Lung cancer mortality reduction by LDCT screening-Results from the randomized German LUSI trial

Intergroupe francophone de cancérologie thoracique, Société de pneumologie de langue française, and Société d'imagerie thoracique statement paper on lung cancer screening

Following the American National Lung Screening Trial results in 2011 a consortium of French experts met to edit a statement. Recent results of other randomized trials gave the opportunity for our group to meet again in order to edit updated guidelines. After literature review, we provide here a new update on lung cancer screening in France. Notably, in accordance with all international guidelines, the experts renew their recommendation in favor of individual screening for lung cancer in France as per the conditions laid out in this document. In addition, the experts recommend the very rapid organization and funding of prospective studies, which, if conclusive, will enable the deployment of lung cancer screening organized at the national level.

[Scientific assessment and regulatory approval of radiological screening examinations in Germany]

BACKGROUND

Radiologic imaging technologies like computed tomography (CT) have the potential to screen for various diseases. The potential benefits of screening are always associated with risks, particularly from the application of ionizing radiation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The International Basic Safety Standards as well as the Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom have set guidelines for the application of ionizing radiation in early detection which were transposed into the German Radiation Protection Law. Accordingly, the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) approves screening examinations on a generic level, based on a scientific report provided by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), and defines in a federal statutory ordinance which type of screening is permissible for detecting a disease for a particular group of persons and under which conditions.

RESULTS

With exception of the mammography screening programme, no radiological examination for the early detection of disease has been approved in Germany to date. However, such screenings are currently being offered in Germany. The BfS is currently conducting a scientific evaluation for lung cancer screening with low-dose CT.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening examinations with radiological imaging can only be approved when studies with the highest level of evidence have demonstrated that the benefits outweigh the risks. To translate this favourable benefit-risk balance into general health care, strict requirements for the entire screening process including quality assurance must be defined.

Implementation of lung cancer screening: what are the main issues?

Two large-scale RCTs have shown computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening to be efficacious in reducing lung cancer mortality (8–24% in men, 26–59% in women). However, lung cancer screening implicitly means personalised and risk-based approaches. Health care systems’ implementation of personalised screening and prevention is still sparse, and likely to be of variable quality, because of important remaining uncertainties, which have been incompletely addressed or not at all so far. Further optimisation of lung cancer screening programs is expected to reduce harms and maintain or enhance benefit for eligible European citizens, whilst significantly reducing health care costs. Some main uncertainties (e.g., Risk-based eligibility, Risk-based screening intervals, Volume CT screening, Smoking Cessation, Gender and Sex differences, Cost-Effectiveness) are discussed in this review. 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN (acronym for: Towards INdividually tailored INvitations, screening INtervals and INtegrated co-morbidity reducing strategies in lung cancer screening) is the first multi-centred implementation trial on volume CT lung cancer screening amongst 24,000 males and females, at high risk for developing lung cancer, across five European countries, started in January 2020. Through providing answers to the remaining questions with this trial, many EU citizens will swiftly benefit from this high-quality screening technology, others will face less harms than previously anticipated, and health care costs will be substantially reduced. Implementing a new cancer screening programme is a major task, with many stakeholders and many possible facilitators but also barriers and obstacle.

Targeting lung cancer screening to individuals at greatest risk: the role of genetic factors

Lung cancer (LC) is the most common global cancer. An individual’s risk of developing LC is mediated by an array of factors, including family history of the disease. Considerable research into genetic risk factors for LC has taken place in recent years, with both low-penetrance and high-penetrance variants implicated in increasing or decreasing a person’s risk of the disease. LC is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide; poor survival is driven by late onset of non-specific symptoms, resulting in late-stage diagnoses. Evidence for the efficacy of screening in detecting cancer earlier, thereby reducing lung-cancer specific mortality, is now well established. To ensure the cost-effectiveness of a screening programme and to limit the potential harms to participants, a risk threshold for screening eligibility is required. Risk prediction models (RPMs), which provide an individual’s personal risk of LC over a particular period based on a large number of risk factors, may improve the selection of high-risk individuals for LC screening when compared with generalised eligibility criteria that only consider smoking history and age. No currently used RPM integrates genetic risk factors into its calculation of risk. This review provides an overview of the evidence for LC screening, screening related harms and the use of RPMs in screening cohort selection. It gives a synopsis of the known genetic risk factors for lung cancer and discusses the evidence for including them in RPMs, focusing in particular on the use of polygenic risk scores to increase the accuracy of targeted lung cancer screening.

Lung-RADS Version 1.1: Challenges and a Look Ahead, From the AJR Special Series on Radiology Reporting and Data Systems

In 2014, the American College of Radiology (ACR) created Lung-RADS 1.0. The system was updated to Lung-RADS 1.1 in 2019, and further updates are anticipated as additional data become available. Lung-RADS provides a common lexicon and standardized nodule follow-up management paradigm for use when reporting lung cancer screening (LCS) low-dose CT (LDCT) chest examinations and serves as a quality assurance and outcome monitoring tool. The use of Lung-RADS is intended to improve LCS performance and lead to better patient outcomes. To date, the ACR's Lung Cancer Screening Registry is the only LCS registry approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and requires the use of Lung-RADS categories for reimbursement. Numerous challenges have emerged regarding the use of Lung-RADS in clinical practice, including the timing of return to LCS after planned follow-up diagnostic evaluation; potential substitution of interval diagnostic CT for future LDCT; role of volumetric analysis in assessing nodule size; assessment of nodule growth; assessment of cavitary, subpleural, and category 4X nodules; and variability in reporting of the S modifier. This article highlights the major updates between versions 1.0 and 1.1 of Lung-RADS, describes the system's ongoing challenges, and summarizes current evidence and recommendations.

Duration of lead time in screening for lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Screening for lung cancer has used chest radiography (CR), low dose computed tomography (LDCT) and sputum cytology (SC). Estimates of the lead time (LT), i.e., the time interval from detection of lung cancer by screening to the development of symptoms, have been derived from longitudinal studies of populations at risk, tumor doubling time (DT), the ratio between its prevalence at the first round of screening and its annual incidence during follow-up, and by probability modeling derived from the results of screening trials.

OBJECTIVE

To review and update the estimates of LT of lung cancer.

METHODS

A non-systematic search of the literature for estimates of LT and screening trials. Search of the reference sections of the retrieved papers for additional relevant studies. Calculation of LTs derived from these studies.

RESULTS

LT since detection by CR was 0.8-1.1 years if derived from longitudinal studies; 0.6-2.1 years if derived from prevalence / incidence ratios; 0.2 years if derived from the average tumor DT; and 0.2-1.0 if derived from probability modeling. LT since detection by LDCT was 1.1-3.5 if derived from prevalence / incidence ratios; 3.9 if derived from DT; and 0.9 if derived from probability modeling. LT since detection of squamous cell cancer by SC in persons with normal CR was 1.3-1.5 if derived from prevalence/incidence ratios; and 2.1 years if derived from the DT of squamous cell cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Most estimates of the LT yield values of 0.2-1.5 years for detection by CR; of 0.9-3.5 years for detection by LDCT; and about 2 years or less for detection of squamous cell cancer by SC in persons with normal CR. The heterogeneity of the screening trials and methods of derivation may account for the variability of LT estimates.

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.

Can autoantibody tests enhance lung cancer screening?-an evaluation of EarlyCDT®-Lung in context of the German Lung Cancer Screening Intervention Trial (LUSI)

Background

Tumor-associated autoantibodies are considered promising markers for early lung cancer detection; so far, however, their capacity to detect cancer has been tested mostly in a clinical context, but not in population screening settings. This study evaluates the early detection accuracy, in terms of sensitivity and specificity, of EarlyCDT^®-Lung-a test panel of seven tumor-associated autoantibodies optimized for lung cancer detection-using blood samples originally collected as part of the German Lung Cancer Screening Intervention Trial.

Methods

The EarlyCDT^®-Lung test was performed for all participants with lung cancer detected via low-dose computed tomography and with available blood samples taken at detection, and for 180 retrospectively selected cancer-free participants at the end of follow-up: 90 randomly selected from among all cancer-free participants (baseline controls) and 90 randomly selected from among cancer-free participants with suspicious imaging findings (suspicious nodules controls). Sensitivity and specificity of lung cancer detection were estimated in the case group and the two control groups, respectively.

Results

In the case group, the test panel showed a sensitivity of only 13.0% (95% CI: 4.9-26.3%). Specificity was estimated at 88.9% (95% CI: 80.5-94.5%) in the baseline control group, and 91.1% (95% CI: 83.2-96.1%) among controls presenting CT-detected nodules.

Conclusions

The test panel showed insufficient sensitivity for detecting lung cancer at an equally early stage as with low-dose computed tomography screening.

Earlier diagnosis of lung cancer in a randomised trial of an autoantibody blood test followed by imaging

The EarlyCDT-Lung test is a high-specificity blood-based autoantibody biomarker that could contribute to predicting lung cancer risk. We report on the results of a phase IV biomarker evaluation of whether using the EarlyCDT-Lung test and any subsequent computed tomography (CT) scanning to identify those at high risk of lung cancer reduces the incidence of patients with stage III/IV/unspecified lung cancer at diagnosis compared with the standard clinical practice at the time the study began.The Early Diagnosis of Lung Cancer Scotland (ECLS) trial was a randomised controlled trial of 12 208 participants at risk of developing lung cancer in Scotland in the UK. The intervention arm received the EarlyCDT-Lung test and, if test-positive, low-dose CT scanning 6-monthly for up to 2 years. EarlyCDT-Lung test-negative and control arm participants received standard clinical care. Outcomes were assessed at 2 years post-randomisation using validated data on cancer occurrence, cancer staging, mortality and comorbidities.At 2 years, 127 lung cancers were detected in the study population (1.0%). In the intervention arm, 33 out of 56 (58.9%) lung cancers were diagnosed at stage III/IV compared with 52 out of 71 (73.2%) in the control arm. The hazard ratio for stage III/IV presentation was 0.64 (95% CI 0.41-0.99). There were nonsignificant differences in lung cancer and all-cause mortality after 2 years.ECLS compared EarlyCDT-Lung plus CT screening to standard clinical care (symptomatic presentation) and was not designed to assess the incremental contribution of the EarlyCDT-Lung test. The observation of a stage shift towards earlier-stage lung cancer diagnosis merits further investigations to evaluate whether the EarlyCDT-Lung test adds anything to the emerging standard of low-dose CT.

The challenges of implementing low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries

Lung cancer accounts for an alarming human and economic burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Recent landmark trials from high-income countries (HICs) by demonstrating that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening effectively reduces lung cancer mortality have engendered enthusiasm for this approach. Here we examine the effectiveness and affordability of LDCT screening from the viewpoint of LMICs. We consider resource-restricted perspectives and discuss implementation challenges and strategies to enhance the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening in LMICs.

Artificial Intelligence Tools for Refining Lung Cancer Screening

Nearly one-quarter of all cancer deaths worldwide are due to lung cancer, making this disease the leading cause of cancer death among both men and women. The most important determinant of survival in lung cancer is the disease stage at diagnosis, thus developing an effective screening method for early diagnosis has been a long-term goal in lung cancer care. In the last decade, and based on the results of large clinical trials, lung cancer screening programs using low-dose computer tomography (LDCT) in high-risk individuals have been implemented in some clinical settings, however, this method has various limitations, especially a high false-positive rate which eventually results in a number of unnecessary diagnostic and therapeutic interventions among the screened subjects. By using complex algorithms and software, artificial intelligence (AI) is capable to emulate human cognition in the analysis, interpretation, and comprehension of complicated data and currently, it is being successfully applied in various healthcare settings. Taking advantage of the ability of AI to quantify information from images, and its superior capability in recognizing complex patterns in images compared to humans, AI has the potential to aid clinicians in the interpretation of LDCT images obtained in the setting of lung cancer screening. In the last decade, several AI models aimed to improve lung cancer detection have been reported. Some algorithms performed equal or even outperformed experienced radiologists in distinguishing benign from malign lung nodules and some of those models improved diagnostic accuracy and decreased the false-positive rate. Here, we discuss recent publications in which AI algorithms are utilized to assess chest computer tomography (CT) scans imaging obtaining in the setting of lung cancer screening.

Lung Cancer Screening by Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Part 2 - Key Elements for Programmatic Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening

PURPOSE

 For screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) to be effective, the benefits must outweigh the potential risks. In large lung cancer screening studies, a mortality reduction of approx. 20 % has been reported, which requires several organizational elements to be achieved in practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 The elements to be set up are an effective invitation strategy, uniform and quality-assured assessment criteria, and computer-assisted evaluation tools resulting in a nodule management algorithm to assign each nodule the needed workup intensity. For patients with confirmed lung cancer, immediate counseling and guideline-compliant treatment in tightly integrated regional expert centers with expert skills are required. First, pulmonology contacts as well as CT facilities should be available in the participant's neighborhood. IT infrastructure, linkage to clinical cancer registries, quality management as well as epidemiologic surveillance are also required.

RESULTS

 An effective organization of screening will result in an articulated structure of both widely distributed pulmonology offices as the participants' primary contacts and CT facilities as well as central expert facilities for supervision of screening activities, individual clarification of suspicious findings, and treatment of proven cancer.

CONCLUSION

 In order to ensure that the benefits of screening more than outweigh the potential harms and that it will be accepted by the public, a tightly organized structure is needed to ensure wide availability of pulmonologists as first contacts and CT facilities with expert skills and high-level equipment concentrated in central facilities.

KEY POINTS

  · For lung cancer screening, elements must function optimally and be tightly organized.. · Lung cancer screening requires a network of expert centers and collaborating facilities.. · IT infrastructure, QM, epidemiological surveillance, and linkage to cancer registries are essential..

CITATION FORMAT

· Delorme S, Kaaks R: Lung Cancer Screening by Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Part 2 - Key Elements for Programmatic Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 644 - 651.

Lung Cancer Screening by Low-Dose Computed Tomography - Part 1: Expected Benefits, Possible Harms, and Criteria for Eligibility and Population Targeting

BACKGROUND

 Trials in the USA and Europe have convincingly demonstrated the efficacy of screening by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) as a means to lower lung cancer mortality, but also document potential harms related to radiation, psychosocial stress, and invasive examinations triggered by false-positive screening tests and overdiagnosis. To ensure that benefits (lung cancer deaths averted; life years gained) outweigh the risk of harm, lung cancer screening should be targeted exclusively to individuals who have an elevated risk of lung cancer, plus sufficient residual life expectancy.

METHODS AND CONCLUSIONS

 Overall, randomized screening trials show an approximate 20 % reduction in lung cancer mortality by LDCT screening. In view of declining residual life expectancy, especially among continuing long-term smokers, risk of being over-diagnosed is likely to increase rapidly above the age of 75. In contrast, before age 50, the incidence of LC may be generally too low for screening to provide a positive balance of benefits to harms and financial costs. Concise criteria as used in the NLST or NELSON trials may provide a basic guideline for screening eligibility. An alternative would be the use of risk prediction models based on smoking history, sex, and age as a continuous risk factor. Compared to concise criteria, such models have been found to identify a 10 % to 20 % larger number of LC patients for an equivalent number of individuals to be screened, and additionally may help provide security that screening participants will all have a high-enough LC risk to balance out harm potentially caused by radiation or false-positive screening tests.

KEY POINTS

  · LDCT screening can significantly reduce lung cancer mortality. · Screening until the age of 80 was shown to be efficient in terms of cancer deaths averted; in terms of LYG relative to overdiagnosis, stopping at a younger age (e. g. 75) may have greater efficiency. · Risk models may improve the overall net benefit of lung cancer screening.

CITATION FORMAT

· Kaaks R, Delorme S. Lung Cancer Screening by Low-Dose Computed Tomography - Part 1: Expected Benefits, Possible Harms, and Criteria for Eligibility and Population Targeting. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 527 - 536.

The mechanism of m6A methyltransferase METTL3-mediated autophagy in reversing gefitinib resistance in NSCLC cells by β-elemene

N⁶-methyladenosine (m⁶A) modification can alter gene expression by regulating RNA splicing, stability, translocation, and translation. Emerging evidence shows that m⁶A modification plays an important role in cancer development and progression, including cell proliferation, migration and invasion, cell apoptosis, autophagy, and drug resistance. Until now, the role of m⁶A modification mediated autophagy in cancer drug resistance is still unclear. In this study, we found that m⁶A methyltransferase METTL3-mediated autophagy played an important role in reversing gefitinib resistance by β-elemene in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cells. Mechanistically, in vitro and in vivo studies indicated that β-elemene could reverse gefitinib resistance in NSCLC cells by inhibiting cell autophagy process in a manner of chloroquine. β-elemene inhibited the autophagy flux by preventing autophagic lysosome acidification, resulting in increasing expression of SQSTM1 and LC3B-II. Moreover, both β-elemene and gefitinib decreased the level of m⁶A methylation of gefitinib resistance cells. METTL3 was higher expressed in lung adenocarcinoma tissues than that of paired normal tissues, and was involved in the gefitinib resistance of NSCLC cells. Furthermore, METTL3 positively regulated autophagy by increasing the critical genes of autophagy pathway such as ATG5 and ATG7. In conclusion, our study unveiled the mechanism of METTL3-mediated autophagy in reversing gefitinib resistance of NSCLC cells by β-elemene, which shed light on providing potential molecular-therapy target and clinical-treatment method in NSCLC patients with gefitinib resistance.

Evaluation of a Low-Dose Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening Program in Henan, China

IMPORTANCE

Lung cancer screening has been widely implemented in Europe and the US. However, there is little evidence on participation and diagnostic yields in population-based lung cancer screening in China.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the participation rate and detection rate of lung cancer in a population-based screening program and the factors associated with participation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study used data from the Cancer Screening Program in Urban China from October 2013 to October 2019, with follow-up until March 10, 2020. The program is conducted at centers in 8 cities in Henan Province, China. Eligible participants were aged 40 to 74 and were evaluated for a high risk for lung cancer using an established risk score system.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Overall and group-specific participation rates by common factors, such as age, sex, and educational level, were calculated. Differences in participation rates between those groups were compared. The diagnostic yield of both screening and nonscreening groups was calculated.

RESULTS

The study recruited 282 377 eligible participants and included 55 428 with high risk for lung cancer; the mean (SD) age was 55.3 (8.1) years, and 34 966 participants (63.1%) were men. A total of 22 260 participants underwent LDCT (participation rate, 40.16%; 95% CI, 39.82%-40.50%). The multivariable logistic regression model showed that female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.52-1.78), former smoking (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13-1.41), lack of physical activity (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.24), family history of lung cancer (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.66-1.79), and 7 other factors were associated with increased participation of LDCT screening. Overall, at 6-year follow-up, 78 participants in the screening group (0.35%; 95% CI, 0.29%-0.42%) and 125 in the nonscreening group (0.38%; 95% CI, 0.33%-0.44%) had lung cancer detected, which resulted in an odds ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.70-1.23; P = .61).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The low participations rate in the program studied suggests that an improved strategy is needed. These findings may provide useful information for designing effective population-based lung cancer screening strategies in the future.

Gender-specific aspects of epidemiology, molecular genetics and outcome: lung cancer

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide in women and men. In incidence, lung cancer ranks second, surpassed by breast cancer in women and prostate cancer in men. However, the historical differences in mortality and incidence rate between both sexes have changed in the last years. In the last decades, we have also witnessed an increased number of lung cancer in female never-smokers. These disparities have grown our interest in studying the impact of the gender and sex in the presentation of lung cancer. The aetiology is yet to be fully elucidated, but the data are clear so far: there is a growing divide between lung cancer presentation in women and men that will change our management and study of lung cancer. This article aims to review the sex and gender differences in lung cancer.

Cancer-Specific Mortality, All-Cause Mortality, and Overdiagnosis in Lung Cancer Screening Trials: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Benefit of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in reducing lung cancer-specific and all-cause mortality is unclear. We undertook a meta-analysis to assess its associations with outcomes.

METHODS

We searched the literature and previous systematic reviews to identify randomized controlled trials comparing LDCT screening with usual care or chest radiography. We performed meta-analysis using a random effects model. The primary outcomes were lung cancer-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and the cumulative incidence ratio of lung cancer between screened and unscreened groups as a measure of overdiagnosis.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis was based on 8 trials with 90,475 patients that had a low risk of bias. There was a significant reduction in lung cancer-specific mortality with LDCT screening (relative risk = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.89); the estimated absolute risk reduction was 0.4% (number needed to screen = 250). The reduction in all-cause mortality was not statistically significant (relative risk = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-1.01), but the absolute reduction was consistent with that for lung cancer-specific mortality (0.34%; number needed to screen = 294). In the studies with the longest duration of follow-up, the incidence of lung cancer was 25% higher in the screened group, corresponding to a 20% rate of overdiagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showing a significant reduction in lung cancer-specific mortality, albeit with a tradeoff of likely overdiagnosis, supports recommendations to screen individuals at elevated risk for lung cancer with LDCT.

9G TestTM Cancer/Lung: A Desirable Companion to LDCT for Lung Cancer Screening

Simple Summary

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Patients diagnosed at early-stage (0–I) have a higher survival rate than the metastasized stages (III–IV). Thus, there is great potential to reduce mortality by diagnosing lung cancer at stage 0~I through community screening. LDCT is a promising method, but it has a high false-positive rate. Therefore, a biomarker test that can be used in combination with LDCT for lung cancer screening to reduce false-positive rates is highly awaited. The present study evaluated the applicability of 9G test^TM Cancer/Lung test to detect stage 0~IV lung cancer. 9G test^TM Cancer/Lung test detects stage I, stage II, stage III, and stage IV cancers with the sensitivities of 77.5%, 78.1%, 67.4%, and 33.3%, respectively, at the specificity of 97.3%. These results indicate that the 9G test^TM Cancer/Lung can be used in conjunction with LDCT to screen lung cancer.

Abstract

A complimentary biomarker test that can be used in combination with LDCT for lung cancer screening is highly desirable to improve the diagnostic capacity of LDCT and reduce the false-positive rates. Most importantly, the stage I lung cancer detection rate can be dramatically increased by the simultaneous use of a biomarker test with LDCT. The present study was conducted to evaluate 9G test^TM Cancer/Lung’s sensitivity and specificity in detecting Stage 0~IV lung cancer. The obtained results indicate that the 9G test^TM Cancer/Lung can detect lung cancer with overall sensitivity and specificity of 75.0% (69.1~80.3) and 97.3% (95.0~98.8), respectively. The detection of stage I, stage II, stage III, and stage IV cancers with sensitivities of 77.5%, 78.1%, 67.4%, and 33.3%, respectively, at the specificity of 97.3% have never been reported before. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis allowed us to determine the population-weighted AUC of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91–0.95). These results indicate that the 9G test^TM Cancer/Lung can be used in conjunction with LDCT to screen lung cancer. Furthermore, obtained results indicate that the use of 9G test^TM Cancer/Lung with LDCT for lung cancer screening can increase stage I cancer detection, which is crucial to improve the currently low 5-year survival rates.

[Progress of Lung Cancer Screening with Low Dose Helical Computed Tomography]

Lung cancer which represents characteristics of a heavy disease burden, a large proportion of advanced lung cancer and a low five-year survival rate is a threat to human health. It is essential to implement population-based lung cancer screening to improve early detection and early treatment. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that screening with low dose helical computed tomography (LDCT) may decrease lung cancer mortality, which brings hope for the early diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. In recent years, great progresses have been made on research of lung cancer screening with LDCT. However, whether LDCT could be applied to large population-based lung cancer screening projects is still under debate. In this paper, we review the recent progresses on history of lung cancer screening with LDCT, selection of high-risk individuals, management of pulmonary nodules, performance of screening, acceptance of LDCT and cost-effectiveness.
.

Commonly Applied Selection Criteria for Lung Cancer Screening May Have Strongly Varying Diagnostic Performance in Different Countries

Simple Summary

Smoking causes the majority of lung cancers. Smoking history is thus used to select individuals among whom screening for lung cancer could be the most beneficial. The aim of our study was to estimate sensitivity and specificity of pre-selection by heavy smoking in individual European countries. Due to differences in smoking histories across the countries and sexes within the countries, the sensitivities were found to be between 33 and 80% for men and between 9 and 79% for women. Corresponding specificities of heavy smoking varied between 48 and 90% (men) and 70 and 99% (women). Our results may inform the design of lung cancer screening programs in European countries and serve as benchmarks for novel alternative or complementary tests for selecting people at high risk for computed tomography-based lung cancer screening.

Abstract

Lung cancer (LC) screening often focuses heavy smokers as a target for screening group. Heavy smoking can thus be regarded as an LC pre-screening test with sensitivities and specificities being different in various populations due to the differences in smoking histories. We derive here expected sensitivities and specificities of various criteria to preselect individuals for LC screening in 27 European countries with diverse smoking prevalences. Sensitivities of various heavy-smoking-based pre-screening criteria were estimated by combining sex-specific proportions of people meeting these criteria in the target population for screening with associations of heavy smoking with LC risk. Expected specificities were approximated by the proportion of individuals not meeting the heavy smoking definition. Estimated sensitivities and specificities varied widely across countries, with sensitivities being generally higher among men (range: 33–80%) than among women (range: 9–79%), and specificities being generally lower among men (range: 48–90%) than among women (range: 70–99%). Major variation in sensitivities and specificities was also seen across different pre-selection criteria for LC screening within individual countries. Our results may inform the design of LC screening programs in European countries and serve as benchmarks for novel alternative or complementary tests for selecting people at high risk for CT-based LC screening.

Lung cancer LDCT screening and mortality reduction - evidence, pitfalls and future perspectives

In the past decade, the introduction of molecularly targeted agents and immune-checkpoint inhibitors has led to improved survival outcomes for patients with advanced-stage lung cancer; however, this disease remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Two large randomized controlled trials of low-dose CT (LDCT)-based lung cancer screening in high-risk populations - the US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and NELSON - have provided evidence of a statistically significant mortality reduction in patients. LDCT-based screening programmes for individuals at a high risk of lung cancer have already been implemented in the USA. Furthermore, implementation programmes are currently underway in the UK following the success of the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial, which included the Liverpool Health Lung Project, Manchester Lung Health Check, the Lung Screen Uptake Trial, the West London Lung Cancer Screening pilot and the Yorkshire Lung Screening trial. In this Review, we focus on the current evidence on LDCT-based lung cancer screening and discuss the clinical developments in high-risk populations worldwide; additionally, we address aspects such as cost-effectiveness. We present a framework to define the scope of future implementation research on lung cancer screening programmes referred to as Screening Planning and Implementation RAtionale for Lung cancer (SPIRAL).

Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT: a Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening on lung cancer (LC) outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

Meta-analyze LDCT lung cancer screening trials.

METHODS

We identified studies by searching PubMed, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov , and reference lists from retrieved publications. We abstracted data on study design features, stage I LC diagnoses, LC and overall mortality, false positive results, harm from invasive diagnostic procedures, overdiagnosis, and significant incidental findings. We assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We used random-effects models to calculate relative risks and assessed effect modulators with subgroup analyses and meta-regression.

RESULTS

We identified 9 studies that enrolled 96,559 subjects. The risk of bias across studies was judged to be low. Overall, LDCT screening significantly increased the detection of stage I LC, RR = 2.93 (95% CI, 2.16-3.98), I² = 19%, and reduced LC mortality, RR = 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75-0.93), I² = 0%. The number needed to screen to prevent an LC death was 265. Women had a lower risk of LC death (RR = 0.69, 95% CI, 0.40-1.21) than men (RR = 0.86, 95% CI, 0.66-1.13), p value for interaction = 0.11. LDCT screening did not reduce overall mortality, RR = 0.96 (95% CI, 0.91-1.01), I² = 0%. The pooled false positive rate was 8% (95% CI, 4-18); subjects with false positive results had < 1 in 1000 risk of major complications following invasive diagnostic procedures. The most valid estimates for overdiagnosis and significant incidental findings were 8.9% and 7.5%, respectively.

DISCUSSION

LDCT screening significantly reduced LC mortality, though not overall mortality, with women appearing to benefit more than men. The estimated risks for false positive results, screening complications, overdiagnosis, and incidental findings were low. Long-term survival data were available only for North American and European studies limiting generalizability.

Lung cancer screening by nodule volume in Lung-RADS v1.1: negative baseline CT yields potential for increased screening interval

Objectives

The 2019 Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System version 1.1 (Lung-RADS v1.1) introduced volumetric categories for nodule management. The aims of this study were to report the distribution of Lung-RADS v1.1 volumetric categories and to analyse lung cancer (LC) outcomes within 3 years for exploring personalized algorithm for lung cancer screening (LCS).

Methods

Subjects from the Multicentric Italian Lung Detection (MILD) trial were retrospectively selected by National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) criteria. Baseline characteristics included selected pre-test metrics and nodule characterization according to the volume-based categories of Lung-RADS v1.1. Nodule volume was obtained by segmentation with dedicated semi-automatic software. Primary outcome was diagnosis of LC, tested by univariate and multivariable models. Secondary outcome was stage of LC. Increased interval algorithms were simulated for testing rate of delayed diagnosis (RDD) and reduction of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) burden.

Results

In 1248 NLST-eligible subjects, LC frequency was 1.2% at 1 year, 1.8% at 2 years and 2.6% at 3 years. Nodule volume in Lung-RADS v1.1 was a strong predictor of LC: positive LDCT showed an odds ratio (OR) of 75.60 at 1 year (p < 0.0001), and indeterminate LDCT showed an OR of 9.16 at 2 years (p = 0.0068) and an OR of 6.35 at 3 years (p = 0.0042). In the first 2 years after negative LDCT, 100% of resected LC was stage I. The simulations of low-frequency screening showed a RDD of 13.6–21.9% and a potential reduction of LDCT burden of 25.5–41%.

Conclusions

Nodule volume by semi-automatic software allowed stratification of LC risk across Lung-RADS v1.1 categories. Personalized screening algorithm by increased interval seems feasible in 80% of NLST eligible.

Key Points

• Using semi-automatic segmentation of nodule volume, Lung-RADS v1.1 selected 10.8% of subjects with positive CT and 96.87 relative risk of lung cancer at 1 year, compared to negative CT.

• Negative low-dose CT by Lung-RADS v1.1 was found in 80.6% of NLST eligible and yielded 40 times lower relative risk of lung cancer at 2 years, compared to positive low-dose CT; annual screening could be preference sensitive in this group.

• Semi-automatic segmentation of nodule volume and increased screening interval by volumetric Lung-RADS v1.1 could retrospectively suggest a 25.5–41% reduction of LDCT burden, at the cost of 13.6–21.9% rate of delayed diagnosis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-020-07275-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Barriers to Low-Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening among Middle-Aged Chinese

PURPOSE

The current study aims to explore the barriers for middle-aged Chinese to learn about and uptake low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening.

METHODS

Data were collected via an online survey in December 2019. Final valid sample included 640 respondents, aged 40-60 years old, from 21 provinces of China. We performed multiple linear regressions to test the potential barriers to LDCT scan.

FINDINGS

Cost concerns, distrust in doctors, fears of disease, lack of knowledge, and optimistic bias are negatively associated with the intention to learn about and uptake LDCT scan.

IMPLICATIONS

Our study contributes to understanding the negative predictors of middle-aged Chinese to get LDCT lung cancer scans. Future campaign programs should help audiences to build comprehensive understandings about lung cancer and LDCT scan. To better promote LDCT scan in China, the government should fund more trial programs continuously and public efforts should be made to rebuild the patient-doctor trust.

Overdiagnosis in lung cancer screening: Estimates from the German Lung Cancer Screening Intervention Trial

Overdiagnosis is a major potential harm of lung cancer screening; knowing its potential magnitude helps to optimize screening eligibility criteria. The German Lung Screening Intervention Trial ("LUSI") is a randomized trial among 4052 long-term smokers (2622 men), 50.3 to 71.9 years of age from the general population around Heidelberg, Germany, comparing five annual rounds of low-dose computed tomography (n = 2029) with a control arm without intervention (n = 2023). After a median follow-up of 9.77 years postrandomization and 5.73 years since last screening, 74 participants were diagnosed with lung cancer in the control arm and 90 in the screening arm: 69 during the active screening period; of which 63 screen-detected and 6 interval cancers. The excess cumulative incidence in the screening arm (N = 16) represented 25.4% (95% confidence interval: -11.3, 64.3] of screen-detected cancer cases (N = 63). Analyzed by histologic subtype, excess incidence in the screening arm appeared largely driven by adenocarcinomas. Statistical modeling yielded an estimated mean preclinical sojourn time (MPST) of 5.38 (4.76, 5.88) years and a screen-test sensitivity of 81.6 (74.4%, 88.8%) for lung cancer overall, all histologic subtypes combined. Based on modeling, we further estimated that about 48% (47.5% [43.2%, 50.7%]) of screen-detected tumors have a lead time ≥4 years, whereas about 33% (32.8% [28.4%, 36.1%]) have a lead time ≥6 years, 23% (22.6% [18.6%, 25.7%]) ≥8 years, 16% (15.6% [12.2%, 18.3%]) ≥10 years and 11% (10.7% [8.0%, 13.0%]) ≥12 years. The high proportions of tumors with relatively long lead times suggest a major risk of overdiagnosis for individuals with comparatively short remaining life expectancies.

Radiomics Improves Cancer Screening and Early Detection

Imaging is a key technology in the early detection of cancers, including X-ray mammography, low-dose CT for lung cancer, or optical imaging for skin, esophageal, or colorectal cancers. Historically, imaging information in early detection schema was assessed qualitatively. However, the last decade has seen increased development of computerized tools that convert images into quantitative mineable data (radiomics), and their subsequent analyses with artificial intelligence (AI). These tools are improving diagnostic accuracy of early lesions to define risk and classify malignant/aggressive from benign/indolent disease. The first section of this review will briefly describe the various imaging modalities and their use as primary or secondary screens in an early detection pipeline. The second section will describe specific use cases to illustrate the breadth of imaging modalities as well as the benefits of quantitative image analytics. These will include optical (skin cancer), X-ray CT (pancreatic and lung cancer), X-ray mammography (breast cancer), multiparametric MRI (breast and prostate cancer), PET (pancreatic cancer), and ultrasound elastography (liver cancer). Finally, we will discuss the inexorable improvements in radiomics to build more robust classifier models and the significant limitations to this development, including access to well-annotated databases, and biological descriptors of the imaged feature data.See all articles in this CEBP Focus section, "NCI Early Detection Research Network: Making Cancer Detection Possible."

Milestones towards lung cancer screening implementation

The European Society of Radiology (ESR) and European Respiratory Society (ERS) published their joint statement paper on lung cancer screening (LCS), on 12 February 2020. This document joins and completes previous recommendations on LCS with specific emphasis on the analysis of issues encountered in the practical implementation of LCS in the community. Major milestones to enable the most efficient and equal dissemination of LCS are recognised as engagement of all stakeholders (e.g. candidate/participant, general practitioners, up to the specialised LCS facility), quality assurance, and primary prevention in the form of provision of counselling for smoking cessation.

Author response to "lack of benefit from low dose computed tomography in screening for lung cancer"

We explain to Dr. Benjamin (corresponding author) about why low-dose computed tomography reduce lung cancer mortality without significantly reducing all-cause mortality. We also conduct an up-to-date meta-analysis to evaluate low-dose computed tomography clinical effectiveness compared with usual care of lung cancer screening.

[Research Progress on Lung Cancer Screening]

肺癌是世界上最常见的恶性肿瘤，其5年生存率仅为19.7%，严重威胁人类健康。肺癌筛查是降低肺癌死亡率的有效措施，已有的研究证明用低剂量螺旋计算机断层扫描（low-dose computed tomography, LDCT）进行筛查可降低20%的肺癌死亡，目前国际和国内均建议进行肺癌筛查。研究肺癌筛查的发展现状有助于我们明确肺癌的高危人群，探索合理的筛查方案，提高筛查的成本效益，减轻经济负担。因此本文就肺癌筛查现状、肺癌筛查的成本效益以及存在的问题综述如下。

ERS International Congress, Madrid, 2019: highlights from the Thoracic Oncology Assembly

Lung cancer is a devastating disease affecting hundreds of thousands of patients in Europe. Despite recent advances in treatment, its prognosis remains poor. This is mainly attributed to the late stages that diagnoses are usually established at, consequently excluding curative treatment options. During the 2019 European Respiratory Society International Congress in Madrid, Spain, lung cancer experts presented the most recent aspects of lung cancer early detection with low-dose computed tomography.

Key thoracic oncology highlights from #ERSCongress Madrid 2019https://bit.ly/3dQZtv7

The rates of second lung cancers and the survival of surgically-resected second primary lung cancers in patients undergoing resection of an initial primary lung cancer

BACKGROUND

The Lung Cancer Screening Trial demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) and lung cancer specific survival (LCSS), likely due to finding early-stage NSCLC. The purpose of our investigation is to evaluate whether long-term surveillance strategies (4+ years after surgical resection of the initial lung cancer(1LC)) would be beneficial in NSCLC patients by assessing the rates of second lung cancers(2LC) and the OS/LCSS in patients undergoing definitive surgery in 1LC as compared to 2LC (>48 months after 1LC) populations.

METHODS

SEER13/18 database was reviewed for patients during 1998-2013. Log-rank tests were used to determine the OS/LCSS differences between the 1LC and 2LC in the entire surgical group(EG) and in those having an early-stage resectable tumors (ESR, tumors <4 cm, node negative). Joinpoint analysis was used to determine rates of second cancers 4-10 year after 1LC using SEER-9 during years 1985-2014.

RESULTS

The rate of 2LCs was significantly less than all other second cancers until 2001 when the incidence of 2LCs increased sharply and became significantly greater than all other second cancers in females starting in year 2005 and in men starting in year 2010. OS/LCSS, adjusted for propensity score by using inverse probability weighting, demonstrated similar OS, but worse LCSS for 2LCs in the EG, but similar OS/LCSSs in the ESR group.

CONCLUSION

Because the rate of 2LCs are increasing and because the OS/LCSS of the 1LC and 2LC are similar in early-stage lesions, we feel that continued surveillance of patients in order to find early-stage disease may be beneficial.

Risk prediction models versus simplified selection criteria to determine eligibility for lung cancer screening: an analysis of German federal-wide survey and incidence data

As randomized trials in the USA and Europe have convincingly demonstrated efficacy of lung cancer screening by computed tomography (CT), European countries are discussing the introduction of screening programs. To maintain acceptable cost-benefit and clinical benefit-to-harm ratios, screening should be offered to individuals at sufficiently elevated risk of having lung cancer. Using federal-wide survey and lung cancer incidence data (2008–2013), we examined the performance of four well-established risk models from the USA (PLCO_M2012, LCRAT, Bach) and the UK (LLP₂₀₀₈) in the German population, comparing with standard eligibility criteria based on age limits, minimal pack years of smoking (or combination of total duration with average intensity) and maximum years since smoking cessation. The eligibility criterion recommended by the United States Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF) would select about 3.2 million individuals, a group equal in size to the upper fifth of ever smokers age 50–79 at highest risk, and to 11% of all adults aged 50–79. According to PLCO_M2012, the model showing best concordance between numbers of lung cancer cases predicted and reported in registries, persons with 5-year risk ≥ 1.7% included about half of all lung cancer incidence in the full German population. Compared to eligibility criteria (e.g. USPSTF), risk models elected individuals in higher age groups, including ex-smokers with longer average quitting times. Further studies should address how in Germany these shifts may affect expected benefits of CT screening in terms of life-years gained versus the potential harm of age-specific increasing risk of over-diagnosis.

Noninvasive biomarkers for lung cancer diagnosis, where do we stand?

The 2010's saw demonstration of the power of lung cancer screening to reduce mortality. However, with implementation of lung cancer screening comes the challenge of diagnosing millions of lung nodules every year. When compared to other cancers with widespread screening strategies (breast, colorectal, cervical, prostate, and skin), obtaining a lung nodule tissue biopsy to confirm a positive screening test remains associated with higher morbidity and cost. Therefore, non-invasive diagnostic biomarkers may have a unique opportunity in lung cancer to greatly improve the management of patients at risk. This review covers recent advances in the field of liquid biomarkers and computed tomographic imaging features, with special attention to new methods for combination of biomarkers as well as the use of artificial intelligence for the discrimination of benign from malignant nodules.

Prognostic selection and long-term survival analysis to assess overdiagnosis risk in lung cancer screening randomized trials

OBJECTIVES

Overdiagnosis in low-dose computed tomography randomized screening trials varies from 0 to 67%. The National Lung Screening Trial (extended follow-up) and ITALUNG (Italian Lung Cancer Screening Trial) have reported cumulative incidence estimates at long-term follow-up showing low or no overdiagnosis. The Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial attributed the high overdiagnosis estimate to a likely selection for risk of the active arm. Here, we applied a method already used in benefit and overdiagnosis assessments to compute the long-term survival rates in the ITALUNG arms in order to confirm incidence-excess method assessment.

METHODS

Subjects in the active arm were invited for four screening rounds, while controls were in usual care. Follow-up was extended to 11.3 years. Kaplan-Meyer 5- and 10-year survivals of "resected and early" (stage I or II and resected) and "unresected or late" (stage III or IV or not resected or unclassified) lung cancer cases were compared between arms.

RESULTS

The updated ITALUNG control arm cumulative incidence rate was lower than in the active arm, but this was not statistically significant (RR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.67-1.18). A compensatory drop of late cases was observed after baseline screening. The proportion of "resected and early" cases was 38% and 19%, in the active and control arms, respectively. The 10-year survival rates were 64% and 60% in the active and control arms, respectively (p = 0.689). The five-year survival rates for "unresected or late" cases were 10% and 7% in the active and control arms, respectively (p = 0.679).

CONCLUSIONS

This long-term survival analysis, by prognostic categories, concluded against the long-term risk of overdiagnosis and contributed to revealing how screening works.

Development and outcomes of a comprehensive multidisciplinary incidental lung nodule and lung cancer screening program

BACKGROUND

Appropriate management of lung nodules detected incidentally or through lung cancer screening can increase the rate of early-stage diagnoses and potentially improve treatment outcomes. However, the implementation and management of comprehensive lung nodule programs is challenging.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective report describes the development and outcomes of a comprehensive lung nodule program at a community practice in Tennessee. Computed tomography (CT) scans potentially revealing incidental lung nodules were identified by a computerized search. Incidental or screening-identified lung nodules that were enlarging or not seen in prior scans were entered into a nodule database and guideline-based review determined whether to conduct a diagnostic intervention or radiologic follow-up. Referral rates, diagnosis methods, stage distribution, treatment modalities, and days to treatment are reported.

RESULTS

The number of patients with lung nodules referred to the program increased over 2 years, from 665 patients in Year 1 to 745 patients in Year 2. Most nodules were incidental (62-65%). Nodules identified with symptoms (15.2% in Year 1) or through screening (12.6% in Year 1) were less common. In Year 1, 27% (182/665) of nodules required a diagnostic intervention and 18% (121/665) were malignant. Most diagnostic interventions were image-guided bronchoscopy (88%) or percutaneous biopsy (9%). The proportion of Stage I-II cancer diagnoses increased from 23% prior to program implementation to 36% in Year 1 and 38% in Year 2. In screening cases, 71% of patients completed follow-up scans within 18 months. Only 2% of Year 1 patients under watchful waiting required a diagnostic intervention, of which 1% received a cancer diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study reports outcomes over the first 2 years of a lung cancer screening and incidental nodule program. The results show that the program was successful, given the appropriate level of data management and oversight. Comprehensive lung nodule programs have the potential to benefit the patient, physician, and hospital system.

Overdiagnosis of lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography screening: meta-analysis of the randomised clinical trials

In low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer, all three main conditions for overdiagnosis in cancer screening are present: 1) a reservoir of slowly or nongrowing lung cancer exists; 2) LDCT is a high-resolution imaging technology with the potential to identify this reservoir; and 3) eligible screening participants have a high risk of dying from causes other than lung cancer. The degree of overdiagnosis in cancer screening is most validly estimated in high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with enough follow-up time after the end of screening to avoid lead-time bias and without contamination of the control group. Nine RCTs investigating LDCT screening were identified. Two RCTs were excluded because lung cancer incidence after the end of screening was not published. Two other RCTs using active comparators were also excluded. Therefore, five RCTs were included: two trials were at low risk of bias, two of some concern and one at high risk of bias. In a meta-analysis of the two low risk of bias RCTs including 8156 healthy current or former smokers, 49% of the screen-detected cancers were overdiagnosed. There is uncertainty about this substantial degree of overdiagnosis due to unexplained heterogeneity and low precision of the summed estimate across the two trials.

Key points

Nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on low-dose computed tomography screening were identified; five were included for meta-analysis but only two of those were at low risk of bias.In a meta-analysis of recent low risk of bias RCTs including 8156 healthy current or former smokers from developed countries, we found that 49% of the screen-detected cancers may be overdiagnosed.There is uncertainty about the degree of overdiagnosis in lung cancer screening due to unexplained heterogeneity and low precision of the point estimate.If only high-quality RCTs are included in the meta-analysis, the degree of overdiagnosis is substantial.

Educational aims

To appreciate that low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer meets all three main conditions for overdiagnosis in cancer screening: a reservoir of indolent cancers exists in the population; the screening test is able to "tap" this reservoir by detecting biologically indolent cancers as well as biologically important cancers; and the population being screened is characterised by a relatively high competing risk of death from other causesTo learn about biases that might affect the estimates of overdiagnosis in randomised controlled trials in cancer screening.

Lung cancer incidence and mortality with extended follow-up in the National LungScreening Trial

The extended follow-up of the NLST represents a timely and important update to the NLST data, alongside full results of the NELSON and the LUSI trials, as Europe begins to set out a vision for lung cancer screening. http://bit.ly/2MYXedI.

Effects of low-dose computed tomography on lung cancer screening: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

The Nelson mortality results were presented in September 2018. Four other randomized control trials (RCTs) were also reported the latest mortality outcomes in 2018 and 2019. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis to update the evidence and investigate the benefits and harms of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in lung cancer screening.

METHODS

Detailed electronic database searches were performed to identify reports of RCTs that comparing LDCT to any other type of lung cancer screening. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using random effects models.

RESULTS

We identified nine RCTs (n = 97,244 participants). In pooled analyses LDCT reduced lung cancer mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.76-0.90, I2 = 1%) but had no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90-1.00). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) confirmed the results of our meta-analysis. Subgroup defined by high quality trials benefitted from LDCT screening in reducing lung cancer mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73-0.91, I2 = 7%), whereas no benefit observed in other low quality RCTs. LDCT was associated with detection of a significantly higher number of early stage lung cancers than the control. No significant difference (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.30-1.33) was found in mortality after invasive procedures between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In meta-analysis based on sufficient evidence demonstrated by TSA suggests that LDCT screening is superiority over usual care in lung cancer survival. The benefit of LDCT is expected to be heavily influenced by the risk of lung cancer in the different target group (smoking status, Asian) being screened.