Lung cancer mortality reduction by LDCT screening: UKLS randomised trial results and international meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The NLST reported a significant 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality with three annual low-dose CT (LDCT) screens and the Dutch-Belgian NELSON trial indicates a similar reduction. We present the results of the UKLS trial.

METHODS

From October 2011 to February 2013, we randomly allocated 4 055 participants to either a single invitation to screening with LDCT or to no screening (usual care). Eligible participants (aged 50-75) had a risk score (LLPv2) ≥ 4.5% of developing lung cancer over five years. Data were collected on lung cancer cases to 31 December 2019 and deaths to 29 February 2020 through linkage to national registries. The primary outcome was mortality due to lung cancer. We included our results in a random-effects meta-analysis to provide a synthesis of the latest randomised trial evidence.

FINDINGS

1 987 participants in the intervention and 1 981 in the usual care arms were followed for a median of 7.3 years (IQR 7.1-7.6), 86 cancers were diagnosed in the LDCT arm and 75 in the control arm. 30 lung cancer deaths were reported in the screening arm, 46 in the control arm, (relative rate 0.65 [95% CI 0.41-1.02]; p=0.062). The meta-analysis indicated a significant reduction in lung cancer mortality with a pooled overall relative rate of 0.84 (95% CI 0.76-0.92) from nine eligible trials.

INTERPRETATION

The UKLS trial of single LDCT indicates a reduction of lung cancer death of similar magnitude to the NELSON and NLST trials and was included in a meta-analysis of nine randomised trials which provides unequivocal support for lung cancer screening in identified risk groups.

FUNDING

NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme; NIHR Policy Research programme; Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation.

Selection of eligible participants for screening for lung cancer using primary care data

Lung cancer screening is effective if offered to people at increased risk of the disease. Currently, direct contact with potential participants is required for evaluating risk. A way to reduce the number of ineligible people contacted might be to apply risk-prediction models directly to digital primary care data, but model performance in this setting is unknown.

METHOD

The Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a computerised, longitudinal primary care database, was used to evaluate the Liverpool Lung Project V.2 (LLP_v2) and Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian (modified 2012) (PLCO_m2012) models. Lung cancer occurrence over 5-6 years was measured in ever-smokers aged 50-80 years and compared with 5-year (LLP_v2) and 6-year (PLCO_m2012) predicted risk.

RESULTS

Over 5 and 6 years, 7123 and 7876 lung cancers occurred, respectively, from a cohort of 842 109 ever-smokers. After recalibration, LLP_V2 produced a c-statistic of 0.700 (0.694-0.710), but mean predicted risk was over-estimated (predicted: 4.61%, actual: 0.9%). PLCO_m2012 showed similar performance (c-statistic: 0.679 (0.673-0.685), predicted risk: 3.76%. Applying risk-thresholds of 1% (LLP_v2) and 0.15% (PLCO_m2012), would avoid contacting 42.7% and 27.4% of ever-smokers who did not develop lung cancer for screening eligibility assessment, at the cost of missing 15.6% and 11.4% of lung cancers.

CONCLUSION

Risk-prediction models showed only moderate discrimination when applied to routinely collected primary care data, which may be explained by quality and completeness of data. However, they may substantially reduce the number of people for initial evaluation of screening eligibility, at the cost of missing some lung cancers. Further work is needed to establish whether newer models have improved performance in primary care data.

Comparative performance of lung cancer risk models to define lung screening eligibility in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

The National Health Service England (NHS) classifies individuals as eligible for lung cancer screening using two risk prediction models, PLCOm2012 and Liverpool Lung Project-v2 (LLPv2). However, no study has compared the performance of lung cancer risk models in the UK.

METHODS

We analysed current and former smokers aged 40-80 years in the UK Biobank (N = 217,199), EPIC-UK (N = 30,813), and Generations Study (N = 25,777). We quantified model calibration (ratio of expected to observed cases, E/O) and discrimination (AUC).

RESULTS

Risk discrimination in UK Biobank was best for the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool (LCDRAT, AUC = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.81-0.84), followed by the LCRAT (AUC = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.79-0.82) and the Bach model (AUC = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.79-0.81). Results were similar in EPIC-UK and the Generations Study. All models overestimated risk in all cohorts, with E/O in UK Biobank ranging from 1.20 for LLPv3 (95% CI = 1.14-1.27) to 2.16 for LLPv2 (95% CI = 2.05-2.28). Overestimation increased with area-level socioeconomic status. In the combined cohorts, USPSTF 2013 criteria classified 50.7% of future cases as screening eligible. The LCDRAT and LCRAT identified 60.9%, followed by PLCOm2012 (58.3%), Bach (58.0%), LLPv3 (56.6%), and LLPv2 (53.7%).

CONCLUSION

In UK cohorts, the ability of risk prediction models to classify future lung cancer cases as eligible for screening was best for LCDRAT/LCRAT, very good for PLCOm2012, and lowest for LLPv2. Our results highlight the importance of validating prediction tools in specific countries.

Factors associated with survival in small cell lung cancer: an analysis of real-world national audit, chemotherapy and radiotherapy data

BACKGROUND

The mainstay of treatment for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) involves platinum doublet chemotherapy but the optimal duration, 4 vs. 6 cycles, is not known. Concurrent thoracic radiotherapy followed by prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) is recommended for fit individuals with limited stage. However, outside of clinical trials, the efficacy of sequential thoracic radiotherapy and PCI for extensive stage is uncertain.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational, cohort study used English national lung cancer data to determine the factors associated with survival for all people diagnosed with SCLC. More precisely, for individuals who received chemotherapy, we examined survival by the chemotherapy duration, thoracic radiotherapy dose and the use of PCI.

RESULTS

In total 6,438 people were diagnosed with SCLC. We identified that male sex (OR 0.7; 95% CI: 0.62-0.80), increasing age (P=0.01) greater comorbidity (P≤0.01), extensive stage (OR 0.21; 95% CI: 0.19-0.25) and worse performance status (PS2 vs. PS0 adjusted OR 0.38 95% CI: 0.31-0.48) were associated with reduced 1-year survival. Receipt of chemotherapy augmented survival. We analysed data for 1,761 people who had received chemotherapy. Thoracic radiotherapy (≥30 Gy for extensive stage and ≥40 Gy for limited stage) and PCI were independently associated with better survival (P≤0.01 for each), but 6 cycles of chemotherapy instead of 4 was not (limited stage adjusted OR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.48-1.97) extensive stage adjusted OR 1.34; 95% CI: 0.81-2.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Extending chemotherapy beyond 4 cycles to 6 does not augment survival. Appropriately prescribed thoracic radiotherapy and PCI can prolong survival in both limited and extensive stage SCLC.

Participation in lung cancer screening

Although there is now strong evidence for the efficacy of low-radiation dose computed tomography in reducing lung cancer mortality, the challenge is to establish screening programmes that have the maximum impact on the disease. In screening programmes, participation rates are a major determinant of the success of the programme. Informed uptake, participation, and adherence (to successive screening rounds) determine the overall impact of the intervention by ensuring the maximum number of people at risk of the disease are screened regularly and therefore have the most chance of benefiting. Existing cancer screening programmes have taught us a great deal about methods that improve participation. Although evidence is emerging for the efficacy of some of those methods in lung cancer screening, there is still much work to do in the specific demographic that is most at risk of lung cancer. This demographic, characterised by higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation, may be less willing to engage with healthcare interventions and present a particular challenge in the process of ensuring informed choice. In this article we review the evidence for improving participation and describe the challenges that need to be addressed to ensure the successful implementation of CT screening programmes.

Lung Screening Benefits and Challenges: A Review of The Data and Outline for Implementation

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, accounting for almost a fifth of all cancer-related deaths. Annual computed tomographic lung cancer screening (CTLS) detects lung cancer at earlier stages and reduces lung cancer-related mortality among high-risk individuals. Many medical organizations, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recommend annual CTLS in high-risk populations. However, fewer than 5% of individuals worldwide at high risk for lung cancer have undergone screening. In large part, this is owing to delayed implementation of CTLS in many countries throughout the world. Factors contributing to low uptake in countries with longstanding CTLS endorsement, such as the United States, include lack of patient and clinician awareness of current recommendations in favor of CTLS and clinician concerns about CTLS-related radiation exposure, false-positive results, overdiagnosis, and cost. This review of the literature serves to address these concerns by evaluating the potential risks and benefits of CTLS. Review of key components of a lung screening program, along with an updated shared decision aid, provides guidance for program development and optimization. Review of studies evaluating the population considered "high-risk" is included as this may affect future guidelines within the United States and other countries considering lung screening implementation.

An update on CT screening for lung cancer: the first major targeted cancer screening programme

Screening for lung cancer with low radiation dose CT has been shown to be effective in reducing lung cancer mortality by two major randomised controlled trials. Lung cancer screening is set to become the largest targeted cancer screening programme globally, but the effectiveness of the programme is dependent on many different factors. This article describes the key evidence for lung cancer screening, the key factors important for optimisation and the progress towards implementation.

SABRTooth: a randomised controlled feasibility study of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with surgery in patients with peripheral stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer considered to be at higher risk of complications from surgical resection

OBJECTIVES

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a well-established treatment for medically inoperable peripheral stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Previous nonrandomised evidence supports SABR as an alternative to surgery, but high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence is lacking. The SABRTooth study aimed to establish whether a UK phase III RCT was feasible.

DESIGN AND METHODS

SABRTooth was a UK multicentre randomised controlled feasibility study targeting patients with peripheral stage I NSCLC considered to be at higher risk of surgical complications. 54 patients were planned to be randomised 1:1 to SABR or surgery. The primary outcome was monthly average recruitment rates.

RESULTS

Between July 2015 and January 2017, 318 patients were considered for the study and 205 (64.5%) were deemed ineligible. Out of 106 (33.3%) assessed as eligible, 24 (22.6%) patients were randomised to SABR (n=14) or surgery (n=10). A key theme for nonparticipation was treatment preference, with 43 (41%) preferring nonsurgical treatment and 19 (18%) preferring surgery. The average monthly recruitment rate was 1.7 patients against a target of three. 15 patients underwent their allocated treatment: SABR n=12, surgery n=3.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that a phase III RCT randomising higher risk patients between SABR and surgery is not feasible in the National Health Service. Patients have pre-existing treatment preferences, which was a barrier to recruitment. A significant proportion of patients randomised to the surgical group declined and chose SABR. SABR remains an alternative to surgery and novel study approaches are needed to define which patients benefit from a nonsurgical approach.

Lung Screen Uptake Trial: results from a single lung cancer screening round

The Lung Screen Uptake Trial tested a novel invitation strategy to improve uptake and reduce socioeconomic and smoking-related inequalities in lung cancer screening (LCS) participation. It provides one of the first UK-based 'real-world' LCS cohorts. Of 2012 invited, 1058 (52.6%) attended a 'lung health check'. 768/996 (77.1%) in the present analysis underwent a low-dose CT scan. 92 (11.9%) and 33 (4.3%) participants had indeterminate pulmonary nodules requiring 3-month and 12-month surveillance, respectively; 36 lung cancers (4.7%) were diagnosed (median follow-up: 1044 days). 72.2% of lung cancers were stage I/II and 79.4% of non-small cell lung cancer had curative-intent treatment.

Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST): protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate invitation to community-based low-dose CT screening for lung cancer versus usual care in a targeted population at risk

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the world's leading cause of cancer death. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening reduced lung cancer mortality by 20% in the US National Lung Screening Trial. Here, we present the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST), which will address key questions of relevance for screening implementation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Using a single-consent Zelen's design, ever-smokers aged 55-80 years registered with a general practice in Leeds will be randomised (1:1) to invitation to a telephone-based risk-assessment for a Lung Health Check or to usual care. The anticipated number randomised by household is 62 980 individuals. Responders at high risk will be invited for LDCT scanning for lung cancer on a mobile van in the community. There will be two rounds of screening at an interval of 2 years. Primary objectives are (1) measure participation rates, (2) compare the performance of PLCOM2012 (threshold ≥1.51%), Liverpool Lung Project (V.2) (threshold ≥5%) and US Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria for screening population selection and (3) assess lung cancer outcomes in the intervention and usual care arms. Secondary evaluations include health economics, quality of life, smoking rates according to intervention arm, screening programme performance with ancillary biomarker and smoking cessation studies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the Greater Manchester West research ethics committee (18-NW-0012) and the Health Research Authority following review by the Confidentiality Advisory Group. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals, presentation at conferences and on the YLST website.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

ISRCTN42704678 and NCT03750110.

Prevalence, Symptom Burden, and Underdiagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in a Lung Cancer Screening Cohort

Rationale: Individuals eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) are also at risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) due to age and smoking exposure. Whether the LCS episode is useful for early detection of COPD is not well established.Objectives: To explore associations between symptoms, comorbidities, spirometry, and emphysema in participants enrolled in the Lung Screen Uptake Trial.Methods: This cross-sectional study was a prespecified analysis nested within Lung Screen Uptake Trial, which was a randomized study testing the impact of differing invitation materials on attendance of 60- to 75-year-old smokers and ex-smokers to a "lung health check" between November 2015 and July 2017. Participants with a smoking history ≥30 pack-years and who quit ≤15 years ago, or meeting a lung cancer risk of ≥1.51% via the Prostate Lung Colorectal Ovarian model or ≥2.5% via the Liverpool Lung Project model, were offered LDCT. COPD was defined and classified according to the GOLD (Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease) criteria using prebronchodilator spirometry. Analyses included the use of descriptive statistics, chi-square tests to examine group differences, and univariable and multivariable logistic regression to explore associations between symptom prevalence, airflow limitation, and visually graded emphysema.Results: A total of 560 of 986 individuals included in the analysis (57%) had prebronchodilator spirometry consistent with COPD; 67% did not have a prior history of COPD and were termed "undiagnosed." Emphysema prevalence in those with known and "undiagnosed" COPD was 73% and 68%, respectively. A total of 32% of those with "undiagnosed COPD" had no emphysema on LDCT. Inhaler use and symptoms were more common in the "known" than the "undiagnosed" COPD group (63% vs. 33% with persistent cough [P < 0.001]; 73% vs. 33% with dyspnea [P < 0.001]). Comorbidities were common in all groups. Adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of respiratory symptoms were more significant for airflow obstruction (aOR GOLD 1 and 2, 1.57; confidence interval [CI], 1.14-2.17; aOR GOLD 3 and 4, 4.6; CI, 2.17-9.77) than emphysema (aOR mild, 1.12; CI, 0.81-1.55; aOR moderate, 1.33; CI, 0.85-2.09; aOR severe, 4.00; CI, 1.57-10.2).Conclusions: There is high burden of "undiagnosed COPD" and emphysema in LCS participants. Adding spirometry findings to the LDCT enhances identification of individuals with COPD.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101).

Recommendations for Implementing Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose Computed Tomography in Europe

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was demonstrated in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) to reduce mortality from the disease. European mortality data has recently become available from the Nelson randomised controlled trial, which confirmed lung cancer mortality reductions by 26% in men and 39-61% in women. Recent studies in Europe and the USA also showed positive results in screening workers exposed to asbestos. All European experts attending the "Initiative for European Lung Screening (IELS)"-a large international group of physicians and other experts concerned with lung cancer-agreed that LDCT-LCS should be implemented in Europe. However, the economic impact of LDCT-LCS and guidelines for its effective and safe implementation still need to be formulated. To this purpose, the IELS was asked to prepare recommendations to implement LCS and examine outstanding issues. A subgroup carried out a comprehensive literature review on LDCT-LCS and presented findings at a meeting held in Milan in November 2018. The present recommendations reflect that consensus was reached.

Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Testing Targeted Invitation Materials

Rationale: Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, particularly by current smokers of a low socioeconomic position, compromises effectiveness and equity.Objectives: To compare the effect of a targeted, low-burden, and stepped invitation strategy versus control on uptake of hospital-based Lung Health Check appointments offering LDCT screening.Methods: In a two-arm, blinded, between-subjects, randomized controlled trial, 2,012 participants were selected from 16 primary care practices using these criteria: 1) aged 60 to 75 years, 2) recorded as a current smoker within the last 7 years, and 3) no prespecified exclusion criteria contraindicating LDCT screening. Both groups received a stepped sequence of preinvitation, invitation, and reminder letters from their primary care practitioner offering prescheduled appointments. The key manipulation was the accompanying leaflet. The intervention group's leaflet targeted psychological barriers and provided low-burden information, mimicking the concept of the U.K. Ministry of Transport's annual vehicle test ("M.O.T. For Your Lungs").Measurements and Main Results: Uptake was 52.6%, with no difference between intervention (52.3%) and control (52.9%) groups in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.16) or adjusted (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.17) analyses. Current smokers were less likely to attend (adjusted OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86) than former smokers. Socioeconomic deprivation was significantly associated with lower uptake for the control group only (P < 0.01).Conclusions: The intervention did not improve uptake. Regardless of trial arm, uptake was considerably higher than previous clinical and real-world studies, particularly given that the samples were predominantly lower socioeconomic position smokers. Strategies common to both groups, including a Lung Health Check approach, could represent a minimum standard.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101) and registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study (N21774741).

External validation of a convolutional neural network artificial intelligence tool to predict malignancy in pulmonary nodules

BACKGROUND

Estimation of the risk of malignancy in pulmonary nodules detected by CT is central in clinical management. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) offers an opportunity to improve risk prediction. Here we compare the performance of an AI algorithm, the lung cancer prediction convolutional neural network (LCP-CNN), with that of the Brock University model, recommended in UK guidelines.

METHODS

A dataset of incidentally detected pulmonary nodules measuring 5-15 mm was collected retrospectively from three UK hospitals for use in a validation study. Ground truth diagnosis for each nodule was based on histology (required for any cancer), resolution, stability or (for pulmonary lymph nodes only) expert opinion. There were 1397 nodules in 1187 patients, of which 234 nodules in 229 (19.3%) patients were cancer. Model discrimination and performance statistics at predefined score thresholds were compared between the Brock model and the LCP-CNN.

RESULTS

The area under the curve for LCP-CNN was 89.6% (95% CI 87.6 to 91.5), compared with 86.8% (95% CI 84.3 to 89.1) for the Brock model (p≤0.005). Using the LCP-CNN, we found that 24.5% of nodules scored below the lowest cancer nodule score, compared with 10.9% using the Brock score. Using the predefined thresholds, we found that the LCP-CNN gave one false negative (0.4% of cancers), whereas the Brock model gave six (2.5%), while specificity statistics were similar between the two models.

CONCLUSION

The LCP-CNN score has better discrimination and allows a larger proportion of benign nodules to be identified without missing cancers than the Brock model. This has the potential to substantially reduce the proportion of surveillance CT scans required and thus save significant resources.

Evaluation of cardiovascular risk in a lung cancer screening cohort

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) offers an opportunity to impact both lung cancer and coronary heart disease mortality through detection of coronary artery calcification (CAC). Here, we explore the value of CAC and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment in LCS participants in the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT).

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, current and ex-smokers aged 60-75 were invited to a 'lung health check'. Data collection included a CVD risk assessment enabling estimation of 10 year CVD risk using the QRISK2 score. Participants meeting the required lung cancer risk underwent an ungated, non-contrast LDCT. Descriptive data, bivariate associations and a multivariate analysis of predictors of statin use are presented.

RESULTS

Of 1005 individuals enrolled, 680 were included in the final analysis. 421 (61.9%) had CAC present and in 49 (7.2%), this was heavy. 668 (98%) of participants had a QRISK2≥10% and QRISK2 was positively associated with increasing CAC grade (OR 4.29 (CI 0.93 to 19.88) for QRISK2=10%-20% and 12.29 (CI 2.68 to 56.1) for QRISK2≥20% respectively). Of those who qualified for statin primary prevention (QRISK2≥10%), 56.8% did not report a history of statin use. In the multivariate analysis statin use was associated with age, body mass index and history of hypertension and diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

LCS offers an important opportunity for instituting CVD risk assessment in all LCS participants irrespective of the presence of LDCT-detected CAC. Further studies are needed to determine whether CAC could enhance uptake and adherence to primary preventative strategies.

Impact of a Lung Cancer Screening Information Film on Informed Decision-making: A Randomized Trial

Rationale: Lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives, but it also carries a risk of potential harms. Explaining the benefits and harms of screening in a way that is balanced and comprehensible to individuals with various levels of education is essential. Although a shared decision-making approach is mandated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, there have been no randomized studies to evaluate the impact of different forms of lung screening information. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of a novel information film on informed decision-making in individuals considering participating in lung cancer screening. Methods: A subset of participants from LSUT (Lung Screen Uptake Trial) were randomly allocated either to view the information film and receive a written information booklet or to receive the booklet alone. The primary outcome was the objective knowledge score after intervention. Secondary outcomes included subjective knowledge, decisional conflict, final screening participation, and acceptability of the materials. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine differences in pre- and postintervention knowledge scores in both groups and between groups for the primary and secondary outcomes. Results: In the final analysis of 229 participants, both groups showed significantly improved subjective and objective knowledge scores after intervention. This improvement was greatest in the film + booklet group, where mean objective knowledge improved by 2.16 points (standard deviation [SD] 1.8) compared with 1.84 points (SD 1.9) in the booklet-alone group (β coefficient 0.62; confidence interval, 0.17-1.08; P = 0.007 in the multivariable analysis). Mean subjective knowledge increased by 0.92 points (SD 1.0) in the film + booklet group and 0.55 points (SD 1.1) in the booklet-alone group (β coefficient 0.32; CI, 0.05-0.58; P = 0.02 in the multivariable analysis). Decisional certainty was higher in the film + booklet (mean 8.5/9 points [SD 1.3], group than in the booklet-alone group (mean 8.2/9 points [SD 1.5]). Both information materials were well accepted, and there were no differences in final screening participation rates between groups. Conclusions: The information film improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict without affecting lung-screening uptake. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101).

Prophylactic Irradiation of Tracts in Patients With Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: An Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase III Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

Prophylactic irradiation to the chest wall after diagnostic or therapeutic procedures in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has been a widespread practice across Europe, although the efficacy of this treatment is uncertain. In this study, we aimed to determine the efficacy of prophylactic radiotherapy in reducing the incidence of chest wall metastases (CWM) after a procedure in MPM.

METHODS

After undergoing a chest wall procedure, patients with MPM were randomly assigned to receive prophylactic radiotherapy (within 42 days of the procedure) or no radiotherapy. Open thoracotomies, needle biopsies, and indwelling pleural catheters were excluded. Prophylactic radiotherapy was delivered at a dose of 21 Gy in three fractions over three consecutive working days, using a single electron field adapted to maximize coverage of the tract from skin surface to pleura. The primary outcome was the incidence of CWM within 6 months from random assignment, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Stratification factors included epithelioid histology and intention to give chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Between July 30, 2012, and December 12, 2015, 375 patients were recruited from 54 centers and randomly assigned to receive prophylactic radiotherapy (n = 186) or no prophylactic radiotherapy (n = 189). Participants were well matched at baseline. No significant difference was seen in the incidence of CWM at 6 months between the prophylactic radiotherapy and no radiotherapy groups (no. [%]: 6 [3.2] v 10 [5.3], respectively; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.86; P = .44). Skin toxicity was the most common radiotherapy-related adverse event in the prophylactic radiotherapy group, with 96 patients (51.6%) receiving grade 1; 19 (10.2%), grade 2; and 1 (0.5%) grade 3 radiation dermatitis (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0).

CONCLUSION

There is no role for the routine use of prophylactic irradiation to chest wall procedure sites in patients with MPM.

ERS statement on harmonised standards for lung cancer registration and lung cancer services in Europe

The European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force for harmonised standards for lung cancer registration and lung cancer services in Europe recognised the need to create a single dataset for use in pan-European data collection and a manual of standards for European lung cancer services.

The multidisciplinary task force considered evidence from two different sources, reviewing existing national and international datasets alongside the results of a survey of clinical data collection on lung cancer in 35 European countries. A similar process was followed for the manual of lung cancer services, with the task force using existing guidelines and national or international recommendations for lung cancer services to develop a manual of standards for services in Europe.

The task force developed essential and minimum datasets for lung cancer registration to enable all countries to collect the same essential data and some to collect data with greater detail. The task force also developed a manual specifying standards for lung cancer services in Europe.

Despite the wide variation in the sociopolitical landscape across Europe, the ERS is determined to encourage the delivery of high-quality lung cancer care. Both the manual of lung cancer services and the minimum dataset for lung cancer registration will support this aspiration.

EUPS-argues that lung cancer screening should be implemented in 18 months

The European Position Statement (EUPS) expert group comprised of individuals who have been actively involved in the planning and execution of all the low dose CT (LDCT) randomised controlled European screening trials. They have argued that as lung cancer screening with LDCT saves lives, planning for implementation needs to be started by the national health organisations throughout Europe. The EUPS examined the current evidence which supports the planning for the implementation of lung cancer screening, as well as areas which require further work. One of the major areas the EUPS focused on was the management of prevalent lung nodules in CT-screening programmes, lung nodules at incident screening (newly detected) and CT-detected lung nodules in clinical practice should be managed with different protocols, due to different pre-test lung cancer probability. The EUPS provides nine recommendations and a "Call to Action" for implementation, which is naturally dependent on the outcome of the NELSON trial. Clearly, the issue is how Europe can take this forward as part of the political agenda of individual countries, as well as that of the EU Commission. An EU policy document has been developed, which focuses on the key steps in the implementation of cost effective lung cancer screening in Europe.

Factors influencing treatment selection and 30-day mortality after chemotherapy for people with small-cell lung cancer: An analysis of national audit data

BACKGROUND

Thirty-day mortality after treatment for lung cancer is a measure of unsuccessful outcome and where treatment should have been avoided. Guidelines recommend offering chemotherapy to individuals with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) who have poorer performance status (PS) because of its high initial response rate. However, this comes with an increased risk of toxicity and early death. We quantified real-world 30-day mortality in SCLC after chemotherapy, established the factors associated with this and compared these with the factors that influence receipt of chemotherapy.

METHODS

We used linked national English data sets to define the factors associated with both receiving chemotherapy and 30-day mortality after chemotherapy.

RESULTS

We identified 3715 people diagnosed with SCLC, of which 2235 (60.2%) received chemotherapy. There were 174 (7.8%) deaths within 30 days of chemotherapy. The adjusted odds of receiving chemotherapy decreased with older age, worsening PS and increasing comorbidities. Thirty-day mortality was independently associated with poor PS [PS 2 vs PS 0, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.71-8.25] and stage (extensive vs limited adjusted OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.03-2.74) but in contrast was not associated with increasing age. Both chemotherapy administration and 30-day mortality varied by hospital network.

CONCLUSIONS

To reduce variation in chemotherapy administration, predictors of 30-day mortality could be used as an adjunct to improve suboptimal patient selection. We have quantified 30-day mortality risk by the two independently associated factors, PS and stage, so that patients and clinicians can make better informed decisions about the potential risk of early death after chemotherapy.