Bronchial Thermoplasty in Severe Asthmatics At 5 Years: The PAS2 Study

BACKGROUND

Bronchial thermoplasty is a device-based treatment for subjects ≥18 years with severe asthma poorly controlled with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists. The Post-FDA Approval Clinical Trial Evaluating Bronchial Thermoplasty in Severe Persistent Asthma (PAS2) study collected data on severe asthmatics undergoing this procedure.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the 5-year efficacy and safety results in severe asthmatics who have undergone bronchial thermoplasty?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a prospective, open-label, observational, multi-center study conducted in the United States and Canada. Subjects aged 18-65, taking inhaled corticosteroids ≥1000μg/day (beclomethasone or equivalent) and long-acting β-agonists ≥80μg/day (salmeterol or equivalent) were included. Severe exacerbations, hospitalization, emergency department visits, and medication usage were evaluated for the 12 months prior to and at years 1-5 post-treatment. Spirometry was evaluated at baseline and at years 1-5 post-treatment.

RESULTS

284 subjects were enrolled at 27 centers; 227 subjects (80%) completed 5 years of follow-up. By year 5 post-treatment, the proportion of subjects with severe exacerbations, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations was 42.7%, 7.9%, and 4.8%, respectively, compared to 77.8%, 29.4%, and 16.1% in the 12 months prior to treatment. The proportion of subjects on maintenance oral corticosteroids decreased from 19.4% at baseline to 9.7% at 5 years. Analyses of subgroups based on baseline clinical and biomarker characteristics revealed a statistically significant clinical improvement among all subgroups.

INTERPRETATION

Five years after treatment, subjects experienced decreases in severe exacerbations, hospitalizations, emergency department visits and corticosteroid exposure. All subgroups demonstrated clinically significant improvement, suggesting that bronchial thermoplasty improves asthma control in different asthma phenotypes.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND

Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part because of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, and increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not.

METHODS

Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, and key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses were performed when enough evidence was available. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in seven graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can impact this balance.

Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Screening Patterns Among Black and White Adults in the United States

This cohort study compares the demographics of US adults who are currently being screened for lung cancer and assesses the potential association between proposed changes to the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening recommendations and screening rates by race and age.

State Variation in Low-Dose Computed Tomography Scanning for Lung Cancer Screening in the United States

BACKGROUND

Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest computed tomography in older current and former smokers (ie, eligible adults) has been recommended since 2013. Uptake has been slow and variable across the United States. We estimated the LCS rate and growth at the national and state level between 2016 and 2018.

METHODS

The American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry was used to capture screening events. Population-based surveys, the US Census, and cancer registry data were used to estimate the number of eligible adults and lung cancer mortality (ie, burden). Lung cancer screening rates (SRs) in eligible adults and screening rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure changes by state and year.

RESULTS

Nationally, the SR was steady between 2016 (3.3%, 95% CI = 3.3% to 3.7%) and 2017 (3.4%, 95% CI = 3.4% to 3.9%), increasing to 5.0% (95% CI = 5.0% to 5.7%) in 2018 (2018 vs 2016 SR ratio = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.51 to 1.62). In 2018, several southern states with a high lung-cancer burden (eg, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas) had relatively low SRs (<4%) among eligible adults, whereas several northeastern states with lower lung cancer burden (eg, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire) had the highest SRs (12.8%-15.2%). The exception was Kentucky, which had the nation's highest lung cancer mortality rate and one of the highest SRs (13.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer than 1 in 20 eligible adults received LCS nationally, and uptake varied widely across states. LCS rates were not aligned with lung cancer burden across states, except for Kentucky, which has supported comprehensive efforts to implement LCS.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report - Executive Summary

BACKGROUND

Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part due to the results of the National Lung Screening Trial. Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, as well as increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not.

METHODS

Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, as well as key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the GRADE approach. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and un-graded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in 7 graded recommendations and 9 ungraded consensus statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions, can impact this balance.

Cancer Outcomes Among Medicare Beneficiaries And Their Younger Uninsured Counterparts

Proposals for expanding Medicare insurance coverage to uninsured Americans approaching the Medicare eligibility age of sixty-five has been the subject of intense debate. We undertook this study to assess cancer survival differences between uninsured patients younger than age sixty-five and older Medicare beneficiaries by using data from the National Cancer Database from the period 2004-16. The main outcomes were survival at one, two, and five years for sixteen cancer types in 1,206,821 patients. We found that uninsured patients ages 60-64 were nearly twice as likely to present with late-stage disease and were significantly less likely to receive surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy than Medicare beneficiaries ages 66-69, despite lower comorbidity among younger patients. Compared with older Medicare patients, younger uninsured patients had strikingly lower five-year survival across cancer types. For instance, five-year survival in younger uninsured patients with late-stage breast or prostate cancer was 5-17 percent lower than that among older Medicare patients. We conclude that survival after a diagnosis of cancer is considerably lower in younger uninsured patients than in older Medicare patients. Expanding comprehensive health insurance coverage to people approaching Medicare age eligibility may improve cancer outcomes in the US.

Physician concern about delaying lung cancer treatment while awaiting biomarker testing: Results of a survey of U.S. oncologists

9067

Background: With rapid advancements in biomarker testing informing lung cancer treatment decisions, clinicians are challenged to maintain knowledge of who, what and when to test and how to treat based on test results. An ASCO taskforce including representatives from the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable and patient advocates conducted a study to assess biomarker testing and treatment practices for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) among U.S. oncologists. Methods: A survey was sent to 2374 ASCO members – lung cancer specialists and general oncologists. Eligibility required treating ≥1 lung cancer patient/month. Proportions were estimated across groups and compared using chi-square tests. Results: 170 responses were analyzed. 59% of respondents work at an academic center (i.e., have a fellowship program), while 41% work at a community (non-academic hospital/health system/private practice). Nearly all (98%) believe biomarker results should be received within 1 or 2 weeks of ordering, yet 37% wait an average of 3 or 4 weeks for results. Of respondents who usually wait 3 or 4 weeks, 37% initiate a non-targeted systemic treatment while waiting. Respondents from community practices were more likely to initiate non-targeted systemic treatment if results were not available after 2 weeks (59% compared to 40% of academic respondents; p = 0.013). ). When asked about reasons for not testing, respondents <5 years since training were more likely to report that delaying treatment while waiting for results was always/often a concern compared to those >6 years from training (41% vs 19%). Respondents reported high testing rates in both non-squamous and squamous aNSCLC. Roughly equal representation of generalists/specialists and academic/community respondents helps mitigate potential concerns about external validity. Conclusions: Respondents indicated that treatment decisions are impacted by delays in biomarker test results. Clinicians should be informed about when it is safe and appropriate to defer treatment while biomarker testing is pending. Respondents suggest that diagnostic biomarker testing companies should strive to expedite results.[Table: see text]

"Randomized trial of physical activity on quality of life and lung cancer biomarkers in patients with advanced stage lung cancer: a pilot study"

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer survivors need more options to improve quality of life (QoL). It is unclear to what extent patients with advanced stage disease are willing to participate in home-based physical activity (PA) and if these interventions improve QoL. The goal of our study was to determine interest in participating in our 3-month home-based walking regimen in patients with advanced stage lung cancer. We used a randomized design to evaluate for potential benefit in PA and patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

We performed an open-label, 1:1 randomized trial in 40 patients with stage III/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) evaluating enrollment rate, PA, QoL, dyspnea, depression, and biomarkers. Compared to usual care (UC), the intervention group (IG) received an accelerometer, in-person teaching session, and gain-framed text messages for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

We enrolled 56% (40/71) of eligible patients. Participants were on average 65 years and enrolled 1.9 years from diagnosis. Most patients were women (75%), and receiving treatment (85%) for stage IV (73%) adenocarcinoma (83%). A minority of patients were employed part-time or full time (38%). Both groups reported low baseline PA (IG mean 37 (Standard deviation (SD) 46) vs UC 59 (SD 56) minutes/week; p = 0.25). The IG increased PA more than UC (mean change IG + 123 (SD 212) vs UC + 35 (SD 103) minutes/week; p = 0.051)). Step count in the IG was not statistically different between baseline (4707 step/day), week 6 (5605; p = 0.16), and week 12 (4606 steps/day; p = 0.87). The intervention improved EORTC role functioning domain (17 points; p = 0.022) with borderline improvement in dyspnea (- 13 points; p = 0.051) compared to UC. In patients with two blood samples (25%), we observed a significant increase in soluble PD-1 (219.8 (SD 54.5) pg/mL; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our pilot trial using a 3-month, home-based, mobile health intervention enrolled over half of eligible patients with stage III and IV NSCLC. The intervention increased PA, and may improve several aspects of QoL. We also identified potential biomarker changes relevant to lung cancer biology. Future research should use a larger sample to examine the effect of exercise on cancer biomarkers, which may mediate the association between PA and QoL.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03352245 ).

Abstract PO-202: Cancer survival differences among Medicare beneficiaries and their younger uninsured counterparts

Purpose: To assess cancer survival differences between uninsured patients younger than age 65 years with their immediate older counterparts age 66-69 years with Medicare coverage. Methods: Data from the National Cancer Data Base were used for this study. The main outcomes were 1-, 2-, and 5-year survival for 16 cancer types in 1,206,821 newly diagnosed patients. We characterized patients by insurance and age categories and used Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test for statistical significance to calculate all-cause 1-, 2-, and 5-year survival rates. The analysis assessed differences between uninsured and insured patients age 60-64 years with those aged 66-69 years with Medicare coverage. Cox proportional hazards models were used to generate hazard ratios (HR) of all-cause mortality. Results: Uninsured patients aged 60-64 years had higher proportion with late stage disease, and lower proportion with receipt of surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy than Medicare beneficiaries aged 66-69 years. Younger uninsured patients had significantly worse 1-, 2-, and 5-year survival overall and by race/ethnicity, comorbidity score, and cancer type compared with their older counterparts with Medicare coverage. In a stratified analysis by cancer type, uninsured younger patients had strikingly lower 1-, 2- and 5- year survival for nearly all 16 cancers compared with older Medicare patients. For instance, the 1-year and 2-year survival differences between younger uninsured and older Medicare +/- private insured patients showed the largest differences of about 20% for patients with lung cancer (adjusted HR (aHR) = 1.42; 95% CI, 1.38-1.47; and aHR = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.33-1.41; respectively). Similarly, 5-year survival rates in uninsured younger patients with colorectal and breast cancer were 8-15% lower compared with older Medicare patients (aHR = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.27-1.41 and aHR = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.44-1.69; respectively). Conclusions: Survival after a diagnosis of cancer is considerably lower in uninsured younger patients age 60-64 years than in older Medicare patients age 66-69 years. Our findings suggest that expanding uniform health insurance coverage to individuals approaching Medicare eligibility age down to the age of 60 could substantially improve cancer survival in the United States.

Citation Format: Helmneh M. Sineshaw, K. Robin Yabroff, Ahmedin Jemal, Gerard A. Silvestri. Cancer survival differences among Medicare beneficiaries and their younger uninsured counterparts [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: Thirteenth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2020 Oct 2-4. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(12 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-202.

Robotic Bronchoscopy for Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions: A Multicenter Pilot and Feasibility Study (BENEFIT)

Background

The diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPL) continues to present clinical challenges. Despite extensive experience with guided bronchoscopy, the diagnostic yield has not improved significantly. Robotic-assisted bronchoscopic platforms have been developed potentially to improve the diagnostic yield for PPL. Presently, limited data exist that evaluate the performance of robotic systems in live human subjects.

Research Question

What is the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted bronchoscopy in patients with PPLs?

Study Design and Methods

This was a prospective, multicenter pilot and feasibility study that used a robotic bronchoscopic system with a mother-daughter configuration in patients with PPL 1 to 5 cm in size. The primary end points were successful lesion localization with the use of radial probe endobronchial ultrasound (R-EBUS) imaging and incidence of procedure related adverse events. Robotic bronchoscopy was performed in patients with the use of direct visualization, electromagnetic navigation, and fluoroscopy. After the use of R-EBUS imaging, transbronchial needle aspiration was performed. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) was used on all cases. Transbronchial needle aspiration alone was sufficient when ROSE was diagnostic; when ROSE was not diagnostic, transbronchial biopsy was performed with the use of the robotic platform, followed by conventional guided bronchoscopic approaches at the discretion of the investigator.

Results

Fifty-five patients were enrolled at five centers. One patient withdrew consent, which left 54 patients for data analysis. Median lesion size was 23 mm (interquartile range, 15 to 29 mm). R-EBUS images were available in 53 of 54 cases. Lesion localization was successful in 51 of 53 patients (96.2%). Pneumothorax was reported in two of 54 of the cases (3.7%); tube thoracostomy was required in one of the cases (1.9 %). No additional adverse events occurred.

Interpretation

This is the first, prospective, multicenter study of robotic bronchoscopy in patients with PPLs. Successful lesion localization was achieved in 96.2% of cases, with an adverse event rate comparable with conventional bronchoscopic procedures. Additional large prospective studies are warranted to evaluate procedure characteristics, such as diagnostic yield.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03727425; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Occurrence of Discussion about Lung Cancer Screening Between Patients and Healthcare Providers in the USA, 2017

Computed tomography lung cancer screening reduces lung cancer mortality. However, screening is underutilized. This study assesses the extent to which providers discuss lung cancer screening with their patients, as a lack of discussion and counseling may serve as a potential cause of low utilization rates. Data from 1667 adults aged 55-80 years sampled in the 2017 Health Information National Trends Survey was utilized. A weighted multivariable logistic regression model was fit with past-year discussion about lung cancer screening with a provider as the outcome. The adjusted odds of discussion were higher for current cigarette smokers compared to non-cigarette smokers (adjusted odds ratio = 3.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75 to 8.74). Despite higher odds, the absolute prevalence was low with only 18% (95% CI, 11.8 to 24.2%) of current adult smokers reporting a past-year discussion. Knowledge of screening from trusted sources of medical information, such as doctors, can increase screening rates and may ultimately reduce lung cancer mortality.

Management of Lung Nodules and Lung Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic: CHEST Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND

The risks from potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and resource reallocation that has occurred to combat the pandemic, have altered the balance of benefits and harms that informed current (pre-COVID-19) guideline recommendations for lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. Consensus statements were developed to guide clinicians managing lung cancer screening programs and patients with lung nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

An expert panel of 24 members, including pulmonologists (n = 17), thoracic radiologists (n = 5), and thoracic surgeons (n = 2), was formed. The panel was provided with an overview of current evidence, summarized by recent guidelines related to lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. The panel was convened by video teleconference to discuss and then vote on statements related to 12 common clinical scenarios. A predefined threshold of 70% of panel members voting agree or strongly agree was used to determine if there was a consensus for each statement. Items that may influence decisions were listed as notes to be considered for each scenario.

RESULTS

Twelve statements related to baseline and annual lung cancer screening (n = 2), surveillance of a previously detected lung nodule (n = 5), evaluation of intermediate and high-risk lung nodules (n = 4), and management of clinical stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 1) were developed and modified. All 12 statements were confirmed as consensus statements according to the voting results. The consensus statements provide guidance about situations in which it was believed to be appropriate to delay screening, defer surveillance imaging of lung nodules, and minimize nonurgent interventions during the evaluation of lung nodules and stage I non-small-cell lung cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

There was consensus that during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is appropriate to defer enrollment in lung cancer screening and modify the evaluation of lung nodules due to the added risks from potential exposure and the need for resource reallocation. There are multiple local, regional, and patient-related factors that should be considered when applying these statements to individual patient care.

Management of Lung Nodules and Lung Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic: CHEST Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND

The risks from potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and resource reallocation that has occurred to combat the pandemic, have altered the balance of benefits and harms that informed current (pre-COVID-19) guideline recommendations for lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. Consensus statements were developed to guide clinicians managing lung cancer screening programs and patients with lung nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

An expert panel of 24 members, including pulmonologists (n = 17), thoracic radiologists (n = 5), and thoracic surgeons (n = 2), was formed. The panel was provided with an overview of current evidence, summarized by recent guidelines related to lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. The panel was convened by video teleconference to discuss and then vote on statements related to 12 common clinical scenarios. A predefined threshold of 70% of panel members voting agree or strongly agree was used to determine if there was a consensus for each statement. Items that may influence decisions were listed as notes to be considered for each scenario.

RESULTS

Twelve statements related to baseline and annual lung cancer screening (n = 2), surveillance of a previously detected lung nodule (n = 5), evaluation of intermediate and high-risk lung nodules (n = 4), and management of clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer (n = 1) were developed and modified. All 12 statements were confirmed as consensus statements according to the voting results. The consensus statements provide guidance about situations in which it was believed to be appropriate to delay screening, defer surveillance imaging of lung nodules, and minimize nonurgent interventions during the evaluation of lung nodules and stage I non-small cell lung cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

There was consensus that during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is appropriate to defer enrollment in lung cancer screening and modify the evaluation of lung nodules due to the added risks from potential exposure and the need for resource reallocation. There are multiple local, regional, and patient-related factors that should be considered when applying these statements to individual patient care.

Association of Cigarette Type and Nicotine Dependence in Patients Presenting for Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Over decades, there have been several alterations to cigarettes, including the addition of filters and flavoring. However, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States.

RESEARCH QUESTION

The aim of this study was to examine the association of type of cigarette on nicotine dependence in the setting of lung cancer screening.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This study is a secondary analysis of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network arm of the National Lung Screening Trial. Tobacco dependence was evaluated by using the Fagerstrӧm Test for Nicotine Dependence, the Heaviness of Smoking Index, and time to first cigarette. Clinical outcomes, including nicotine dependence and tobacco abstinence, were assessed with descriptive statistics and χ² tests, stratified according to cigarette tar level, flavor, and filter. Logistic regression was used to study the influence of variables on smoking abstinence.

RESULTS

More than one-third of individuals presenting for lung cancer screening are highly addicted to nicotine and smoke within 5 min of waking up. Smokers of unfiltered cigarettes were more nicotine dependent compared with filtered cigarette smokers (OR, 1.32; P < .01). Although smokers of light/ultralight cigarettes had lower dependence (OR, 0.76, P < .0001), there was no difference in smoking abstinence compared with regular cigarette smokers. There was no difference in outcomes when comparing smokers of menthol vs unflavored cigarettes.

INTERPRETATION

In a screening population, the type of cigarette smoked is associated with different levels of dependence. Eliciting type of cigarette and time to first cigarette has the potential to allow for tailored tobacco treatment interventions within this context.

Screening Adherence in the Veterans Administration Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project

BACKGROUND

Adherence to annual low-dose CT was 95% in the National Lung Screening Trial and must be replicated to achieve mortality benefit from screening.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How do we determine adherence rates within the Veterans Affairs Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project and identify factors predictive of adherence?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A secondary data analysis of the Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project that was conducted at eight Veterans Affairs medical centers was performed to determine adherence to follow up imaging and to determine factors predictive of adherence.

RESULTS

A total of 2,103 patients were screened. The adherence to screening from baseline scan (T0) to first follow-up scan (T1) was 82.2% and 65.2% from T1 to second follow-up scan (T2). Logistic regression modeling showed that presence of a nodule and the site of lung cancer screening were predictive of adherence. After three rounds of screening, 1,343 patients (64%) who underwent baseline screening underwent both subsequent annual low-dose CT scans; 225 patients (11%) had only one subsequent low-dose CT; 0.4% did not have a T1 scan but did have a T2 scan; 70 patients (3%) died, and 36 patients (1.7%) were diagnosed with lung cancer. There was significant variation in screening adherence across the eight sites, which ranged from 63% to 94% at T1 and 52% to 82% at T2 (P < .05).

INTERPRETATION

Despite a centralized program design with dedicated navigator and registry to assist with adherence to annual lung cancer screening, variations between sites suggest that active follow-up strategies are needed to optimize adherence. For the mortality benefit from lung cancer screening to be recognized, adherence to annual screening must achieve higher rates.

Management of Lung Nodules and Lung Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic: CHEST Expert Panel Report

Background

The risks from potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and resource reallocation that has occurred to combat the pandemic, have altered the balance of benefits and harms that informed current (pre-COVID-19) guideline recommendations for lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. Consensus statements were developed to guide clinicians managing lung cancer screening programs and patients with lung nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Materials and Methods

An expert panel of 24 members, including pulmonologists (n = 17), thoracic radiologists (n = 5), and thoracic surgeons (n = 2), was formed. The panel was provided with an overview of current evidence, summarized by recent guidelines related to lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. The panel was convened by video teleconference to discuss and then vote on statements related to 12 common clinical scenarios. A predefined threshold of 70% of panel members voting agree or strongly agree was used to determine if there was a consensus for each statement. Items that may influence decisions were listed as notes to be considered for each scenario.

Results

Twelve statements related to baseline and annual lung cancer screening (n = 2), surveillance of a previously detected lung nodule (n = 5), evaluation of intermediate and high-risk lung nodules (n = 4), and management of clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer (n = 1) were developed and modified. All 12 statements were confirmed as consensus statements according to the voting results. The consensus statements provide guidance about situations in which it was believed to be appropriate to delay screening, defer surveillance imaging of lung nodules, and minimize nonurgent interventions during the evaluation of lung nodules and stage I non-small cell lung cancer.

Conclusion

There was consensus that during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is appropriate to defer enrollment in lung cancer screening and modify the evaluation of lung nodules due to the added risks from potential exposure and the need for resource reallocation. There are multiple local, regional, and patient-related factors that should be considered when applying these statements to individual patient care.

© 2020 RSNA; The American College of Chest Physicians, published by Elsevier Inc; and The American College of Radiology, published by Elsevier Inc.

Evaluating Lung Cancer Screening Uptake, Outcomes, and Costs in the United States: Challenges With Existing Data and Recommendations for Improvement

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) reported substantial reduction in lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals screened annually with low-dose helical computed tomography (LDCT). As a result, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued a B recommendation for annual LDCT in high-risk individuals, which requires private insurers to cover it without cost-sharing. The Medicare program also covers LDCT for high-risk beneficiaries without cost-sharing. However, the NLST findings may not be generalizable to the community setting because of differences in patients, providers, and practices participating in the NLST. Thus, examining uptake of LDCT screening in community practice is critical, as is evaluating the immediate and downstream outcomes of screening, including false-positive scans, follow-up examinations and adverse events, costs, stage of disease at diagnosis, and survival. This commentary presents an overview of the landscape of the data resources currently available to evaluate the uptake, outcomes, and costs of LDCT screening in the United States. We describe the strengths and limitations of existing data sources, including administrative databases, surveys, and registries. Thereafter, we provide recommendations for improving the data infrastructure pertaining to three overarching research areas: receipt of guideline-consistent screening and follow-up, weighing benefits and harms of screening, and costs of screening.

An Evaluation of Diagnostic Yield From Bronchoscopy: The Impact of Clinical/Radiographic Factors, Procedure Type, and Degree of Suspicion for Cancer

BACKGROUND

Bronchoscopy is commonly used to evaluate suspicious lung lesions. The yield is likely dependent on patient, radiographic, and bronchoscopic factors. Few studies have assessed these factors simultaneously while also including the preprocedure physician-assessed probability of cancer (pCA) when assessing yield.

METHODS

This study is a secondary data analysis from a prospective multicenter trial. Diagnostic yield of standard bronchoscopy with biopsy ± fluoroscopy, endobronchial ultrasound with transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), electromagnetic navigation, and combination bronchoscopies was assessed. Definitions for diagnostic and nondiagnostic bronchoscopies were rigorously predefined. The association of diagnostic yield with individual variables was examined by using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses where appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 687 patients were included from 28 sites. Overall diagnostic yield was 69%; 80% for EBUS, 55% for bronchoscopy with biopsy ± fluoroscopy, 57% for electromagnetic navigation, and 74% for combination procedures (P < .001). Patients with larger, central lesions with adenopathy were significantly more likely to undergo a diagnostic bronchoscopy. Patients with pCA < 10% and 10% to 60% had lower yields (44% and 42%, respectively), whereas pCA > 60% yielded a positive result in 77% (P < .001). In multivariate logistic regression, the use of EBUS-TBNA, larger sized lesions, and central location were significantly associated with a diagnostic bronchoscopy. Seventeen percent of those with a malignant diagnosis and 28% of those with a benign diagnosis required secondary procedures to establish a diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to assess the yield of bronchoscopy according to physician-assessed pCA in a large, prospective multicenter trial. The yield of bronchoscopy varied greatly according to physician suspicion that cancer is present, the patients' clinical/radiographic features, and the type of procedure performed. Of the procedures performed, EBUS-TBNA was the most likely to provide a diagnosis.