Evaluating the clinical trends and benefits of low-dose computed tomography in lung cancer patients

Immunotherapy Improves the Survival of Stage 4 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients at the US Population Level: The Real-World Evidence

INTRODUCTION

Immunotherapy has revolutionized the management of lung cancer and improved lung cancer survival in trials, but its real-world impact at the population level remains unclear.

METHODS

Using data obtained from eight Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries from 2004 through 2019, we addressed the long-term trends in the incidence, incidence-based mortality (IBM), and survival of lung cancer patients in the United States.

RESULTS

The incidence and IBM of both non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC) all significantly decreased steadily from 2004 to 2019. The 1-year survival (1-YS) of both NSCLC and SCLC improved over time, with the best improvement observed for Stage 4 NSCLC. Two significant turning points of Stage 4 NSCLC 1-YS were observed over the years: 0.63% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33%-0.93%) from 2004 to 2010, 0.81% (95% CI: 0.41%-1.21%) from 2010 to 2014 and a striking 2.09% (95% CI: 1.70%-2.47%) from 2014 to 2019. The same two turning points in 1-YS were pronounced for Stage 4 NSCLC in women, which were coincident with the introduction of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) and immunotherapy. However, for Stage 4 NSCLC in men, only one significant turning point in the 1-YS starting in 2014 was found, which might only correspond to immunotherapy. Significant period effects in reduced IBM were also observed for both Stage 4 AD and Stage 4 SQCC during the period.

CONCLUSION

This SEER analysis found that immunotherapy improved the survival of Stage 4 NSCLC patients at the population level in the United States. This real-world evidence confirms that immunotherapy has truly revolutionized the management of lung cancer.

Women's Information Needs and Educational Preferences Regarding Lung Cancer Screening

Background: Physicians are less likely to discuss lung cancer screening (LCS) with women, and women have lower awareness of LCS availability. The objective of this qualitative study was to determine information needs, patient-provider communication barriers, and preferences for LCS education among women. Materials and Methods: Eight semistructured qualitative focus groups were conducted with 28 self-identified women meeting LCS eligibility criteria. Participants were recruited through a large health system, from a community-based LCS program, and through a national online database between October 2020 and March 2021. Focus groups were led by a trained moderator via Zoom. Audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis by investigators. Results: LCS decision-making influences included: (1) Health care provider recommendation; (2) Self-advocacy; (3) Insurance coverage and cost; (4) Family; and (5) Interest in early detection. Participants preferred video and print materials, available at physician's office or shared by physician, without scare tactics or shaming about smoking, use clear language, with diverse participants and images. Preferred content focused on: (1) Benefits of early detection; (2) Lung cancer definition, statistics, and risk factors; (3) Benefits of quitting smoking; (4) Demonstration or explanation of how LCS is done; and (5) Availability of other tests and potential harms of screening. Conclusion: Women in our study had limited awareness of LCS and their eligibility and wanted recommendation and support for LCS from their health care providers. We identified addressable information needs about lung cancer and the screening process that can be used to improve LCS uptake in women and shared decision-making processes.

Machine learning in metastatic cancer research: Potentials, possibilities, and prospects

Cancer has received extensive recognition for its high mortality rate, with metastatic cancer being the top cause of cancer-related deaths. Metastatic cancer involves the spread of the primary tumor to other body organs. As much as the early detection of cancer is essential, the timely detection of metastasis, the identification of biomarkers, and treatment choice are valuable for improving the quality of life for metastatic cancer patients. This study reviews the existing studies on classical machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) in metastatic cancer research. Since the majority of metastatic cancer research data are collected in the formats of PET/CT and MRI image data, deep learning techniques are heavily involved. However, its black-box nature and expensive computational cost are notable concerns. Furthermore, existing models could be overestimated for their generality due to the non-diverse population in clinical trial datasets. Therefore, research gaps are itemized; follow-up studies should be carried out on metastatic cancer using machine learning and deep learning tools with data in a symmetric manner.

Evaluating Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening for Young African American Men With Cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite higher risks associated with prostate cancer, young African American men are poorly represented in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) trials, which limits proper evidence-based guidance. We evaluated the impact of PSA screening, alongside primary care provider utilization, on prostate cancer outcomes for these patients.

METHODS

We identified African American men aged 40-55 years, diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2004 and 2017 within the Veterans Health Administration. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted propensity scores were used in multivariable models to assess PSA screening on PSA levels higher than 20, Gleason score of 8 or higher, and metastatic disease at diagnosis. Lead-time adjusted Fine-Gray regression evaluated PSA screening on prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), with noncancer death as competing events. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

The cohort included 4726 patients. Mean age was 51.8 years, with 84-month median follow-up. There were 1057 (22.4%) with no PSA screening prior to diagnosis. Compared with no screening, PSA screening was associated with statistically significantly reduced odds of PSA levels higher than 20 (odds ratio [OR] = 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 0.63; P < .001), Gleason score of 8 or higher (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.88; P < .001), and metastatic disease at diagnosis (OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.64; P < .001), and decreased PCSM (subdistribution hazard ratio = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36 to 0.76; P  < .001). Primary care provider visits displayed similar effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Among young African American men diagnosed with prostate cancer, PSA screening was associated with statistically significantly lower risk of PSA levels higher than 20, Gleason score of 8 or higher, and metastatic disease at diagnosis and statistically significantly reduced risk of PCSM. However, the retrospective design limits precise estimation of screening effects. Prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

Evaluating the clinical trends and benefits of low-dose computed tomography in lung cancer patients

Background

Despite guideline recommendations, utilization of low‐dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening remains low. The driving factors behind these low rates and the real‐world effect of LDCT utilization on lung cancer outcomes remain limited.

Methods

We identified patients diagnosed with non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from 2015 to 2017 within the Veterans Health Administration. Multivariable logistic regression assessed the influence of LDCT screening on stage at diagnosis. Lead time correction using published LDCT lead times was performed. Cancer‐specific mortality (CSM) was evaluated using Fine–Gray regression with non‐cancer death as a competing risk. A lasso machine learning model identified important predictors for receiving LDCT screening.

Results

Among 4664 patients, mean age was 67.8 with 58‐month median follow‐up, 95% CI = [7–71], and 118 patients received ≥1 screening LDCT before NSCLC diagnosis. From 2015 to 2017, LDCT screening increased (0.1%–6.6%, mean = 1.3%). Compared with no screening, patients with ≥1 LDCT were more than twice as likely to present with stage I disease at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] 2.16 [95% CI 1.46–3.20]) and less than half as likely to present with stage IV (OR 0.38 [CI 0.21–0.70]). Screened patients had lower risk of CSM even after adjusting for LDCT lead time (subdistribution hazard ratio 0.60 [CI 0.42–0.85]). The machine learning model achieved an area under curve of 0.87 and identified diagnosis year and region as the most important predictors for receiving LDCT. White, non‐Hispanic patients were more likely to receive LDCT screening, whereas minority, older, female, and unemployed patients were less likely.

Conclusions

Utilization of LDCT screening is increasing, although remains low. Consistent with randomized data, LDCT‐screened patients were diagnosed at earlier stages and had lower CSM. LDCT availability appeared to be the main predictor of utilization. Providing access to more patients, including those in diverse racial and socioeconomic groups, should be a priority.