Comparing the performance of trained radiographers against experienced radiologists in the UK lung cancer screening (UKLS) trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performance of radiographers against that of radiologists for CT lung nodule detection in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) pilot trial.

METHODS

Four radiographers, trained in CT nodule detection, and three radiologists were prospectively evaluated. 290 CTs performed for the UKLS were independently read by 2 radiologists and 2 radiographers. The reference standard comprised all radiologist-identified positive nodules after arbitration of discrepancies. For each radiographer and radiologist, relative sensitivity and average false positives (FPs) per case were compared for all cases read, as well as for subsets of cases read by each radiographer-radiologist combination (10 combinations).

RESULTS

599 nodules in 209/290 (72.1%) CT studies comprised the reference standard. The relative mean (±standard deviation) sensitivity of the four radiographers was 71.6 ± 8.5% compared with 83.3 ± 8.1% for the three radiologists. Radiographers were less sensitive and detected more FPs per case than radiologists in 7/10 and 8/10 radiographer-radiologist combinations, respectively (ranges of difference 11.2-33.8% and 0.4-2.6; p < 0.05). In 3/10 and 2/10 combinations, there was no difference in sensitivity and FPs per case between radiographers and radiologists. For nodules ≥100 mm(3) in volume or ≥5 mm in maximum diameter, radiographers were relatively less sensitive than radiologists in only 5/10 radiographer-radiologist combinations (range of difference 16.1-30.6%; p < 0.05) and not significantly different in the remaining 5/10 combinations.

CONCLUSION

Although overall radiographer performance was lower than that of experienced radiologists in this study, some radiographer performances were comparable with that of radiologists.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Overall, radiographers were less sensitive than radiologists reading the same CTs and also displayed higher average FP detections per case when compared with a reference standard derived from radiologist readings. However, some radiographers compared favourably with radiologists, especially when considering larger potentially clinically relevant nodules. Thus, while probably not sensitive enough to function as first readers, radiographers may still be able to fulfil the role of an assistant reader-that is, as a first or concurrent reader, who presents detected nodules for verification to a reading radiologist.

Abstract 3458: UK lung cancer screening trial (UKLS) cost effectiveness: similarities with the NLST high-risk quintiles

Introduction: The pilot UK lung cancer RCT screening trial recruited around 4,000 individuals, using the LLPv2 risk model (5% risk over 5 years). The cost effectiveness of the UKLS trial has been modelled and compared with that of the US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which has published an estimate of $81,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) as its mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Methodology: All UKLS cost estimates were based on 2011-12 NHS tariffs (Costs provided in $: £1 = $1.5 on 30-11-15). Owing to the brief duration of the trial, observations relevant to economic evaluation were limited to cost-incurring events associated with screening and the initial management of screen-detected cancers. Expected outcomes of the cancers detected were simulated on the basis of both life tables and published survival data from other studies.

The costs incurred from UKLS are those of baseline and repeat screens ($424,072), diagnostic workup ($113,478), and treatment ($449,243), which totalled $1,036794 (95% CI, $719,332 to $1,350,766). Recruitment costs ($15) per person for invitation and selection) were modelled from the UK colorectal screening programme and we assumed a participation rate of 30% of those invited. The gross current costs of the programme amounted to $1,133,217 (CI $817,887 to $1,450,610).

Summary of findings: The ICER of screen-detection compared with symptomatic detection was estimated at $9495 per life-year gained. Using data from previous studies, we associated quality of life weights with the estimated survival gains, enabling us to report outcomes as QALYs. On this basis, the ICER equalled $12,709 per QALY gained (CI $ 8280 to $18966).

The difference in cost effectiveness between NLST and UKLS as suggested by the estimated ICERs is more apparent than real. Most of the discrepancy can be explained by differences between settings in (i) local unit costs, (ii) intensity of resource use, (iii) number of screening rounds and (iv) disease prevalence in the target population. Thus, UKLS selected high-risk subjects only whereas NLST screened a general population, yet the latter reported an ICER as low as $32,000 for its highest-risk quintile. Expected QALY gains from screen-detection were similar in both trials.

Conclusion: Other things remaining equal, ICERs will be higher in programmes where (i) unit costs of detection and management are higher, (ii) lower-risk subjects are invited to be screened, (iii) screens are repeated at frequent intervals. The convention for cost effectiveness acceptability in the UK is $30,000-45,000 per QALY gained, and we conclude that a lung cancer screening programme based on the UKLS protocol would be likely to offer acceptable value for money to the NHS.

Citation Format: David Whynes, Stephen W. Duffy, David R. Baldwin, Anand Devaraj, John K. Field. UK lung cancer screening trial (UKLS) cost effectiveness: similarities with the NLST high-risk quintiles. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 3458.

Defining a standard set of patient-centred outcomes for lung cancer

In lung cancer, outcome measurement has been mostly limited to survival. Proper assessment of the value of lung cancer treatments, and the performance of institutions delivering care, requires more comprehensive measurement of standardised outcomes.

The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement convened an international, multidisciplinary working group of patient representatives, medical oncologists, surgeons, radiation oncologists, pulmonologists, palliative care specialists, registry experts and specialist nurses to review existing data and practices. Using a modified Delphi method, the group developed a consensus recommendation (“the set”) on the outcomes most essential to track for patients with lung cancer, along with baseline demographic, clinical and tumour characteristics (case-mix variables) for risk adjustment.

The set applies to patients diagnosed with nonsmall cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer. Our working group recommends the collection of the following outcomes: survival, complications during or within 6 months of treatment and patient-reported domains of health-related quality of life including pain, fatigue, cough and dyspnoea. Case-mix variables were defined to improve interpretation of comparisons.

We defined an international consensus recommendation of the most important outcomes for lung cancer patients, along with relevant case-mix variables, and are working to support adoption and reporting of these measures globally.

#ICHOM Lung Cancer Standard Set of patient-centred outcomes: aligning global efforts to improve lung cancer carehttp://ow.ly/bFDR300EhY7

The UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial: a pilot randomised controlled trial of low-dose computed tomography screening for the early detection of lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer kills more people than any other cancer in the UK (5-year survival < 13%). Early diagnosis can save lives. The USA-based National Lung Cancer Screening Trial reported a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality and 6.7% all-cause mortality in low-dose computed tomography (LDCT)-screened subjects.

OBJECTIVES

To (1) analyse LDCT lung cancer screening in a high-risk UK population, determine optimum recruitment, screening, reading and care pathway strategies; and (2) assess the psychological consequences and the health-economic implications of screening.

DESIGN

A pilot randomised controlled trial comparing intervention with usual care. A population-based risk questionnaire identified individuals who were at high risk of developing lung cancer (≥ 5% over 5 years).

SETTING

Thoracic centres with expertise in lung cancer imaging, respiratory medicine, pathology and surgery: Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital, Merseyside, and Papworth Hospital, Cambridgeshire.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals aged 50-75 years, at high risk of lung cancer, in the primary care trusts adjacent to the centres.

INTERVENTIONS

A thoracic LDCT scan. Follow-up computed tomography (CT) scans as per protocol. Referral to multidisciplinary team clinics was determined by nodule size criteria.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Population-based recruitment based on risk stratification; management of the trial through web-based database; optimal characteristics of CT scan readers (radiologists vs. radiographers); characterisation of CT-detected nodules utilising volumetric analysis; prevalence of lung cancer at baseline; sociodemographic factors affecting participation; psychosocial measures (cancer distress, anxiety, depression, decision satisfaction); and cost-effectiveness modelling.

RESULTS

A total of 247,354 individuals were approached to take part in the trial; 30.7% responded positively to the screening invitation. Recruitment of participants resulted in 2028 in the CT arm and 2027 in the control arm. A total of 1994 participants underwent CT scanning: 42 participants (2.1%) were diagnosed with lung cancer; 36 out of 42 (85.7%) of the screen-detected cancers were identified as stage 1 or 2, and 35 (83.3%) underwent surgical resection as their primary treatment. Lung cancer was more common in the lowest socioeconomic group. Short-term adverse psychosocial consequences were observed in participants who were randomised to the intervention arm and in those who had a major lung abnormality detected, but these differences were modest and temporary. Rollout of screening as a service or design of a full trial would need to address issues of outreach. The health-economic analysis suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective but this needs to be confirmed using data on actual lung cancer mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) pilot was successfully undertaken with 4055 randomised individuals. The data from the UKLS provide evidence that adds to existing data to suggest that lung cancer screening in the UK could potentially be implemented in the 60-75 years age group, selected via the Liverpool Lung Project risk model version 2 and using CT volumetry-based management protocols.

FUTURE WORK

The UKLS data will be pooled with the NELSON (Nederlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek: Dutch-Belgian Randomised Lung Cancer Screening Trial) and other European Union trials in 2017 which will provide European mortality and cost-effectiveness data. For now, there is a clear need for mortality results from other trials and further research to identify optimal methods of implementation and delivery. Strategies for increasing uptake and providing support for underserved groups will be key to implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN78513845.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Management of pulmonary nodules according to the 2015 British Thoracic Society guidelines. Key messages for clinical practice

The British Thoracic Society guideline on the investigation and management of pulmonary nodules is based on a comprehensive and systematic review of the literature on pulmonary nodules. Recent evidence has suggested that significant changes to existing guidelines are necessary. The use of 2 malignancy prediction calculators to better characterize the risk of malignancy was firmly supported by evidence, as were the recommendations for a higher nodule size threshold for follow‑up (≥5 mm or ≥80 mm3) and a reduction of the follow‑up period to 1 year for solid pulmonary nodules. Although caution is required where there is a history of cancer, both of these recommendations will reduce the number of follow‑up computed tomographies, thereby improving cost‑effectiveness and pressure on imaging services. Recent evidence has also confirmed the superiority of volumetry as the preferred measurement method and clarified the management of nodules with extended volume‑doubling times. Acknowledging the good prognosis of subsolid nodules, there are recommendations for less aggressive options in their management. The guidelines recommend ordinal scale reporting for positron emission tomography-computed tomography to facilitate incorporation into risk models. There are recommendations on when biopsy is most helpful, the threshold for treatment without histological confirmation, and surgical and nonsurgical treatment. The guideline also provides evidence‑based recommendations about the information that people need and that should be provided for them. The complexity of managing pulmonary nodules is made more accessible by 4 management algorithms. In the real world, it is surprising how easy these are to follow and how they seem to follow an intuitive approach.

The Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): protocol for a randomised controlled demonstration lung cancer screening pilot testing a targeted invitation strategy for high risk and 'hard-to-reach' patients

BACKGROUND

Participation in low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening offered in the trial context has been poor, especially among smokers from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds; a group for whom the risk-benefit ratio is improved due to their high risk of lung cancer. Attracting high risk participants is essential to the success and equity of any future screening programme. This study will investigate whether the observed low and biased uptake of screening can be improved using a targeted invitation strategy.

METHODS/DESIGN

A randomised controlled trial design will be used to test whether targeted invitation materials are effective at improving engagement with an offer of lung cancer screening for high risk candidates. Two thousand patients aged 60-75 and recorded as a smoker within the last five years by their GP, will be identified from primary care records and individually randomised to receive either intervention invitation materials (which take a targeted, stepped and low burden approach to information provision prior to the appointment) or control invitation materials. The primary outcome is uptake of a nurse-led 'lung health check' hospital appointment, during which patients will be offered a spirometry test, an exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) reading, and an LDCT if eligible. Initial data on demographics (i.e. age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation score) and smoking status will be collected in primary care and analysed to explore differences between attenders and non-attenders with respect to invitation group. Those who attend the lung health check will have further data on smoking collected during their appointment (including pack-year history, nicotine dependence and confidence to quit). Secondary outcomes will include willingness to be screened, uptake of LDCT and measures of informed decision-making to ensure the latter is not compromised by either invitation strategy.

DISCUSSION

If effective at improving informed uptake of screening and reducing bias in participation, this invitation strategy could be adopted by local screening pilots or a national programme.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with the ISRCTN (International Standard Registered Clinical/soCial sTudy Number: ISRCTN21774741) on the 23rd September 2015 and the NIH ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT0255810) on the 22nd September 2015.

Pulmonary nodules and CT screening: the past, present and future

Lung cancer screening has come a long way since the early studies with chest X-ray. Advancing technology and progress in the processing of images have enabled low dose CT to be tried and tested, and evidence suggests its use can result in a significant mortality benefit. There are several issues that need refining in order to successfully implement screening in the UK and elsewhere. Some countries have started patchy implementation of screening and there is increased recognition that the appropriate management of pulmonary nodules is crucial to optimise benefits of early detection, while reducing harm caused by inappropriate medical intervention. This review summarises and differentiates the many recent guidelines on pulmonary nodule management, discusses screening activity in other countries and exposes the present barriers to implementation in the UK.

The SABRTooth feasibility trial protocol: a study to determine the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a phase III randomised controlled trial comparing stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with surgery in patients with peripheral stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) considered to be at higher risk of complications from surgical resection

Background

Stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is potentially curable, and surgery is considered to be the standard of care for patients with good performance status and minimal co-morbidity. However, a significant proportion of patients with stage I NSCLC have a poorer performance status and significant medical co-morbidity that make them at higher risk of morbidity and mortality from surgery.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), which uses modern radiotherapeutic techniques to deliver large doses of radiation, has shown superiority over conventional radiotherapy in terms of local control and toxicity and is a standard of care for patients with stage I NSCLC who are at too high risk for surgery. However, it is not known whether surgery or SABR is the most effective in patients with stage I NSCLC who are suitable for surgery but are less fit and at higher risk surgical complications. Previous randomised studies have failed to recruit in this setting, and therefore, a feasibility study is required to see whether a full randomised control trial would be possible.

Methods/design

SABRTooth is a UK-based, multi-centre, open-label, two-group individually (1:1) randomised controlled feasibility study in patients with peripheral stage I NSCLC considered to be at higher risk from surgical resection. The study will assess the feasibility of conducting a definitive large-scale phase III trial. The primary objective is to assess recruitment rates to provide evidence that, when scaled up, recruitment to a large phase III trial would be possible; the target recruitment being 54 patients in total, over a 21-month period. There are multiple secondary and exploratory objectives designed to explore the optimum recruitment and data collection strategies to help optimise the design of a future phase III trial.

Discussion

To know whether SABR is a better, equivalent or inferior alternative to surgery for higher risk patients is a key question in lung cancer. Other studies comparing SABR to surgery have closed early due to poor recruitment, and therefore, the SABRTooth feasibility study has been designed around the UK National Health Service (NHS) cancer pathway incorporating many design features in order to maximise recruitment for a future definitive phase III trial.

Trial registration

controlled-trials.com ISRCTN13029788

Protocol for PIT: a phase III trial of prophylactic irradiation of tracts in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma following invasive chest wall intervention

INTRODUCTION

Histological diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma requires an invasive procedure such as CT-guided needle biopsy, thoracoscopy, video-assisted thorascopic surgery (VATs) or thoracotomy. These invasive procedures encourage tumour cell seeding at the intervention site and patients can develop tumour nodules within the chest wall. In an effort to prevent nodules developing, it has been widespread practice across Europe to irradiate intervention sites postprocedure--a practice known as prophylactic irradiation of tracts (PIT). To date there has not been a suitably powered randomised trial to determine whether PIT is effective at reducing the risk of chest wall nodule development.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this multicentre phase III randomised controlled superiority trial, 374 patients who can receive radiotherapy within 42 days of a chest wall intervention will be randomised to receive PIT or no PIT. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1 basis. Radiotherapy in the PIT arm will be 21 Gy in three fractions. Subsequent chemotherapy is given at the clinicians' discretion. A reduction in the incidence of chest wall nodules from 15% to 5% in favour of radiotherapy 6 months after randomisation would be clinically significant. All patients will be followed up for up to 2 years with monthly telephone contact and at least four outpatient visits in the first year.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

PIT was approved by NRES Committee North West-Greater Manchester West (REC reference 12/NW/0249) and recruitment is currently on-going, the last patient is expected to be randomised by the end of 2015. The analysis of the primary end point, incidence of chest wall nodules 6 months after randomisation, is expected to be published in 2016 in a peer reviewed journal and results will also be presented at scientific meetings and summary results published online. A follow-up analysis is expected to be published in 2018.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN04240319; NCT01604005; Pre-results.

Return of the pulmonary nodule: the radiologist's key role in implementing the 2015 BTS guidelines on the investigation and management of pulmonary nodules

The British Thoracic Society has published new comprehensive guidelines for the management of pulmonary nodules. These guidelines are significantly different from those previously published, as they use two malignancy prediction calculators to better characterize the risk of malignancy. There are recommendations for a higher nodule size threshold for follow-up (≥5 mm or ≥80 mm(3)) and a reduction of the follow-up period to 1 year for solid pulmonary nodules; both of these will reduce the number of follow-up CT scans. PET-CT plays a crucial role in characterization also, with an ordinal scale being recommended for reporting. Radiologists will be the key in implementing these guidelines, and routine use of volumetric image-analysis software will be required to manage patients with pulmonary nodules correctly.

UK Lung Cancer RCT Pilot Screening Trial: baseline findings from the screening arm provide evidence for the potential implementation of lung cancer screening

Background

Lung cancer screening using low-dose CT (LDCT) was shown to reduce lung cancer mortality by 20% in the National Lung Screening Trial.

Methods

The pilot UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) is a randomised controlled trial of LDCT screening for lung cancer versus usual care. A population-based questionnaire was used to identify high-risk individuals. CT screen-detected nodules were managed by a pre-specified protocol. Cost effectiveness was modelled with reference to the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial mortality reduction.

Results

247 354 individuals aged 50–75 years were approached; 30.7% expressed an interest, 8729 (11.5%) were eligible and 4055 were randomised, 2028 into the CT arm (1994 underwent a CT). Forty-two participants (2.1%) had confirmed lung cancer, 34 (1.7%) at baseline and 8 (0.4%) at the 12-month scan. 28/42 (66.7%) had stage I disease, 36/42 (85.7%) had stage I or II disease. 35/42 (83.3%) had surgical resection. 536 subjects had nodules greater than 50 mm³ or 5 mm diameter and 41/536 were found to have lung cancer. One further cancer was detected by follow-up of nodules between 15 and 50 mm³ at 12 months. The baseline estimate for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of once-only CT screening, under the UKLS protocol, was £8466 per quality adjusted life year gained (CI £5542 to £12 569).

Conclusions

The UKLS pilot trial demonstrated that it is possible to detect lung cancer at an early stage and deliver potentially curative treatment in over 80% of cases. Health economic analysis suggests that the intervention would be cost effective—this needs to be confirmed using data on observed lung cancer mortality reduction.

Trial registration

ISRCTN 78513845.

Lung cancer screening and management

Deaths from lung cancer are greater than for any other type of malignancy. Many people present with advanced stage cancer at diagnosis and survival is limited. Low radiation dose CT (LDCT) screening appears to offer part of the solution to this. The US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed a 20% reduction in cancer related mortality and a 6.7% reduction in all cause mortality in patients who had LDCT compared to chest X-ray. Lung Cancer screening is now being implemented in the US using the NLST screening criteria but many questions remain about the details of the methodology of screening and its cost effectiveness. Many of these questions are being answered by ongoing European trials that are reporting their findings. In this review we objectively analyse current research evidence and explore the issues that need to be resolved before implementation, including technical considerations, selection criteria and effective nodule management protocols. We discuss the potential barriers that will be faced when beginning a national screening programme and possible solutions to them.

CT screening for lung cancer: Is the evidence strong enough?

The prevailing questions at this time in both the public mind and the clinical establishment is, do we have sufficient evidence to implement lung cancer Computed Tomography (CT) screening in Europe? If not, what is outstanding? This review addresses the twelve major areas, which are critical to any decision to implement CT screening and where we need to assess whether we have sufficient evidence to proceed to a recommendation for implementation in Europe. The readiness level of these twelve categories in 2015 have been with colour coded, where green indicates we have sufficient evidence, amber is borderline evidence and red requires further evidence. Recruitment from the 'Hard to Reach' community still remains at red, while mortality data, cost effectiveness and screening interval are all categorised as amber. The integration of smoking cessation into CT screening programmes is still considered to be category amber. The US Preventive Services Task Force have recommended that CT screening is implemented in the USA utilising the NLST criteria, apart from continuing screening to 80 years of age. The cost effectiveness of the NLST was calculated to be $81,000/QALY, however, its well recognised that the costs of medical care in the USA, is far higher than that of Europe. Medicare have agreed to cover the cost of screening but have stipulated a number of stringent requirements for inclusion. To date we do not have good CT screening mortality data available in Europe and eagerly await the publication of the NELSON trial data in 2016 and then the pooled UKLS and NELSON data thereafter. However in the meantime we should start planning for implementation in Europe, especially in the areas of the radiological service provision and accreditation, as well as identifying novel mechanisms to recruit from the hardest to reach communities.

Non-small cell lung cancer in young adults: presentation and survival in the English National Lung Cancer Audit

BACKGROUND

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in young adults is a rare but devastating illness with significant socioeconomic implications, and studies of this patient subgroup are limited.

AIM

This study employed the National Lung Cancer Audit to compare the clinical features and survival of young adults with NSCLC with the older age groups.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort review using a validated national audit dataset.

METHODS

Data were analysed for the period between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2011. Young adults were defined as between 18 and 39 years, and all others were divided into decade age groups, up to the 80 years and above group. We performed logistic and Cox regression analyses to assess clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Of a total of 1 46 422 patients, 651 (0.5%) were young adults, of whom a higher proportion had adenocarcinoma (48%) than in any other age group. Stage distribution of NSCLC was similar across the age groups and 71% of young patients had stage IIIb/IV. Performance status (PS) was 0-1 for 85%. Young adults were more likely to have surgery and chemotherapy compared with the older age groups and had better overall and post-operative survival. The proportion with adenocarcinoma, better PS and that receiving surgery or chemotherapy diminished progressively with advancing decade age groups.

CONCLUSION

In our cohort of young adults with NSCLC, the majority had good PS despite the same late-stage disease as older patients. They were more likely to have treatment and survive longer than older patients.

Abstract 4602: Exome sequencing of UKLS lung cancer CT screened early stage cancers

INTRODUCTION

Developments in both low-dose CT-screening within populations at high risk of lung cancer and sequencing analysis of lung tumours have improved the prospects for early detection and clinical management of lung cancer. Such approaches potentially could provide biological insight into the early stages of lung cancer development, which until now have been refractory to genomic analysis, since lung tumours are rarely identified at a presymptomatic timepoint.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PERTINENT EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Individuals with at least a 5% risk of developing lung cancer within 5 years (according to the LLPv2 lung cancer risk score) were recruited to the UK Lung low dose CT Screening (UKLS) trial. Ten of the early stage NSCLC UKLS tumours were prepared for exome sequencing. Tumour DNA was extracted from FFPE material and DNA was also extracted from matched blood samples. Tumour and blood libraries were prepared using an Agilent SureSelect exome-capture kit and sequenced to 100x and 50x, depth respectively, on the Illumina HiSeq platform (Oxford Gene Technology, UK). Sequence data were aligned against the GRCh37 human reference and matched samples were subject to local realignment in pairs. Somatic variants were identified using a combination of EBCall, MuTect and VarScan2 and were post-filtered to remove false positive variants (alignment artifacts and FFPE-hypersensitive sites) by comparison between samples.

TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas) lung adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma samples from smokers and former smokers (who had complete data for a minimal set of clinical and epidemiological variables) were compared to the UKLS samples described above. To ensure comparable genomic regions were studied, both the UKLS and TCGA somatic variants were restricted to protein-coding regions covered by the Agilent SureSelect array but disjoint from simple-repetitive regions.

SUMMARY OF THE NEW, UNPUBLISHED DATA

Despite detection at an early stage, somatic mutations were identified in all CT-detected tumours, including non-synonymous variants in known driver genes. Between 71 and 471 variants were detected within non-repetitive protein-coding regions, which is comparable to, if somewhat lower than, the number of variants in the same regions in the TCGA ever-smoker samples (p = 0.17; Kruskal-Wallis). The results suggest that the majority of somatic variants exist in lung tumours prior to the evolution of symptoms and are consistent with recent studies of lung cancer heterogeneity wherein the majority of mutations occur prior to subclonal branching.

STATEMENT OF CONCLUSIONS

Somatic variations in the host genome are readily detected in FFPE material from pre-symptomatic lung tumours. Mutational burden is comparable to lung adenocarcinoma and squamous carcinoma from mature symptomatic individuals providing further evidence for the long latency of lung tumour development.

Citation Format: Russell Hyde, Michael Davies, Martin Ledson, John A. Holemans, Richard D. Page, John Gosney, David R. Baldwin, Anand Devaraj, David M. Hansell, Stephen W. Duffy, John K. Field. Exome sequencing of UKLS lung cancer CT screened early stage cancers. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2015 Apr 18-22; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(15 Suppl):Abstract nr 4602. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-4602

Stratification of resectable lung adenocarcinoma by molecular and pathological risk estimators

BACKGROUND

Mortality in early stage, resectable lung cancer is sufficiently high to warrant consideration of post-surgical treatment. Novel markers to stratify resectable lung cancer patients may help with the selection of treatment to improve outcome.

METHODS

Primary tumour tissue from 485 patients, surgically treated for stage I-II lung adenocarcinoma, was analysed for the RNA expression of 31 cell cycle progression (CCP) genes by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The expression average, the CCP score, was combined with pathological stage into a prognostic score (PS). Cox proportional hazards regression assessed prediction of 5-year lung cancer mortality above clinical variables. The PS threshold was tested for risk discrimination by the Mantel-Cox log-rank test.

RESULTS

The CCP score added significant information above clinical markers (all patients, P=0.0029; stage I patients, P=0.013). The prognostic score was a superior predictor of outcome compared to pathological stage alone (PS, P=0.00084; stage, P=0.24). Five-year lung cancer mortality was significantly different between the low-risk (90%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 81-95%), and high-risk groups (65%, 95% CI 57-72%), P=4.2×10(-6)).

CONCLUSIONS

The CCP score is an independent prognostic marker in early stage lung adenocarcinoma. The prognostic score provides superior risk estimates than stage alone. The threefold higher risk in the high-risk group defines a subset of patients that should consider therapeutic choices to improve outcome.

Barriers to uptake among high-risk individuals declining participation in lung cancer screening: a mixed methods analysis of the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial

OBJECTIVE

The current study aimed to identify the barriers to participation among high-risk individuals in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) pilot trial.

SETTING

The UKLS pilot trial is a randomised controlled trial of low-dose CT (LDCT) screening that has recruited high-risk people using a population approach in the Cambridge and Liverpool areas.

PARTICIPANTS

High-risk individuals aged 50-75 years were invited to participate in UKLS. Individuals were excluded if a LDCT scan was performed within the last year, if they were unable to provide consent, or if LDCT screening was unable to be carried out due to coexisting comorbidities.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Statistical associations between individual characteristics and UKLS uptake were examined using multivariable regression modelling. In those who completed a non-participation questionnaire (NPQ), thematic analysis of free-text data was undertaken to identify reasons for not taking part, with subsequent exploratory linkage of key themes to risk factors for non-uptake.

RESULTS

Comparative data were available from 4061 high-risk individuals who consented to participate in the trial and 2756 who declined participation. Of those declining participation, 748 (27.1%) completed a NPQ. Factors associated with non-uptake included: female gender (OR=0.64, p<0.001), older age (OR=0.73, p<0.001), current smoking (OR=0.70, p<0.001), lower socioeconomic group (OR=0.56, p<0.001) and higher affective risk perception (OR=0.52, p<0.001). Among non-participants who provided a reason, two main themes emerged reflecting practical and emotional barriers. Smokers were more likely to report emotional barriers to participation.

CONCLUSIONS

A profile of risk factors for non-participation in lung screening has emerged, with underlying reasons largely relating to practical and emotional barriers. Strategies for engaging high-risk, hard-to-reach groups are critical for the equitable uptake of a potential future lung cancer screening programme.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The UKLS trial was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register under the reference 78513845.

The British Thoracic Society guidelines on the investigation and management of pulmonary nodules

The British Thoracic Society guideline for the investigation and management of pulmonary nodules is published as a supplement to this edition of the journal. It provides recommendations for the management of an individual with single or multiple pulmonary nodules and is a comprehensive reference text.

Reliable EGFR mutation testing in ultrasound-guided supraclavicular lymph node fine-needle aspirates: a cohort study with diagnostic performance analysis

Introduction

15–30% of patients with lung cancer will have supraclavicular and cervical lymphadenopathy (SCLN). Ultrasound (US)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology is regarded as an effective diagnostic tool in small size lymph nodes (LNs) and impalpable positron emission tomography detected nodes. We evaluated our diagnostic service performance in relation to the adequacy of samples for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation.

Methods

Retrospective data analysis from electronic records, searching for all suspected lung cancer referrals that underwent US of the neck±FNA, over a continuous period of 4 years.

Results

Of 306 cases with suspected lung cancer referred to our department for US FNA of SCLN, 228 patients underwent the procedure. Of the remaining 78 patients, LNs were not detected in 52 cases and appeared benign in 26. Cytological diagnosis was established in 171 patients (75%) for treatment decisions without further investigations. The remaining 57 patients had further investigations; 45 reconfirmed the US-guided FNA diagnosis. The average LN size was 12.9 mm, and positive cytology was obtained in LNs ranging from 3 to 45 mm. Of 57 adenocarcinoma cases, 34 were tested for EGFR confirming 4 positive, 25 negative and 5 insufficient samples. No complications were recorded.

Conclusions

US-guided FNA of SCLN remains an important diagnostic tool in lung cancer. Adequate tissue can be obtained for reliable diagnosis from LNs and for EGFR mutational analysis, without the need for more invasive and expensive investigations in more than 80% of cases.