the serial care group were presented for discussion in a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology conference while still not being seen in the multidisciplinary clinic setting. Therefore, we split the serial care group in two in order to measure the potential impact of a multidisciplinary conference model, separate from the multidisciplinary clinic model.

Number of patients receiving three forms of staging tests (tri-modal staging). Tri-modal staging is defined as a CT scan plus any other type of radiologic scan plus any biopsy, or PET/CT plus any biopsy.

This measure compares 3 groups, instead of 2, because some patients in the serial care group were presented for discussion in a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology conference while still not being seen in the multidisciplinary clinic setting. Therefore, we split the serial care group in two in order to measure the potential impact of a multidisciplinary conference model, separate from the multidisciplinary clinic model.

Number of patients for whom appropriate treatment was given, as determined by the patients' clinical stage and treatment guidelines stipulated by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). 2 group comparison between Multidisciplinary Clinic Patients and Serial Care Patients.

For Stage I or II: surgery (or radiation therapy with documented contraindication to surgery or patient refusal); for Stage III: chemotherapy and radiation therapy with or without surgery; for Stage IV: systemic therapy (or palliative care with documented patient refusal or contraindication to systemic therapy).

Number of patients for whom appropriate treatment was given, as determined by the patients' clinical stage and treatment guidelines stipulated by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

For Stage I or II: surgery (or radiation therapy with documented contraindication to surgery or patient refusal); for Stage III: chemotherapy and radiation therapy with or without surgery; for Stage IV: systemic therapy (or palliative care with documented patient refusal or contraindication to systemic therapy).

This measure compares 3 groups, instead of 2, because some patients in the serial care group were presented for discussion in a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology conference while still not being seen in the multidisciplinary clinic setting. Therefore, we split the serial care group in two in order to measure the potential impact of a multidisciplinary conference model, separate from the multidisciplinary clinic model.

Number of patients for whom formal, verified communication of care management decisions was made to all team members (providers inside and outside the multidisciplinary program, patients and their care-givers) within 48 hours of a care recommendation being made. 2 group comparison between Multidisciplinary Clinic Patients and Serial Care Patients.

Number of patients for whom all recommendations made at the initial multidisciplinary conference were completed. 2 group comparison between Multidisciplinary Clinic Patients and Serial Care Patients. Note that two patients (one from the MD arm and one from the SC arm) have died before receiving recommendations and therefore were not analyzed for this outcome.

Number of patients for whom all initial conference recommendations were completed, excluding conditional recommendations for which the prior condition was not met. 2 group comparison between Multidisciplinary Clinic Patients and Serial Care Patients. Note that two patients (one from the MD arm and one from the SC arm) have died before receiving recommendations and therefore were not analyzed for this outcome.

E.g., if a recommendation was to have a PET/CT and then a staging biopsy if the PET showed suspicious metastatic disease, the staging biopsy recommendation was excluded from the concordance measure if the PET/CT did not happen or was negative.

Number of patients for whom any initial conference recommendation was completed. 2 group comparison between Multidisciplinary Clinic Patients and Serial Care Patients. Note that two patients (one from the MD arm and one from the SC arm) have died before receiving recommendations and therefore were not analyzed for this outcome.

Number of patients for whom the overall initial conference recommendation was completed. 2 group comparison between Multidisciplinary Clinic Patients and Serial Care Patients. Note that two patients (one from the MD arm and one from the SC arm) have died before receiving recommendations and therefore were not analyzed for this outcome.

The hierarchy to rank recommendations, from highest priority to lowest, was (1) treatment, (2) staging, (3) diagnosis, (4) surveillance.

If a patient had a treatment recommendation and it happened, he/she was concordant. If treatment was recommended and it did not happen, he/she was discordant. If no treatment recommendation was made, then concordance was measured by whether or not the staging recommendation was met. If no staging recommendation was made, then the diagnostic recommendation was given priority for a concordance measurement. If no diagnostic recommendation, then a surveillance recommendation was used to measure overall concordance.

Number of patients for whom the treatment recommendation made at the initial conference presentation was completed, excluding any patient for whom prior recommendations (staging, diagnosis, surveillance) were not also completed. 2 group comparison between Multidisciplinary Clinic Patients and Serial Care Patients.

Number of patients who completed a baseline patient survey

Number of patients who completed a 3-month survey

Number of patients who completed a 6-month survey

Scores from patient surveys that measure quality of life and satisfaction with care received at the time the baseline survey was taken.

Overall quality of health care - satisfaction with overall quality of health care since lung cancer diagnosis; range: 0-4 (higher is better) Financial burden of care - assessment of financial burden of care; range: 3-6 (sum of 3 items, higher is worse) Treatment decision-making: Surgery/Radiation/Chemotherapy - each 1 item; satisfaction with treatment decision-making; range: 0-2 (0=patient controlled; 1=shared decision; 2-physician decision; closer to 1 is best) Satisfaction with treatment plan - satisfaction with overall treatment plan; range: 1-5 (sum of 2 items, higher is better) Treatment decision-making: family role - satisfaction with family role in treatment decision-making; range: 0-2 (0=patient controlled; 1=shared decision; 2-physician decision; closer to 1 is best) (descriptions continued in 3 month survey description)

Scores from patient surveys that measure quality of life and satisfaction with care received at the time the 3-month survey was taken.

(continued from baseline) Satisfaction with quality of care - overall satisfaction with care received from all care team members; range: 0-18 (sum of 6 items, higher is better) Satisfaction with physician communication - overall satisfaction with physician communication; range: 0-21 (sum of 7 items, higher is better) Satisfaction with nurse communication - overall satisfaction with nurse communication; range: 0-18 (sum of 6 items, higher is better) Overall team satisfaction - CAHPS satisfaction with care from team as a whole; range: 0-15 (sum of 4 items, higher is better) Physical/Social/Functional well-being - health-related quality of life relating to physical/social/functional well-being; range 0-28 (each a sum of 7 items, higher is better) (description continues in 6 month survey description)

Scores from patient surveys that measure quality of life and satisfaction with care received at the time the 6-month survey was taken.

(cont) Emotional well-being - health-related quality of life related to emotional well-being; range 0-30 (sum of 6 items, higher is better) Lung cancer specific QOL - health-related quality of life related to lung cancer diagnosis; range: 0-36 (sum of 9 items, higher is better) Total Summary Score FACTL - full survey, functional assessment of cancer therapy - lung; range: 0-136 (sum of 36 items, higher is better) Generic Score FACTG - full survey, functional assessment of cancer therapy - general; range: 0-108 (sum of 27 items, higher is better) Trial Outcome Index - health related quality of life - trial outcome index; range: 0-84 (sum of 23 items, higher is better) Depression/Anxiety - depression/anxiety measured by Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; range: 0-21 (sum of 7 items each, higher is worse)

Number of caregivers who completed a baseline patient survey

Number of caregivers who completed a 3-month survey

Number of caregivers who completed a 6-month survey

Scores from caregiver surveys that measure quality of life and satisfaction with care received at the time the baseline survey was taken.

Overall quality of health care - satisfaction with overall quality of health care since lung cancer diagnosis; range:0-4 (higher is better) Treatment decision-making: Surgery/Radiation/Chemotherapy - each 1 item; satisfaction with treatment decision-making; range: 0-2 (0=patient controlled; 1=shared decision; 2-physician decision; closer to 1 is best) Treatment decision-making: family role - satisfaction with family role in treatment decision-making; range: 0-2 (0=patient controlled; 1=shared decision; 2-physician decision; closer to 1 is best) Satisfaction with treatment plan - satisfaction with overall treatment plan; range: 0-2 (higher is better) Satisfaction patient can complete treatment plan; range: 0-2 (higher is better) (continued in 3 month survey description)

Scores from caregiver surveys that measure quality of life and satisfaction with care received at the time the 3-month survey was taken.

(cont) Satisfaction with quality of care - overall satisfaction with care received from all care team members; range: 0-18 (sum of 6 items, higher is better) Satisfaction with physician communication - overall satisfaction with physician communication; range: 0-28 (sum of 7 items, higher is better) Satisfaction with nurse communication - overall satisfaction with nurse communication; range: 6-24 (sum of 6 items, higher is better) Overall team satisfaction - CAHPS satisfaction with care from team as a whole; range: 0-15 (sum of 4 items, higher is better) Depression/Anxiety - depression/anxiety measured by Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; range: 0-21 (sum of 7 items, higher is worse) (continued in 6 month survey description)

Scores from caregiver surveys that measure quality of life and satisfaction with care received at the time the 6-month survey was taken.

(cont) Physical Functioning QOL - 10 items; Physical Health Problems QOL - 4 items; Pain QOL - 2 items; General health perceptions - 5 items; Energy/fatigue QOL - 4 items; Social Functioning QOL - 2 items; Emotional health problems QOL - 3 items; Emotional well-being QOL - 5 items.

All health related quality of life measures are from the SF-36 survey tool, and use a range of 0-100 mean score (higher is better).

Aggregate time in days from enrollment to a specific care delivery endpoint including: from initial detection of lesion to initial biopsy, from initial detection to non-invasive staging, from initial detection to invasive staging, and from initial detection to definitive treatment. 2 group comparison between Multidisciplinary Clinic Patients and Serial Care Patients.

Aggregate time in days from enrollment to specific care delivery endpoint including: from initial detection of lesion to initial biopsy, from initial detection to non-invasive staging, from initial detection to invasive staging, and from initial detection to definitive treatment.

This measure compares 3 groups, instead of 2, because some patients in the serial care group were presented for discussion in a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology conference while still not being seen in the multidisciplinary clinic setting. Therefore, we split the serial care group in two in order to measure the potential impact of a multidisciplinary conference model, separate from the multidisciplinary clinic model.

Responses from clinical providers will measure provider satisfaction and obstacles to institutional multidisciplinary care.

Responses from clinical providers will measure provider satisfaction and obstacles to institutional multidisciplinary care.

Responses from clinical providers will measure provider satisfaction and obstacles to institutional multidisciplinary care.

Responses from clinical providers will measure provider satisfaction and obstacles to institutional multidisciplinary care.

Responses from clinical providers will measure provider satisfaction and obstacles to institutional multidisciplinary care.

Responses from clinical providers will measure provider satisfaction and obstacles to institutional multidisciplinary care.

Overall survival, defined as the time from cancer diagnosis to death from any cause or data censoring, is analyzed and summarized with the survival probabilities over time using the Kaplan-Meier method. Confidence intervals for the 1- and 3- year survival probabilities are reported. Additionally, the Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate hazard ratios which are reported in the statistical analyses with 95% confidence intervals.

Overall survival, defined as the time from cancer diagnosis to death from any cause or data censoring, is analyzed and summarized with the survival probabilities over time using the Kaplan-Meier method. Confidence intervals for the 1- and 3- year survival probabilities are reported. Additionally, the Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate hazard ratios which are reported in the statistical analyses with 95% confidence intervals.

This measure compares 3 groups, instead of 2, because some patients in the serial care group were presented for discussion in a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology conference while still not being seen in the multidisciplinary clinic setting. Therefore, we split the serial care group in two in order to measure the potential impact of a multidisciplinary conference model, separate from the multidisciplinary clinic model.

Event-free survival (EFS), as measured from the time from cancer diagnosis to disease progression, death, or data censoring, is analyzed and summarized with the survival probabilities over time using the Kaplan-Meier method. Confidence intervals for the 1- and 3- year survival probabilities are reported. Additionally, the Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate hazard ratios which are reported in the statistical analyses with 95% confidence intervals.

Event-free survival (EFS), as measured from the time from cancer diagnosis to disease progression, death, or data censoring, is analyzed and summarized with the survival probabilities over time using the Kaplan-Meier method. Confidence intervals for the 1- and 3- year survival probabilities are reported. Additionally, the Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate hazard ratios which are reported in the statistical analyses with 95% confidence intervals.

This measure compares 3 groups, instead of 2, because some patients in the serial care group were presented for discussion in a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology conference while still not being seen in the multidisciplinary clinic setting. Therefore, we split the serial care group in two in order to measure the potential impact of a multidisciplinary conference model, separate from the multidisciplinary clinic model.

Total of all reporting groups

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scale. 0: fully active, able to carry on all pre-disease performance without restriction; 1: restricted in physically strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out work of a light or sedentary nature, e.g., light house work, office work; 2: ambulatory and capable of all self-care but unable to carry out any work activities, up and about more than 50% of waking hours; 3: capable of only limited self-care, confined to bed or chair more than 50% of waking hours; 4: completely disabled, cannot carry on any self-care; 5: dead.

Initial Stage is the patient's clinical stage at initial lesion detection as determined by a radiologic scan that first showed a lesion. The staging reported uses the AJCC 7th edition Tumor/Node/Metastasis (TNM) framework for lung cancer staging. Lower staging (Stage IA) is considered a better prognosis than higher staging (Stage IV). For each stage, an earlier letter means a lower stage. Occult carcinoma means the main tumor can't be assessed. In this study, a change in clinical staging from initial to independently-calculated stage measures the impact of pre-treatment decision-making.

Independently calculated clinical stage refers to the clinical stage immediately before the onset of first line treatment is determined. The independent calculation is performed by a trained research team member using all available pre-treatment clinical information and following the AJCC 7th edition Tumor/Node/Metastasis (TNM) guidelines for lung cancer. Lower staging (Stage 0) is considered a better prognosis than higher staging (Stage IV). Within each stage, an earlier letter means a lower stage.

The T category measures the size and extent of the primary tumor. Lower T categories (T1 tumor 3 cm or less) are considered better prognosis than higher T categories (T4 tumor larger than 7 cm, 2+ separate tumor nodules, or growth between the lungs). Independently calculated clinical T category refers to the method by which the T category immediately before onset of first line treatment is determined. The independent calculation is performed by a trained researcher using all available pre-treatment clinical information following the AJCC 7th edition framework for lung cancer staging.

The N category measures the degree of cancer spread to nearby lymph nodes. Lower N categories (N0 the cancer has not spread to nearby lymph nodes) are considered better prognosis than higher N categories (N2 cancer spread to lymph nodes between the lungs). Independently calculated clinical N category refers to the method by which the N category immediately before onset of first line treatment is determined. The independent calculation is performed by a trained researcher using all available pre-treatment clinical information following the AJCC 7th edition framework for lung cancer staging.

M category refers to the spread (metastasis) of the cancer to distant sites. Lower M categories (M0 no distant spread) are considered better prognosis than higher M categories (M1b spread outside the chest to distant organs such as liver, bones, or brain). Independently calculated clinical M category refers to the method by which the M category immediately before onset of first line treatment is determined. The independent calculation is performed by a trained researcher using all available pre-treatment clinical information following the AJCC 7th edition framework for lung cancer staging.

Patients seen and treated in the standard, sequential-referral-based environment of care.

Number of patients with a test (i.e., biopsy) that provides tissue confirmation of the presence or absence of mediastinal nodal metastasis. 2 group comparison between Multidisciplinary Clinic Patients and Serial Care Patients.

All Specific Aim 3 patients (patients with histologically confirmed lung cancer (irrespective of histology) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) from 0 (asymptomatic) to 2 (symptomatic but out of bed for >50% of the day)).

Number of patients receiving two forms of staging tests (bi-modal staging). Bi-modal staging is defined as a CT scan plus any other type of radiologic scan or any biopsy. 2 group comparison between Multidisciplinary Clinic Patients and Serial Care Patients.

All Specific Aim 3 patients (patients with histologically confirmed lung cancer (irrespective of histology) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) from 0 (asymptomatic) to 2 (symptomatic but out of bed for >50% of the day)).

Number of patients receiving three forms of staging tests (tri-modal staging). Tri-modal staging is defined as a CT scan plus any other type of radiologic scan plus any biopsy, or PET/CT plus any biopsy. 2 group comparison between Multidisciplinary Clinic Patients and Serial Care Patients.

All Specific Aim 3 patients (patients with histologically confirmed lung cancer (irrespective of histology) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) from 0 (asymptomatic) to 2 (symptomatic but out of bed for >50% of the day)).

Number of patients with a test that provides tissue confirmation of the stage-defining lesion. Tests include a biopsy of any identified suspicious metastatic lesion or the primary lesion in the absence of any other suspicious lesion.

This measure compares 3 groups, instead of 2, because some patients in the serial care group were presented for discussion in a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology conference while still not being seen in the multidisciplinary clinic setting. Therefore, we split the serial care group in two in order to measure the potential impact of a multidisciplinary conference model, separate from the multidisciplinary clinic model.

All Specific Aim 3 patients (patients with histologically confirmed lung cancer (irrespective of histology) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) from 0 (asymptomatic) to 2 (symptomatic but out of bed for >50% of the day)).

Number of patients with a test (i.e., biopsy) that provides tissue confirmation of the presence or absence mediastinal nodal metastasis.

This measure compares 3 groups, instead of 2, because some patients in the serial care group were presented for discussion in a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology conference while still not being seen in the multidisciplinary clinic setting. Therefore, we split the serial care group in two in order to measure the potential impact of a multidisciplinary conference model, separate from the multidisciplinary clinic model.

All Specific Aim 3 patients (patients with histologically confirmed lung cancer (irrespective of histology) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) from 0 (asymptomatic) to 2 (symptomatic but out of bed for >50% of the day)).

Number of patients receiving two forms of staging tests (bi-modal staging). Bi-modal staging is defined as a CT scan plus any other type of radiologic scan or any biopsy.

This measure compares 3 groups, instead of 2, because some patients in the serial care group were presented for discussion in a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology conference while still not being seen in the multidisciplinary clinic setting. Therefore, we split the serial care group in two in order to measure the potential impact of a multidisciplinary conference model, separate from the multidisciplinary clinic model.

All Specific Aim 3 patients (patients with histologically confirmed lung cancer (irrespective of histology) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) from 0 (asymptomatic) to 2 (symptomatic but out of bed for >50% of the day)).

Number of patients receiving three forms of staging tests (tri-modal staging). Tri-modal staging is defined as a CT scan plus any other type of radiologic scan plus any biopsy, or PET/CT plus any biopsy.

This measure compares 3 groups, instead of 2, because some patients in the serial care group were presented for discussion in a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology conference while still not being seen in the multidisciplinary clinic setting. Therefore, we split the serial care group in two in order to measure the potential impact of a multidisciplinary conference model, separate from the multidisciplinary clinic model.

All Specific Aim 3 patients (patients with histologically confirmed lung cancer (irrespective of histology) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) from 0 (asymptomatic) to 2 (symptomatic but out of bed for >50% of the day)).

Number of patients for whom appropriate treatment was given, as determined by the patients' clinical stage and treatment guidelines stipulated by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). 2 group comparison between Multidisciplinary Clinic Patients and Serial Care Patients.

For Stage I or II: surgery (or radiation therapy with documented contraindication to surgery or patient refusal); for Stage III: chemotherapy and radiation therapy with or without surgery; for Stage IV: systemic therapy (or palliative care with documented patient refusal or contraindication to systemic therapy).

Patients with a conference lung cancer who enrolled in the study who did not die, or leave the study before treatment, or did not refuse treatment.

Number of patients for whom appropriate treatment was given, as determined by the patients' clinical stage and treatment guidelines stipulated by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

For Stage I or II: surgery (or radiation therapy with documented contraindication to surgery or patient refusal); for Stage III: chemotherapy and radiation therapy with or without surgery; for Stage IV: systemic therapy (or palliative care with documented patient refusal or contraindication to systemic therapy).

This measure compares 3 groups, instead of 2, because some patients in the serial care group were presented for discussion in a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology conference while still not being seen in the multidisciplinary clinic setting. Therefore, we split the serial care group in two in order to measure the potential impact of a multidisciplinary conference model, separate from the multidisciplinary clinic model.

Patients with a conference lung cancer who enrolled in the study who did not die, or leave the study before treatment, or did not refuse treatment.

Number of patients for whom formal, verified communication of care management decisions was made to all team members (providers inside and outside the multidisciplinary program, patients and their care-givers) within 48 hours of a care recommendation being made. 2 group comparison between Multidisciplinary Clinic Patients and Serial Care Patients.

Patients with a conference lung cancer who enrolled in the study who did not die, or leave the study before treatment, or did not refuse treatment.

Number of patients for whom all recommendations made at the initial multidisciplinary conference were completed. 2 group comparison between Multidisciplinary Clinic Patients and Serial Care Patients. Note that two patients (one from the MD arm and one from the SC arm) have died before receiving recommendations and therefore were not analyzed for this outcome.

Patients with a conference lung cancer who enrolled in the study who did not die, or leave the study before treatment, or did not refuse treatment.

Number of patients for whom all initial conference recommendations were completed, excluding conditional recommendations for which the prior condition was not met. 2 group comparison between Multidisciplinary Clinic Patients and Serial Care Patients. Note that two patients (one from the MD arm and one from the SC arm) have died before receiving recommendations and therefore were not analyzed for this outcome.

E.g., if a recommendation was to have a PET/CT and then a staging biopsy if the PET showed suspicious metastatic disease, the staging biopsy recommendation was excluded from the concordance measure if the PET/CT did not happen or was negative.

Patients with a conference lung cancer who enrolled in the study who did not die, or leave the study before treatment, or did not refuse treatment.

Number of patients for whom any initial conference recommendation was completed. 2 group comparison between Multidisciplinary Clinic Patients and Serial Care Patients. Note that two patients (one from the MD arm and one from the SC arm) have died before receiving recommendations and therefore were not analyzed for this outcome.

Patients with a conference lung cancer who enrolled in the study who did not die, or leave the study before treatment, or did not refuse treatment.

Number of patients for whom the overall initial conference recommendation was completed. 2 group comparison between Multidisciplinary Clinic Patients and Serial Care Patients. Note that two patients (one from the MD arm and one from the SC arm) have died before receiving recommendations and therefore were not analyzed for this outcome.

The hierarchy to rank recommendations, from highest priority to lowest, was (1) treatment, (2) staging, (3) diagnosis, (4) surveillance.

If a patient had a treatment recommendation and it happened, he/she was concordant. If treatment was recommended and it did not happen, he/she was discordant. If no treatment recommendation was made, then concordance was measured by whether or not the staging recommendation was met. If no staging recommendation was made, then the diagnostic recommendation was given priority for a concordance measurement. If no diagnostic recommendation, then a surveillance recommendation was used to measure overall concordance.

Patients with a conference lung cancer who enrolled in the study who did not die, or leave the study before treatment, or did not refuse treatment.

Number of patients for whom the treatment recommendation made at the initial conference presentation was completed, excluding any patient for whom prior recommendations (staging, diagnosis, surveillance) were not also completed. 2 group comparison between Multidisciplinary Clinic Patients and Serial Care Patients.

Patients with a conference lung cancer who enrolled in the study who did not die, or leave the study before treatment, or did not refuse treatment excluding any patient for whom prior recommendations (staging, diagnosis, surveillance) were not also completed.

Number of patients who completed a baseline patient survey

Patients who were offered baseline surveys (all Specific Aim 3 patients)

Number of patients who completed a 3-month survey

Patients who were offered 3-month surveys.

Number of patients who completed a 6-month survey

Patients who were offered 6-month surveys. Note that patients were offered a 6-month survey even if they did not complete a 3-month survey.

Scores from patient surveys that measure quality of life and satisfaction with care received at the time the baseline survey was taken.

Overall quality of health care - satisfaction with overall quality of health care since lung cancer diagnosis; range: 0-4 (higher is better) Financial burden of care - assessment of financial burden of care; range: 3-6 (sum of 3 items, higher is worse) Treatment decision-making: Surgery/Radiation/Chemotherapy - each 1 item; satisfaction with treatment decision-making; range: 0-2 (0=patient controlled; 1=shared decision; 2-physician decision; closer to 1 is best) Satisfaction with treatment plan - satisfaction with overall treatment plan; range: 1-5 (sum of 2 items, higher is better) Treatment decision-making: family role - satisfaction with family role in treatment decision-making; range: 0-2 (0=patient controlled; 1=shared decision; 2-physician decision; closer to 1 is best) (descriptions continued in 3 month survey description)

Patients who completed baseline surveys.

Scores from patient surveys that measure quality of life and satisfaction with care received at the time the 3-month survey was taken.

(continued from baseline) Satisfaction with quality of care - overall satisfaction with care received from all care team members; range: 0-18 (sum of 6 items, higher is better) Satisfaction with physician communication - overall satisfaction with physician communication; range: 0-21 (sum of 7 items, higher is better) Satisfaction with nurse communication - overall satisfaction with nurse communication; range: 0-18 (sum of 6 items, higher is better) Overall team satisfaction - CAHPS satisfaction with care from team as a whole; range: 0-15 (sum of 4 items, higher is better) Physical/Social/Functional well-being - health-related quality of life relating to physical/social/functional well-being; range 0-28 (each a sum of 7 items, higher is better) (description continues in 6 month survey description)

Patients who completed 3-month surveys.

Scores from patient surveys that measure quality of life and satisfaction with care received at the time the 6-month survey was taken.

(cont) Emotional well-being - health-related quality of life related to emotional well-being; range 0-30 (sum of 6 items, higher is better) Lung cancer specific QOL - health-related quality of life related to lung cancer diagnosis; range: 0-36 (sum of 9 items, higher is better) Total Summary Score FACTL - full survey, functional assessment of cancer therapy - lung; range: 0-136 (sum of 36 items, higher is better) Generic Score FACTG - full survey, functional assessment of cancer therapy - general; range: 0-108 (sum of 27 items, higher is better) Trial Outcome Index - health related quality of life - trial outcome index; range: 0-84 (sum of 23 items, higher is better) Depression/Anxiety - depression/anxiety measured by Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; range: 0-21 (sum of 7 items each, higher is worse)

Patients who completed 6-month surveys.