Chest X-ray screening for lung cancer: overdiagnosis, endpoints, and randomized population trials

Role of chest radiographs in early lung cancer detection

Background

Lung cancer is the second most common and the most fatal form of cancer. Although annual low-dose computed tomography is used as the primary method of cancer screening, it presents challenges regarding resources as well as potential health risks from radiation exposure. Chest radiography (CXR), though less effective, is used frequently and commonly. Moreover, often in clinical settings, CXR is the first imaging modality used; computed tomography is subsequently performed if abnormalities are detected on CXRs. This study examined whether controlling for distractors and time constraints, as well as side-by-side comparison of multiple CXRs in clinical settings can aid earlier detection of radiological abnormalities indicative of lung cancer lesions.

Methods

Thirty-two attending physicians in the Republic of Korea examined 1,750 radiographs of 50 lung cancer cases. Using “hot spot” technology, participants indicated the possible locations of cancer lesions on each radiograph. Subsequently, the same radiographs, cropped to focus the anatomical regions where lung cancers were diagnosed, were shown side-by-side to the participants. The participants were asked to identify the radiograph which first enabled the diagnosis of lung cancer and which first showed a possible lesion.

Results

Removal of systemic constraints alone significantly improved lesion identification by 221.72±9.69 days. Presenting radiographs side-by-side, cropped to relevant areas, had an additional significant and positive impact on cancer detection in both hidden and open areas on CXRs. Also, lesions were detected at smaller sizes and earlier than when actually diagnosed.

Conclusions

CXR with improved methods and settings provides an easily accessible and low-risk imaging method for earlier detection of lung cancer compared to current clinical imaging settings. Further, this study demonstrates the potential effectiveness of programs that allow side-by-side comparisons of cropped areas of multiple radiographs to detect radiological abnormalities.

Comparison of value of biomarkers in diagnosing lung cancer: An overview of systematic reviews protocol

BACKGROUND

In both sexes combined, lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death. Furthermore, the incidence rate is increasing in many countries. Many lung cancer patients have a poor prognosis because they are usually diagnosed at an advanced stage. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop effective methods for early diagnosis of lung cancer. Some systematic reviews have evaluated the value of biomarkers for diagnosing lung cancer. However, it remains unclear which biomarker has superior performance for early and accurate detection of lung cancer. This overview aims to assess the methodological and reporting quality of available systematic reviews and to find an optimal biomarker for diagnosing lung cancer.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase.com, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science to identify relevant systematic reviews including randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, or cohort studies that reported the value of biomarkers for diagnosing lung cancer. The methodological quality will be assessed using AMASAR-2 checklist, and the reporting quality will be assessed using PRISMA-DTA checklist. Bubble plot will be generated to map the biomarkers, methodological and reporting quality. The pairwise meta-analysis and indirect comparisons will be performed using STATA 13.0.

RESULTS

The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal CONCLUSION:: This overview will provide comprehensive evidence of different biomarkers for the diagnosis of lung cancer.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval and patient consent are not required as this study is an overview based on published systematic reviews.

P16INK4a gene promoter methylation as a biomarker for the diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the diagnostic performance of P16INK4a gene promoter methylation as a biomarker of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Two reviewers independently searched the Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Chinese Biomedical Literature databases. Publications relevant to P16INK4a gene promoter methylation in serum or bronchoalveolar fluid/sputum were screened and included in this meta-analysis. Pooled diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and symmetric receiver operating characteristic curve were calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty-six publications with 1768 lung cancer cases and 1323 controls were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-0.48), 0.90 (95% CI 0.88-0.91), 6.33 (95% CI 3.89-10.30), 0.57 (95% CI 0.50-0.65) and 10.72 (95% CI 6.94-16.56), respectively, for P16INK4a gene promoter methylation as a biomarker for the diagnosis of NSCLC. The area under the symmetric receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.75 with a standard error of 0.004. No publication bias was detected via line regression test (t = 0.95; P = 0.35) and Begg's funnel plot.

CONCLUSION

P16INK4a gene promoter methylation detection in serum or bronchoalveolar fluid/sputum may be a potential biomarker for NSCLC diagnosis; however, the sensitivity was relatively low, which is not suitable for NSCLC screening.

Oncological resection of lung cancer invading the aortic arch In full thickness using a non-fenestrated endograft

T4 lung cancer invading the full thickness of the aortic arch was completely removed in a 78-year-old lady using a non-fenestrated endograft closing the left subclavian artery origin without performing surgical revascularization. Left thoracotomy and upper lobectomy with resection of superior segment of the lower lobe and full thickness of the infiltrated aorta was performed without covering the aortic defect. The margins of the specimen were free of tumor. The patient survived 32 months. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:412-415. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A comparison between quantitative PCR and droplet digital PCR technologies for circulating microRNA quantification in human lung cancer

Background

Selected microRNAs (miRNAs) that are abnormally expressed in the serum of patients with lung cancer have recently been proposed as biomarkers of this disease. The measurement of circulating miRNAs, however, requires a highly reliable quantification method. Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) is the most commonly used method, but it lacks reliable endogenous reference miRNAs for normalization of results in biofluids. When used in absolute quantification, it must rely on the use of external calibrators. Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) is a recently introduced technology that overcomes the normalization issue and may facilitate miRNA measurement. Here we compared the performance of absolute qPCR and ddPCR techniques for quantifying selected miRNAs in the serum.

Results

In the first experiment, three miRNAs, proposed in the literature as lung cancer biomarkers (miR-21, miR-126 and let-7a), were analyzed in a set of 15 human serum samples. Four independent qPCR and four independent ddPCR amplifications were done on the same samples and used to estimate the precision and correlation of miRNA measurements obtained with the two techniques. The precision of the two methods was evaluated by calculating the Coefficient of Variation (CV) of the four independent measurements obtained with each technique. The CV was similar or smaller in ddPCR than in qPCR for all miRNAs tested, and was significantly smaller for let-7a (p = 0.028). Linear regression analysis of the miRNA values obtained with qPCR and ddPCR showed strong correlation (p < 0.001).

To validate the correlation obtained with the two techniques in the first experiment, in a second experiment the same miRNAs were measured in a larger cohort (70 human serum samples) by both qPCR and ddPCR. The correlation of miRNA analyses with the two methods was significant for all three miRNAs. Moreover, in our experiments the ddPCR technique had higher throughput than qPCR, at a similar cost-per-sample.

Conclusions

Analyses of serum miRNAs performed with qPCR and ddPCR were largely concordant. Both qPCR and ddPCR can reliably be used to quantify circulating miRNAs, however, ddPCR revealed similar or greater precision and higher throughput of analysis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12896-016-0292-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Could cigarette packaging be used as a tool to make prevention of smoke-induced respiratory diseases?

The most important consequences of smoking are chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung cancer (LC). Although the use of shocking images and warning messages on cigarette packaging is a valid tool of smoke dishabituation, unfortunately, millions of people go on smoking. Our hypotheses is that cigarette packet covers could also be used to give further messages, especially meant to spur also a screening of smoke-induced respiratory diseases. Messages on cigarette packaging suggesting smokers to perform a spirometry and a chest X-ray may persuade them not only to quit their habit but also to have a screening for COPD and LC prevention. If our hypotheses is taken into account it will have a strong worldwide impact.

Is chest X-ray screening for lung cancer in smokers cost-effective? Evidence from a population-based study in Italy

Background

After implementation of the PREDICA annual chest X-ray (CXR) screening program in smokers in the general practice setting of Varese-Italy a significant reduction in lung cancer-specific mortality (18 %) was observed. The objective of this study covering July 1997 through December 2006 was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

Methods

We examined detailed information on lung cancer (LC) cases that occurred among smokers invited to be screened in the PREDICA study (Invitation-to-screening Group, n = 5815 subjects) to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from LC diagnosis until death. The control group consisted of 156 screening-eligible smokers from the same area, uninvited and unscreened, who developed LC and were treated by usual care. We calculated the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) by comparing LC management in screening participants (n = 1244 subjects) and in the Invitation-to-screening group versus control group.

Results

The average number of QALYs since LC diagnosis was 1.7, 1.49 and 1.07, respectively, in screening participants, the invitation-to-screening group, and the control group. The average total cost (screening + management) per LC case was higher in screening participants (€17,516) and the Invitation-to-screening Group (€16,167) than in the control group (€15,503). Assuming a maximum willingness to pay of €30,000/QALY, we found that the intervention was cost-effective with high probability: 79 % for screening participation (screening participants vs. control group) and 95 % for invitation-to-screening (invitation-to-screening group vs. control group).

Conclusions

Based on the PREDICA study, annual CXR screening of high-risk smokers in a general practice setting has high probability of being cost-effective with a maximum willingness to pay of €30,000/QALY.

Lung cancer screening overdiagnosis: reports of overdiagnosis in screening for lung cancer are grossly exaggerated

The National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated a mortality reduction benefit associated with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer. There has been considerable debate regarding the benefits and harms of LDCT lung cancer screening, including the challenges related to its practical implementation. One of the controversies regards overdiagnosis, which conceptually denotes diagnosing a cancer that, either because of its indolent, low-aggressiveness biologic behavior or because of limited life expectancy, is unlikely to result in significant morbidity during the patient's remainder lifetime. In theory, diagnosing and treating these cancers offer no measurable benefit while incurring costs and risks. Therefore, if a screening test detects a substantial number of overdiagnosed cancers, it is less likely to be effective. It has been argued that LDCT screening for lung cancer results in an unacceptably high rate of overdiagnosis. This article aims to defend the opposite stance. Overdiagnosis does exist and to a certain extent is inherent to any cancer-screening test. Nonetheless, the concept is less dualistic and more nuanced than it has been suggested. Furthermore, the average estimates of overdiagnosis in LDCT lung cancer screening based on the totality of published data are likely much lower than the highest published estimates, if a careful definition of a positive screening test reflecting our current understanding of lung cancer biology is utilized. This article presents evidence on why reports of overdiagnosis in lung cancer screening have been exaggerated.