Annual screening using chest x-ray examination for the diagnosis of lung cancer

Characterization of a multiple epigenetic marker panel for lung cancer detection and risk assessment in plasma

BACKGROUND

Methylation patterns may be useful biomarkers of cancer detection and risk assessment.

METHODS

The methylation status of 6 genes, including a candidate tumor suppressor gene (BLU), the cadherin 13 gene (CDH13), the fragile histidine triad gene (FHIT), the cell cycle control gene p16, the retinoic acid receptor beta gene (RARbeta), and the Ras association domain family 1 gene (RASSF1A), was examined in plasma samples, corresponding tumor tissues, and normal lung tissues from a group of 63 patients with lung cancer and in plasma samples from 36 cancer-free individuals. The detection rate of the p16 gene was validated in a test group of 20 patients with lung cancer.

RESULTS

The concordance of methylation in tumor tissues and plasma samples was 86%, 87%, 80%, 75%, 76%, and 84% for the BLU, CDH13, FHIT, p16, RARbeta, and RASSF1A genes, respectively. The test group showed a similar concordance for p16 methylation detection. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that the odds ratio for having lung cancer was 10.204 for individuals with p16 methylation (P = .013) and 9.952 for individuals with RASSFIA methylation (P = .019). After several trial tests, the authors established that methylation for >/=2 of the 6 markers met the criterion for an elevated risk of cancer. Comparisons yielded a sensitivity of 73%, a specificity of 82%, and a concordance of 75% between the methylation patterns in tumor tissues and in corresponding plasma samples. The detection rate was relatively high in cigarette smokers with advanced squamous cell lung cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The current results indicated that multiple epigenetic markers in the plasma, especially the p16 and RASSF1A genes, can be used for lung cancer detection. This methylation marker panel should improve the detection of cancer or the risk assessment for lung cancer in combination with conventional diagnostic tools.

Circulating tumour-derived DNA and RNA markers in blood: a tool for early detection, diagnostics, and follow-up?

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in developed countries. The prognosis is poor with only 10-15% of patients surviving 5 years after diagnosis. This dismal prognosis is attributed to the lack of efficient diagnostic methods for early detection and lack of successful treatment for metastatic disease. Within the last decade, rapid advances in molecular biology and radiology have provided a rational basis for improving early detection and patients' outcome. A non-invasive blood test effective in detecting preneoplastic changes or early lung cancer in high risk individuals has been perceived as a holy grail by cancer researchers.

METHODS

The introduction of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based technology in the late 1980s and its refinement over the last 10 years have allowed us to detect and quantify extremely small amounts of tumour-derived nucleic acids. This has led to an increased knowledge of the molecular pathogenesis of lung cancer and a basis for the use of DNA and RNA markers in blood for early cancer detection, diagnostics, and follow-up. Common genetic alterations in lung carcinogenesis are already well known. We reviewed published literature on DNA and RNA in plasma or serum in lung cancer patients up to 2004, with particular emphasis on reports published since 1995.

RESULTS

Twenty-two clinical studies have evaluating the role of DNA and RNA aberrations in the blood of lung cancer patients. A total of 1618 (range 10-163/study) cases and 595 (range 10-120/study) control cases were evaluated, and overall plasma/serum abnormalities were found in 43% (range 0-78%) of cases and 0.8% of healthy controls. For (1) total DNA and gene expression levels, 61% (range 53-71%) of cases and 0.9% of controls; (2) oncogene mutations, 16% (range 0-30%) and 0%; (3) microsatellite alterations, 46% (range 24-71%) and 21% (controls with non-malignant pulmonary disease); (4) promoter methylation, 42% (range 5-73%) and 0%; (5) tumour-related RNAs, 54% (range 39-78%) and 6%. In general, the studies contain small series of lung cancer patients and even smaller or missing case control groups.

CONCLUSION

The analysis of circulating DNA or RNA in plasma is a promising non-invasive diagnostic tool, requiring only a limited blood sample. Its wide applicability and potential importance will possibly lead to increasing clinical impact in the near future. However, large prospective clinical studies are needed to validate and standardise any tests for DNA or RNA alteration in plasma or serum of high risk individuals or patients with established lung cancer.

Prevention of lung cancer: the key is to stop smoking

OBJECTIVES

To review current approaches to primary prevention of lung cancer and to screening for precarcinogenic or preclinical asymptomatic disease.

DATA SOURCES

Research studies, review articles, and government reports relating to prevention of lung cancer and strategies for smoking cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

Because almost 90% of lung cancer cases can be attributed to tobacco, reduction of smoking is the appropriate focus of lung cancer prevention efforts. Lung cancer chemoprevention remains an experimental approach and large scale screening for lung cancer is of limited value.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses are in a strategic position to prevent smoking initiation and to influence successful smoking cessation through education, information on the multiple modalities to assist behavioral change, and ongoing reinforcement.

Early detection in lung cancer. Case finding and screening

There is general agreement that the most effective approach to lung cancer is primary prevention--stop smoking. Richards has proposed the MVROCST--the Monosyllabic Verbal Response Office Cancer Screening Test: "Do you smoke?" If "yes," intervene. If "no," move on. Ample evidence exists that a clear message from a physician to a patient about the importance of stopping smoking makes a difference. In contrast to the maze of arguments and data on early detection, this is something that each physician clearly can and should do. A reduced risk for lung cancer may begin as early as 5 years after cessation of cigarette use. Huuskonen has proposed conceptualizing screening as a coordinated intervention with the goal of identifying populations at risk and working to modify that risk. Primary prevention should be central to any efforts to reduce mortality from lung cancer, and attention to this area needs to increase despite the difficulties and frustration. Despite declining percentages of smokers in the population as a whole, it is estimated that more than 3000 teenagers become regular smokers each day in the United States. In this environment, the question of whether to recommend a CXR or sputum for early detection is not going to disappear in the near future. The NCI has recognized the persistent and important nature of this debate and is currently funding the Prostate, Lung, Colon and Ovary Cancer Screening Trial. This is a large and powerful randomized study of men and women aged 60 to 74. The lung cancer arm is designed to look at the usefulness of a yearly CXR intervention in reducing cancer-specific mortality. The overall power of the study (based on national mortality data) is 0.99 for a 15% reduction in lung cancer mortality and 0.89 for a 10% reduction, with differentially better sensitivity in men than women. The study is currently in progress at multiple sites and will be completed over the next 12 to 14 years. In the meantime, what is the right approach? It is useful in considering this question to return to the concepts of early detection, screening, and case finding. 1. Early detection in lung cancer remains a concept of uncertain applicability because of the unknowns and variability in the natural history of the disease. The available, accessible, and acceptable detection tools appear to be inadequate by current evidence. This is not a static field, however, and new work in the area of biomarkers carries promise for significantly more sensitive and specific techniques. Tockman and colleagues conclude that early detection is conceptually sound, although not currently practical, and further research may expand the role of intervention. In the end, a judgement on early detection in lung cancer must be linked to the proposed setting--screening or case finding. 2. Screening, defined as the application of a test to the general population to define disease risk further with the implied benefit of improved treatment and outcome, cannot be recommended for lung cancer. This is the perspective of the major organizations cited previously, and it is based on admittedly imperfect but nonetheless convincing data. 3. Case finding, the situation of the patient who seeks care and is available for informed discussion and negotiation on possible testing, is a potentially different situation.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)