A randomized study of lung cancer screening with spiral computed tomography: three-year results from the DANTE trial

Prospects for population screening and diagnosis of lung cancer

Deaths from lung cancer exceed those from any other type of malignancy, with 1·5 million deaths in 2010. Prevention and smoking cessation are still the main methods to reduce the death toll. The US National Lung Screening Trial, which compared CT screening with chest radiograph, yielded a mortality advantage of 20% to participants in the CT group. International debate is ongoing about whether sufficient evidence exists to implement CT screening programmes. When questions about effectiveness and cost-effectiveness have been answered, which will await publication of the largest European trial, NELSON, and pooled analysis of European CT screening trials, we discuss the main topics that will need consideration. These unresolved issues are risk prediction models to identify patients for CT screening; radiological protocols that use volumetric analysis for indeterminate nodules; options for surgical resection of CT-identified nodules; screening interval; and duration of screening. We suggest that a demonstration project of biennial screening over a 4-year period should be undertaken.

Screening for lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is by far the major cause of cancer deaths largely because in the majority of patients it is at an advanced stage at the time it is discovered, when curative treatment is no longer feasible. This article examines the data regarding the ability of screening to decrease the number of lung cancer deaths.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of controlled studies that address the effectiveness of methods of screening for lung cancer.

RESULTS

Several large randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including a recent one, have demonstrated that screening for lung cancer using a chest radiograph does not reduce the number of deaths from lung cancer. One large RCT involving low-dose CT (LDCT) screening demonstrated a significant reduction in lung cancer deaths, with few harms to individuals at elevated risk when done in the context of a structured program of selection, screening, evaluation, and management of the relatively high number of benign abnormalities. Whether other RCTs involving LDCT screening are consistent is unclear because data are limited or not yet mature.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening is a complex interplay of selection (a population with sufficient risk and few serious comorbidities), the value of the screening test, the interval between screening tests, the availability of effective treatment, the risk of complications or harms as a result of screening, and the degree with which the screened individuals comply with screening and treatment recommendations. Screening with LDCT of appropriate individuals in the context of a structured process is associated with a significant reduction in the number of lung cancer deaths in the screened population. Given the complex interplay of factors inherent in screening, many questions remain on how to effectively implement screening on a broader scale.

Impact of endoscopic surveillance on mortality from Barrett's esophagus-associated esophageal adenocarcinomas

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Although patients with Barrett's esophagus commonly undergo endoscopic surveillance, its effectiveness in reducing mortality from esophageal/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas has not been evaluated rigorously.

METHODS

We performed a case-control study in a community-based setting. Among 8272 members with Barrett's esophagus, we identified 351 esophageal adenocarcinoma: 70 in persons who had a prior diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus (who were eligible for surveillance); 51 of these patients died, 38 as a result of the cancers (cases). Surveillance histories were contrasted with a sample of 101 living persons with Barrett's esophagus (controls), matched for age, sex, and duration of follow-up evaluation.

RESULTS

Surveillance within 3 years was not associated with a decreased risk of death from esophageal adenocarcinoma (adjusted odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-2.75). Fatal cases were nearly as likely to have received surveillance (55.3%) as were controls (60.4%). A Barrett's esophagus length longer than 3 cm and prior dysplasia each were associated with subsequent mortality, but adjustment for these did not change the main findings. Although all patients should be included in evaluations of effectiveness, excluding deaths related to cancer treatment and patients who failed to complete treatment, changed the magnitude, but not the significance, of the association (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-1.64).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic surveillance of patients with Barrett's esophagus was not associated with a substantially decreased risk of death from esophageal adenocarcinoma. The results do not exclude a small to moderate benefit. However, if such a benefit exists, our findings indicate that it is substantially smaller than currently estimated. The effectiveness of surveillance was influenced partially by the acceptability of existing treatments and the occurrence of treatment-associated mortality.

Lung cancer screening: past, present and future

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for men and women. Most lung cancer cases are diagnosed at an advanced stage, when cure is no longer an option; this heavily influences mortality. Historically, attempts at lung cancer screening using chest x-rays and sputum cytology have failed to influence lung cancer mortality. However, the recent National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer decreases mortality. This article outlines the history of lung cancer screening, the current state of screening and possible future adjuncts to screening.

Moving beyond the national lung screening trial: discussing strategies for implementation of lung cancer screening programs

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has sparked new interest in the adoption of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). If adopted at a national level, LDCT screening may prevent approximately 18,000 lung cancer deaths per year, potentially constituting a high-value public health intervention. Before incorporating LDCT screening into practice, health care institutions need to consider the risks associated with LDCT screening and the impact of LDCT screening on health care costs, as well as other remaining areas of uncertainty, including the unknown cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening. This article will review the benefits and risks of LDCT screening in light of the results of the NLST and other randomized trials, it will discuss the additional health care costs associated with LDCT screening from the perspective of health care payers, and it will examine the published cost-effectiveness analyses of LDCT screening. A subsequent discussion highlights guideline recommendations for implementation strategies, the goals of which are to ensure that those eligible for LDCT screening derive the benefits while minimizing the risks of screening and avoiding an unnecessary escalation in screening-related costs. The article concludes by endorsing the use of LDCT screening in institutions capable of responsible implementation of screening in both medical and economic terms. The key elements of responsible implementation include the development of standardized screening practices, careful selection of screening candidates, and the creation of prospective registries that will mitigate current areas of uncertainty regarding LDCT screening.

Screening for lung cancer

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original review published in The Cochrane Library in 1999 and updated in 2004 and 2010. Population-based screening for lung cancer has not been adopted in the majority of countries. However it is not clear whether sputum examinations, chest radiography or newer methods such as computed tomography (CT) are effective in reducing mortality from lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether screening for lung cancer, using regular sputum examinations, chest radiography or CT scanning of the chest, reduces lung cancer mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1966 to 2012), PREMEDLINE and EMBASE (to 2012) and bibliographies. We handsearched the journal Lung Cancer (to 2000) and contacted experts in the field to identify published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled trials of screening for lung cancer using sputum examinations, chest radiography or chest CT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed an intention-to-screen analysis. Where there was significant statistical heterogeneity, we reported risk ratios (RRs) using the random-effects model. For other outcomes we used the fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine trials in the review (eight randomised controlled studies and one controlled trial) with a total of 453,965 subjects. In one large study that included both smokers and non-smokers comparing annual chest x-ray screening with usual care there was no reduction in lung cancer mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.07). In a meta-analysis of studies comparing different frequencies of chest x-ray screening, frequent screening with chest x-rays was associated with an 11% relative increase in mortality from lung cancer compared with less frequent screening (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23); however several of the trials included in this meta-analysis had potential methodological weaknesses. We observed a non-statistically significant trend to reduced mortality from lung cancer when screening with chest x-ray and sputum cytology was compared with chest x-ray alone (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03). There was one large methodologically rigorous trial in high-risk smokers and ex-smokers (those aged 55 to 74 years with ≥ 30 pack-years of smoking and who quit ≤ 15 years prior to entry if ex-smokers) comparing annual low-dose CT screening with annual chest x-ray screening; in this study the relative risk of death from lung cancer was significantly reduced in the low-dose CT group (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.92).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence does not support screening for lung cancer with chest radiography or sputum cytology. Annual low-dose CT screening is associated with a reduction in lung cancer mortality in high-risk smokers but further data are required on the cost effectiveness of screening and the relative harms and benefits of screening across a range of different risk groups and settings.

Advances and perspectives in lung cancer imaging using multidetector row computed tomography

The introduction of multidetector row computed tomography (CT) into clinical practice has revolutionized many aspects of the clinical work-up. Lung cancer imaging has benefited from various breakthroughs in computing technology, with advances in the field of lung cancer detection, tissue characterization, lung cancer staging and response to therapy. Our paper discusses the problems of radiation, image visualization and CT examination comparison. It also reviews the most significant advances in lung cancer imaging and highlights the emerging clinical applications that use state of the art CT technology in the field of lung cancer diagnosis and follow-up.

Screening and early detection of lung cancer

The greatest news of the past year in this field was the first large-scale early detection trial that could prove a 20% reduction in lung cancer-related mortality by screening high-risk individuals with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). Several expert groups and medical societies have assessed the data and concluded that LDCT screening for lung cancer is, however, not ready for large-scale population-based implementation. Too many open questions remain, such as definition of the at-risk population, timing and intervals of screening, optimal method of acquisition and interpretation of the images, how to handle (false) positive findings, and especially cost-effectiveness in relation to other lung cancer prevention strategies, mainly smoking cessation. Further analyses and several ongoing European trials are eagerly awaited. Much hope also resides in the use of biomarkers, as their use in, e.g., blood or exhaled air may provide more easy-to-use tests to better stratify high-risk populations for screening studies. While exciting research is ongoing in this domain--e.g. with microRNAs--none of the tests has yet reached sufficient validation for clinical use. Early central lung cancers are more difficult to visualise by CT. For these patients, standard bronchoscopy, complemented by autofluoresence endoscopy, has been studied in different screening and follow-up settings.

American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines

Findings from the National Cancer Institute's National Lung Screening Trial established that lung cancer mortality in specific high-risk groups can be reduced by annual screening with low-dose computed tomography. These findings indicate that the adoption of lung cancer screening could save many lives. Based on the results of the National Lung Screening Trial, the American Cancer Society is issuing an initial guideline for lung cancer screening. This guideline recommends that clinicians with access to high-volume, high-quality lung cancer screening and treatment centers should initiate a discussion about screening with apparently healthy patients aged 55 years to 74 years who have at least a 30-pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. A process of informed and shared decision-making with a clinician related to the potential benefits, limitations, and harms associated with screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography should occur before any decision is made to initiate lung cancer screening. Smoking cessation counseling remains a high priority for clinical attention in discussions with current smokers, who should be informed of their continuing risk of lung cancer. Screening should not be viewed as an alternative to smoking cessation.

Lung cancer screening: from imaging to biomarker

Despite several decades of intensive effort to improve the imaging techniques for lung cancer diagnosis and treatment, primary lung cancer is still the number one cause of cancer death in the United States and worldwide. The major causes of this high mortality rate are distant metastasis evident at diagnosis and ineffective treatment for locally advanced disease. Indeed, approximately forty percent of newly diagnosed lung cancer patients have distant metastasis. Currently, the only potential curative therapy is surgical resection of early stage lung cancer. Therefore, early detection of lung cancer could potentially increase the chance of cure by surgery and underlines the importance of screening and detection of lung cancer. In the past fifty years, screening of lung cancer by chest X-Ray (CXR), sputum cytology, computed tomography (CT), fluorescence endoscopy and low-dose spiral CT (LDCT) has not improved survival except for the recent report in 2010 by the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which showed a 20 percent mortality reduction in high risk participants screened with LDCT compared to those screened with CXRs. Furthermore, serum biomarkers for detection of lung cancer using free circulating DNA and RNA, exosomal microRNA, circulating tumor cells and various lung cancer specific antigens have been studied extensively and novel screening methods are being developed with encouraging results. The history of lung cancer screening trials using CXR, sputum cytology and LDCT, as well as results of trials involving various serum biomarkers, are reviewed herein.

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography after the National Lung Screening Trial. The debate is still open

The aim of this article is to highlight some concerns regarding lung cancer screening with CT through a thorough analysis of scientific literature. The publication of the National Lung Screening Trial in 2011 has revealed that CT screening of smokers and ex-smokers in three annual rounds reduces lung cancer mortality a 20% when compared with thorax x-ray screening. The first limitation of this screening modality is its lack of downstaging in successive screening rounds compared with the initial round. Also, lung cancer screening with CT has a low positive predictive value, similar to the percentage of unnecessary surgeries performed in false positives. Another problem is that, at present, the burden of lung cancer overdiagnosis is not known. It is to be expected that if overdiagnosis occurs when thorax x-ray screening is used it will be greater when using CT. CT, even at low doses, exposes patients to high levels of radiation. Dealing with positive nodules entails an even higher radiation dose and the number of cancer cases induced by radiation in patients screened with CT is not known. Lastly, published studies on lung cancer CT screening are vastly heterogeneous. They include different age groups, different types of smokers and ex-smokers and different tomogram thickness, making the results hardly comparable. In this context we do not recommend lung cancer screening with CT for smokers or ex-smokers outside of the context of individual counseling.

Measurement methods and algorithms for the management of solid nodules

The increased detection of incidental small pulmonary nodules on multidetector computed tomography has driven attempts to refine the characterization and management of such nodules. A variety of methods have been developed to measure the size and biological activity of nodules to help define their nature, but these have limitations. Several clinical trials have assessed the efficacy of low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer and offer some insights into these limitations; however, they also provide evidence that refines existing nodule management strategies. This article reviews the size-based and functional measurement methods that can be used to predict the likelihood of malignancy in noncalcified solid pulmonary nodules and discusses their incorporation into existing algorithms for nodule management. The issue of multiple nodules and the optimum frequency and duration of follow-up are explored.

Role of microRNAs in lung cancer: microRNA signatures in cancer prognosis

Lung cancer-related mortality is the most common cause of cancer death worldwide. Detecting lung cancer at an earlier stage and, ideally, predicting who will develop the disease and particularly the most aggressive forms of cancer are the biggest challenge. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are short, noncoding RNA molecules with regulatory function on protein-coding genes. Because of their fundamental role in development and differentiation, their involvement in the biological mechanisms underlying tumorigenesis, as well as their low complexity, stability, and easy detection, they represent a promising class of tissue- and blood-based biomarkers of cancer. We summarize the current literature on the use of microRNAs as diagnostic and prognostic tools in lung cancer and discuss the relevant clinical implications of these findings.

From randomized trials to the clinic: is it time to implement individual lung-cancer screening in clinical practice? A multidisciplinary statement from French experts on behalf of the French intergroup (IFCT) and the groupe d'Oncologie de langue francaise (GOLF)

Background

Despite advances in cancer therapy, mortality is still high except in early-stage tumors, and screening remains a challenge. The randomized National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), comparing annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and chest X-rays, revealed a 20% decrease in lung-cancer-specific mortality. These results raised numerous questions. The French intergroup for thoracic oncology and the French-speaking oncology group convened an expert group to provide a coherent outlook on screening modalities in France.

Methods

A literature review was carried out and transmitted to the expert group, which was divided into three workshops to tackle specific questions, with responses presented in a plenary session. A writing committee drafted this article.

Results

The multidisciplinary group favored individual screening in France, when carried out as outlined in this article and after informing subjects of the benefits and risks. The target population involves subjects aged 55–74 years, who are smokers or have a 30 pack-year smoking history. Subjects should be informed about the benefits of quitting. Screening should involve LDCT scanning with specific modalities. Criteria for CT positivity and management algorithms for positive examinations are given.

Conclusions

Individual screening requires rigorous assessment and precise research in order to potentially develop a lung-cancer screening policy.

Current status of lung cancer screening

Recent results have demonstrated a major reduction in lung cancer mortality through computed tomography screening and no benefit from chest radiograph (CXR) screening. This presents a huge potential for benefit but also poses challenges regarding management of details to minimize harm. Many unresolved questions remain that must be addressed to implement computed tomography screening for lung cancer in a thoughtful and responsible way.

Molecular pathology of non-small cell lung cancer: a practical guide

The traditional distinction between small cell lung cancer and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is no longer sufficient for treatment planning. It is advised to handle small diagnostic specimens prudently because they are often the only specimen available for molecular analysis. Pathologists are experiencing pressure to subclassify lung carcinoma based on extremely small tumor samples, because NSCLC tumor subtyping is now essential to determine molecular testing strategies. Evaluation for EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangements are now considered to be the standard of care in advanced-stage pulmonary adenocarcinomas. Immunohistochemical stains can aid in subclassifying NSCLC, but performing these ancillary studies can significantly reduce the quantity of tissue available for molecular tests, requiring careful balancing of these 2 needs. The pathologist plays a pivotal role in facilitating clear and timely communication between the clinical oncology care team and the molecular laboratory to ensure that the appropriate tests are ordered and optimal material is submitted for testing.

Dose exposure in the ITALUNG trial of lung cancer screening with low-dose CT

Few data are available on the effective dose received by participants in lung cancer screening programmes with low-dose CT (LDCT). We report the collective effective dose delivered to 1406 current or former smokers enrolled in the ITALUNG trial who completed 4 annual LDCT examinations and related further investigations including follow-up LDCT, 2-[(18)F]flu-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) or CT-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB). Using the air CT dose index and Monte Carlo simulations on an anthropomorphic phantom, the whole-body effective dose associated with LDCT was determined for the eight CT scanners used in the trial. A value of 7 mSv was assigned to FDG-PET while the measured mean effective dose of CT-guided FNAB was 1.5 mSv. The mean collective effective dose in the 1406 subjects ranged between 8.75 and 9.36 Sv and the mean effective dose to the single subject over 4 years was between 6.2 and 6.8 mSv (range 1.7-21.5 mSv) according to the cranial-caudal length of the LDCT volume. 77.4% of the dose was owing to annual LDCT and 22.6% to further investigations. Considering the nominal risk coefficients for stochastic effects after exposure to low-dose radiation according to the National Radiological Protection Board, International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) 60, ICRP103 and Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII, the mean number of radiation-induced cancers ranged between 0.12 and 0.33 per 1000 subjects. The individual effective dose to participants in a 4-year lung cancer screening programme with annual LDCT is very low and about one-third of the effective dose that is associated with natural background radiation and diagnostic radiology in the same time period.

CT scan screening for lung cancer: risk factors for nodules and malignancy in a high-risk urban cohort

Background

Low-dose computed tomography (CT) for lung cancer screening can reduce lung cancer mortality. The National Lung Screening Trial reported a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality in high-risk smokers. However, CT scanning is extremely sensitive and detects non-calcified nodules (NCNs) in 24–50% of subjects, suggesting an unacceptably high false-positive rate. We hypothesized that by reviewing demographic, clinical and nodule characteristics, we could identify risk factors associated with the presence of nodules on screening CT, and with the probability that a NCN was malignant.

Methods

We performed a longitudinal lung cancer biomarker discovery trial (NYU LCBC) that included low-dose CT-screening of high-risk individuals over 50 years of age, with more than 20 pack-year smoking histories, living in an urban setting, and with a potential for asbestos exposure. We used case-control studies to identify risk factors associated with the presence of nodules (n = 625) versus no nodules (n = 557), and lung cancer patients (n = 30) versus benign nodules (n = 128).

Results

The NYU LCBC followed 1182 study subjects prospectively over a 10-year period. We found 52% to have NCNs >4 mm on their baseline screen. Most of the nodules were stable, and 9.7% of solid and 26.2% of sub-solid nodules resolved. We diagnosed 30 lung cancers, 26 stage I. Three patients had synchronous primary lung cancers or multifocal disease. Thus, there were 33 lung cancers: 10 incident, and 23 prevalent. A sub-group of the prevalent group were stable for a prolonged period prior to diagnosis. These were all stage I at diagnosis and 12/13 were adenocarcinomas.

Conclusions

NCNs are common among CT-screened high-risk subjects and can often be managed conservatively. Risk factors for malignancy included increasing age, size and number of nodules, reduced FEV1 and FVC, and increased pack-years smoking. A sub-group of screen-detected cancers are slow-growing and may contribute to over-diagnosis and lead-time biases.

The role and potential of imaging in COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a heterogeneous condition of the lungs and body. Techniques in chest imaging and quantitative image analysis provide novel in vivo insight into the disease and potentially examine divergent responses to therapy. This article reviews the strengths and limitations of the leading imaging techniques: computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, and optical coherence tomography. Following an explanation of the technique, each section details some of the useful information obtained with these examinations. Future clinical care and investigation will likely include some combination of these imaging modalities and more standard assessments of disease severity.

Screening for lung cancer using low-dose spiral CT: 10 years later, state of the art

Ten years after the first papers on this subject, this editorial represents a brief review on lung cancer screening with low-dose spiral CT. The aim is to present the main theoretical and practical problems related to lung cancer screening, the historical background and results of observational studies and the main ongoing randomised controlled trials. In particular, the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which was interrupted early, is discussed. The opinion of the authors is that too many questions are still awaiting an answer.

Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review

CONTEXT

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease, resulting in a very low 5-year survival. Screening may reduce the risk of death from lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of the evidence regarding the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). A multisociety collaborative initiative (involving the American Cancer Society, American College of Chest Physicians, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network) was undertaken to create the foundation for development of an evidence-based clinical guideline.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (Ovid: January 1996 to April 2012), EMBASE (Ovid: January 1996 to April 2012), and the Cochrane Library (April 2012).

STUDY SELECTION

Of 591 citations identified and reviewed, 8 randomized trials and 13 cohort studies of LDCT screening met criteria for inclusion. Primary outcomes were lung cancer mortality and all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included nodule detection, invasive procedures, follow-up tests, and smoking cessation.

DATA EXTRACTION

Critical appraisal using predefined criteria was conducted on individual studies and the overall body of evidence. Differences in data extracted by reviewers were adjudicated by consensus.

RESULTS

Three randomized studies provided evidence on the effect of LDCT screening on lung cancer mortality, of which the National Lung Screening Trial was the most informative, demonstrating that among 53,454 participants enrolled, screening resulted in significantly fewer lung cancer deaths (356 vs 443 deaths; lung cancer−specific mortality, 274 vs 309 events per 100,000 person-years for LDCT and control groups, respectively; relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93; absolute risk reduction, 0.33%; P = .004). The other 2 smaller studies showed no such benefit. In terms of potential harms of LDCT screening, across all trials and cohorts, approximately 20% of individuals in each round of screening had positive results requiring some degree of follow-up, while approximately 1% had lung cancer. There was marked heterogeneity in this finding and in the frequency of follow-up investigations, biopsies, and percentage of surgical procedures performed in patients with benign lesions. Major complications in those with benign conditions were rare.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose computed tomography screening may benefit individuals at an increased risk for lung cancer, but uncertainty exists about the potential harms of screening and the generalizability of results.

Lung cancer screening: a review of available data and current guidelines

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. A lack of clinical symptoms in early-stage disease frequently leads to diagnosis at a late stage, and a 15% 5-year survival rate in all patients so diagnosed. This has led to significant interest in effective screening methods to detect early-stage cancers, particularly for high-risk groups, such as current or former smokers. Early clinical trials focused on chest radiograph with or without sputum cytology and failed to show an improvement in mortality with screening. A meta-analysis also failed to show a difference in all-cause mortality. Subsequent protocols compared low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scan with chest radiograph and documented increased detection of early-stage disease; however, they were not designed to prove a reduction in mortality. The most recent trials have focused on LDCT scans, including the National Lung Screening Trial. Data released from the National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in lung cancer deaths in patients screened with LDCT scans. When data from the study, including cost-effectiveness, are completely analyzed, they may lead to revision of current lung cancer screening recommendations to include LDCT scans in specific populations at high risk of developing lung cancer.

miRNA expression and its clinical implications for the prevention and diagnosis of non-small-cell lung cancer

miRNAs are a recently discovered category of small noncoding RNAs that regulate gene expression at the post-transcriptional level. Altered expressions of miRNAs are reported in a variety of human cancers and may associate with cancer pathogenesis, apoptosis and cell growth, thereby functioning as either oncogenes or tumor suppressors. Accumulating evidence indicates that deregulation of miRNA contributes to tumor initiation and progression and hence, has clinical value in several human cancers, including non-small-cell lung cancer. This article discusses the current knowledge of miRNAs in risk assessment, prevention, early diagnosis, prognosis and their possible role as oncogenes or tumor suppressors in the pathogenesis of non-small-cell lung cancer.

Psychosocial consequences of allocation to lung cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To examine the psychosocial consequences of being allocated to the control group as compared with the screen group in a randomised lung cancer screening trial.

METHOD

The Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial, a randomised controlled trial, ran from 2004 to 2010 with the purpose of investigating the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening. The participants in Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial were randomised to either the control group or the screen group and were asked to complete the questionnaires Consequences Of Screening and Consequences Of Screening in Lung Cancer (COS-LC). The Consequences Of Screening and the COS-LC were used to examine the psychosocial consequences of participating in the study, by comparing the control and the screen groups' responses at the prevalence and at the incidence round.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in socio-demographic characteristics or smoking habits between the two groups. Responses to the COS-LC collected before the incidence round were statistically significantly different on the scales 'anxiety', 'behaviour', 'dejection', 'self-blame', 'focus on airway symptoms' and 'introvert', with the control group reporting higher negative psychosocial consequences. Furthermore, the participants in both the control and the screen groups exhibited a mean increase in negative psychosocial consequences when their responses from the prevalence round were compared with their responses from the first incidence round.

CONCLUSIONS

Participation in a randomised controlled trial on lung cancer screening has negative psychosocial consequences for the apparently healthy participants-both the participants in the screen group and the control group. This negative impact was greatest for the control group.

Non-small-cell lung cancer

In the decade since the last Lancet Seminar on lung cancer there have been advances in many aspects of the classification, diagnosis, and treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). An international panel of experts has been brought together to focus on changes in the epidemiology and pathological classification of NSCLC, the role of CT screening and other techniques that could allow earlier diagnosis and more effective treatment of the disease, and the recently introduced seventh edition of the TNM classification and its relation to other prognostic factors such as biological markers. We also describe advances in treatment that have seen the introduction of a new generation of chemotherapy agents, a proven advantage to adjuvant chemotherapy after complete resection for specific stage groups, new techniques for the planning and administration of radiotherapy, and new surgical approaches to assess and reduce the risks of surgical treatment.

Contamination during 4 years of annual CT screening in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST)

INTRODUCTION

Contamination, defined as screening in the control arm, may dilute the statistical power of randomised screening trials. We investigated the rate of contamination in DLCST during 4 years of annual CT screening.

METHODS

DLCST is a randomised trial involving 4104 healthy current and ex smokers. 2052 subjects were randomised to annual low dose chest CT scans (CT group) and 2052 were given no intervention (control group). The study is performed in collaboration with the NELSON trial (Nederlands Leuvens Screening Onderzoek) and mortality data will be pooled at the end. We defined contamination as off study CT scan received for lung cancer screening purposes. Annually during the screening period, the participants were asked whether they had received a CT scan and if so the purpose. The causes were divided into the following categories: 'Off study screening for lung cancer', 'Investigation of lung symptoms', 'Investigation of incidental finding on chest radiograph', 'Participation in other scientific trial involving chest CT', and finally 'Chest CT for other reasons'.

RESULTS

Response rates were high in both groups: 86.1% (control group), 93.6% (CT group) p<0.001.

CONTROL GROUP

199 out of 7065 answers (2.8%) indicating acquisition of a chest CT during 4 years of the trial. Three answers fulfilled the definition of contamination, while 8 received chest CT due to involvement in other scientific trials. 126 reported CT scans as part of investigation for other diseases, while 10 and 52 went through investigations for abnormal chest radiograph and lung symptoms, respectively. CT group: Significantly lower number of answers (n=134) indicated acquisition of an off study chest CT. None had received off study lung cancer screening. Three were involved in other scientific trials, while 17 and 115 went through investigation of lung symptoms and chest CT for other reasons, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although the frequency of off study chest CT was significantly higher in the control group, it was relatively small in both randomisation groups, and thus contamination seems to be modest and acceptable in the DLCST. Clinical Trial no.: Clinical Trials.gov Protocol Registration System (identification no. NCT00496977).

European and North American lung cancer screening experience and implications for pulmonary nodule management

The potential for low dose computed tomography (LDCT) to act as an effective tool in screening for lung cancer is currently the subject of several randomised control trials. It has recently been given prominence by interim results released by the North American National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Several other trials assessing LDCT as a screening tool are currently underway in Europe, and are due to report their final results in the next few years. These include the NELSON, DLSCT, DANTE, ITALUNG, MILD and LUSI trials. Although slow to instigate a trial of its own, the UK Lung Screen (UKLS) trial will shortly commence. The knowledge gained from the newer trials has mostly reinforced and refined previous concepts that have formed the basis of existing nodule management guidelines. This article takes the opportunity to summarise the main aspects and initial results of the trials presently underway, assess the status of current collaborative efforts and the scope for future collaboration, and analyse observations from these studies that may usefully inform the management of the indeterminate pulmonary nodule. Key Points • Low dose CT screening for lung cancer is promising. • The effect of LDCT screening on mortality is still uncertain. • Several European randomised controlled trials for LDCT are underway. • The trials vary in methodology but most compare LDCT to no screening. • Preliminary results have reinforced existing nodule management concepts.

National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, Fagerstrom RM, Gareen IF, Gatsonis C, Marcus PM, Sicks JD. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening

BACKGROUND

The aggressive and heterogeneous nature of lung cancer has thwarted efforts to reduce mortality from this cancer through the use of screening. The advent of low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) altered the landscape of lung-cancer screening, with studies indicating that low-dose CT detects many tumors at early stages. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was conducted to determine whether screening with low-dose CT could reduce mortality from lung cancer.

METHODS

From August 2002 through April 2004, we enrolled 53,454 persons at high risk for lung cancer at 33 U.S. medical centers. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo three annual screenings with either low-dose CT (26,722 participants) or single-view posteroanterior chest radiography (26,732). Data were collected on cases of lung cancer and deaths from lung cancer that occurred through December 31, 2009.

RESULTS

The rate of adherence to screening was more than 90%. The rate of positive screening tests was 24.2% with low-dose CT and 6.9% with radiography over all three rounds. A total of 96.4% of the positive screening results in the low-dose CT group and 94.5% in the radiography group were false positive results. The incidence of lung cancer was 645 cases per 100,000 person-years (1060 cancers) in the low-dose CT group, as compared with 572 cases per 100,000 person-years (941 cancers) in the radiography group (rate ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.23). There were 247 deaths from lung cancer per 100,000 person-years in the low-dose CT group and 309 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the radiography group, representing a relative reduction in mortality from lung cancer with low-dose CT screening of 20.0% (95% CI, 6.8 to 26.7; P=0.004). The rate of death from any cause was reduced in the low-dose CT group, as compared with the radiography group, by 6.7% (95% CI, 1.2 to 13.6; P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Screening with the use of low-dose CT reduces mortality from lung cancer. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; National Lung Screening Trial ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).

Inconsistencies in findings from the early lung cancer action project studies of lung cancer screening

Long-standing guidelines against screening high-risk individuals for lung cancer may change following the publication of the randomized National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which shows a benefit of computed tomography compared with chest x-ray screening. Guideline panels will likely also seek additional information from nonrandomized studies of computed tomography screening, such as the Early Lung Cancer Action Project (ELCAP). However, for the ELCAP findings to be incorporated into new guidelines, some inconsistencies in the published data should first be resolved. Specifically, some of the reports from ELCAP appear to contradict others in terms of important endpoints, and several findings from ELCAP appear to be statistically improbable or outliers when compared with analyses and studies by other research groups. Clarification of both internal and external inconsistencies is a prerequisite for evaluation of the body of work published by ELCAP investigators.

Screening and early detection of lung cancer

Lung cancer with an estimated 342,000 deaths in 2008 (20% of total) is the most common cause of death from cancer, followed by colorectal cancer (12%), breast cancer (8%), and stomach cancer (7%) in Europe. In former smokers, the absolute lung cancer risk remains higher than in never-smokers; these data therefore call for effective secondary preventive measures for lung cancer in addition to smoking cessation programs. This review presents and discusses the most recent advances in the early detection and screening of lung cancer.An overview of randomized controlled computerized tomography-screening trials is given, and the role of bronchoscopy and new techniques is discussed. Finally, the approach of (noninvasive) biomarker testing in the blood, exhaled breath, sputum, and bronchoscopic specimen is reviewed.

UK Lung Screen (UKLS) nodule management protocol: modelling of a single screen randomised controlled trial of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer

The UK Lung Screen (UKLS) is a randomised controlled trial of the use of low-dose multidetector CT for lung cancer screening. It completed the Health Technology Appraisal (HTA)-funded feasibility stage in October 2009 and the pilot UKLS will be initiated in early 2011. The pilot will randomise 4000 subjects to either low-dose CT screening or no screening. The full study, due to start in September 2012, if progression criteria are met, will randomise a further 28,000 subjects from seven centres in the UK. Subjects will be selected if they have sufficient risk of developing lung cancer according to the Liverpool Lung Project risk model. The UKLS employs the 'Wald Single Screen Design', which was modelled in the UKLS feasibility study. This paper describes the modelling of nodule management in UKLS by using volumetric analysis with a single initial screen design and follow-up period of 10 years. This modelling has resulted in the development and adoption of the UKLS care pathway, which will be implemented in the planned CT screening trial in the UK.

MicroRNA signatures in tissues and plasma predict development and prognosis of computed tomography detected lung cancer

The efficacy of computed tomography (CT) screening for early lung cancer detection in heavy smokers is currently being tested by a number of randomized trials. Critical issues remain the frequency of unnecessary treatments and impact on mortality, indicating the need for biomarkers of aggressive disease. We explored microRNA (miRNA) expression profiles of lung tumors, normal lung tissues and plasma samples from cases with variable prognosis identified in a completed spiral-CT screening trial with extensive follow-up. miRNA expression patterns significantly distinguished: (i) tumors from normal lung tissues, (ii) tumor histology and growth rate, (iii) clinical outcome, and (iv) year of lung cancer CT detection. Interestingly, miRNA profiles in normal lung tissues also displayed remarkable associations with clinical features, suggesting the influence of a permissive microenvironment for tumor development. miRNA expression analyses in plasma samples collected 1-2 y before the onset of disease, at the time of CT detection and in disease-free smokers enrolled in the screening trial, resulted in the generation of miRNA signatures with strong predictive, diagnostic, and prognostic potential (area under the ROC curve ≥ 0.85). These signatures were validated in an independent cohort from a second randomized spiral-CT trial. These results indicate a role for miRNAs in lung tissues and plasma as molecular predictors of lung cancer development and aggressiveness and have theoretical and clinical implication for lung cancer management.

Participation bias in a randomised trial of screening for lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

Participation bias might affect the results and the representability of randomised controlled trials. We investigated the degree of socio-demographic and psychosocial participation bias in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST).

METHODS

In DLCST the questionnaire COS-LC (Consequences of Screening in Lung Cancer) was used to measure the psychosocial aspects of screening. To investigate a difference with a comparable representative sample from the Danish population, we sent out an inclusion questionnaire to 3999 Danes in the age from 50 to 70 years randomly selected from the Central National Register. Those who completed the inclusion questionnaire and met the inclusion criteria from DLCST received the COS-LC. Those who completed the COS-LC-and thus formed a population sample comparable to DLCST - were compared to the DLCST participants on socio-demographics and psychosocial measures.

RESULTS

Participation rates were high among the comparable population sample: 75.3% completed the inclusion questionnaire and 77.4% of those who were eligible completed the COS-LC. The analyses revealed differences between the DLCST participants and the comparable population sample in the following socio-demographic aspects: social group, living alone, gender, age and geographical area. DLCST participants reported less negative psychosocial aspects than the comparable population sample.

CONCLUSION

The present study has shown substantial socio-demographic and psychosocial participation bias in DLCST.

International association for the study of lung cancer/american thoracic society/european respiratory society international multidisciplinary classification of lung adenocarcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Adenocarcinoma is the most common histologic type of lung cancer. To address advances in oncology, molecular biology, pathology, radiology, and surgery of lung adenocarcinoma, an international multidisciplinary classification was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, American Thoracic Society, and European Respiratory Society. This new adenocarcinoma classification is needed to provide uniform terminology and diagnostic criteria, especially for bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC), the overall approach to small nonresection cancer specimens, and for multidisciplinary strategic management of tissue for molecular and immunohistochemical studies.

METHODS

An international core panel of experts representing all three societies was formed with oncologists/pulmonologists, pathologists, radiologists, molecular biologists, and thoracic surgeons. A systematic review was performed under the guidance of the American Thoracic Society Documents Development and Implementation Committee. The search strategy identified 11,368 citations of which 312 articles met specified eligibility criteria and were retrieved for full text review. A series of meetings were held to discuss the development of the new classification, to develop the recommendations, and to write the current document. Recommendations for key questions were graded by strength and quality of the evidence according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

The classification addresses both resection specimens, and small biopsies and cytology. The terms BAC and mixed subtype adenocarcinoma are no longer used. For resection specimens, new concepts are introduced such as adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) for small solitary adenocarcinomas with either pure lepidic growth (AIS) or predominant lepidic growth with ≤ 5 mm invasion (MIA) to define patients who, if they undergo complete resection, will have 100% or near 100% disease-specific survival, respectively. AIS and MIA are usually nonmucinous but rarely may be mucinous. Invasive adenocarcinomas are classified by predominant pattern after using comprehensive histologic subtyping with lepidic (formerly most mixed subtype tumors with nonmucinous BAC), acinar, papillary, and solid patterns; micropapillary is added as a new histologic subtype. Variants include invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (formerly mucinous BAC), colloid, fetal, and enteric adenocarcinoma. This classification provides guidance for small biopsies and cytology specimens, as approximately 70% of lung cancers are diagnosed in such samples. Non-small cell lung carcinomas (NSCLCs), in patients with advanced-stage disease, are to be classified into more specific types such as adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma, whenever possible for several reasons: (1) adenocarcinoma or NSCLC not otherwise specified should be tested for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations as the presence of these mutations is predictive of responsiveness to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, (2) adenocarcinoma histology is a strong predictor for improved outcome with pemetrexed therapy compared with squamous cell carcinoma, and (3) potential life-threatening hemorrhage may occur in patients with squamous cell carcinoma who receive bevacizumab. If the tumor cannot be classified based on light microscopy alone, special studies such as immunohistochemistry and/or mucin stains should be applied to classify the tumor further. Use of the term NSCLC not otherwise specified should be minimized.

CONCLUSIONS

This new classification strategy is based on a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis of lung adenocarcinoma that incorporates clinical, molecular, radiologic, and surgical issues, but it is primarily based on histology. This classification is intended to support clinical practice, and research investigation and clinical trials. As EGFR mutation is a validated predictive marker for response and progression-free survival with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced lung adenocarcinoma, we recommend that patients with advanced adenocarcinomas be tested for EGFR mutation. This has implications for strategic management of tissue, particularly for small biopsies and cytology samples, to maximize high-quality tissue available for molecular studies. Potential impact for tumor, node, and metastasis staging include adjustment of the size T factor according to only the invasive component (1) pathologically in invasive tumors with lepidic areas or (2) radiologically by measuring the solid component of part-solid nodules.