Initial LDCT appearance of incident lung cancers in the ITALUNG trial

Baseline Cell-Free DNA Can Predict Malignancy of Nodules Observed in the ITALUNG Screening Trial

The role of total plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in lung cancer (LC) screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is uncertain. We hypothesized that cfDNA could support differentiation between malignant and benign nodules observed in LDCT. The baseline cfDNA was measured in 137 subjects of the ITALUNG trial, including 29 subjects with screen-detected LC (17 prevalent and 12 incident) and 108 subjects with benign nodules. The predictive capability of baseline cfDNA to differentiate malignant and benign nodules was compared to that of Lung-RADS classification and Brock score at initial LDCT (iLDCT). Subjects with prevalent LC showed both well-discriminating radiological characteristics of the malignant nodule (16 of 17 were classified as Lung-RADS 4) and markedly increased cfDNA (mean 18.8 ng/mL). The mean diameters and Brock scores of malignant nodules at iLDCT in subjects who were diagnosed with incident LC were not different from those of benign nodules. However, 75% (9/12) of subjects with incident LC showed a baseline cfDNA ≥ 3.15 ng/mL, compared to 34% (37/108) of subjects with benign nodules (p = 0.006). Moreover, baseline cfDNA was correlated (p = 0.001) with tumor growth, measured with volume doubling time. In conclusion, increased baseline cfDNA may help to differentiate subjects with malignant and benign nodules at LDCT.

Radiomics-based decision support tool assists radiologists in small lung nodule classification and improves lung cancer early diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Methods to improve stratification of small (≤15 mm) lung nodules are needed. We aimed to develop a radiomics model to assist lung cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

Patients were retrospectively identified using health records from January 2007 to December 2018. The external test set was obtained from the national LIBRA study and a prospective Lung Cancer Screening programme. Radiomics features were extracted from multi-region CT segmentations using TexLab2.0. LASSO regression generated the 5-feature small nodule radiomics-predictive-vector (SN-RPV). K-means clustering was used to split patients into risk groups according to SN-RPV. Model performance was compared to 6 thoracic radiologists. SN-RPV and radiologist risk groups were combined to generate "Safety-Net" and "Early Diagnosis" decision-support tools.

RESULTS

In total, 810 patients with 990 nodules were included. The AUC for malignancy prediction was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.82-0.87), 0.78 (95% CI: 0.70-0.85) and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.59-0.92) for the training, test and external test datasets, respectively. The test set accuracy was 73% (95% CI: 65-81%) and resulted in 66.67% improvements in potentially missed [8/12] or delayed [6/9] cancers, compared to the radiologist with performance closest to the mean of six readers.

CONCLUSIONS

SN-RPV may provide net-benefit in terms of earlier cancer diagnosis.

Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT: What We Have Learned in Two Decades of ITALUNG and What Is Yet to Be Addressed

The ITALUNG trial started in 2004 and compared lung cancer (LC) and other-causes mortality in 55-69 years-aged smokers and ex-smokers who were randomized to four annual chest low-dose CT (LDCT) or usual care. ITALUNG showed a lower LC and cardiovascular mortality in the screened subjects after 13 years of follow-up, especially in women, and produced many ancillary studies. They included recruitment results of a population-based mimicking approach, development of software for computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) and lung nodules volumetry, LDCT assessment of pulmonary emphysema and coronary artery calcifications (CAC) and their relevance to long-term mortality, results of a smoking-cessation intervention, assessment of the radiations dose associated with screening LDCT, and the results of biomarkers assays. Moreover, ITALUNG data indicated that screen-detected LCs are mostly already present at baseline LDCT, can present as lung cancer associated with cystic airspaces, and can be multiple. However, several issues of LC screening are still unaddressed. They include the annual vs. biennial pace of LDCT, choice between opportunistic or population-based recruitment. and between uni or multi-centre screening, implementation of CAD-assisted reading, containment of false positive and negative LDCT results, incorporation of emphysema. and CAC quantification in models of personalized LC and mortality risk, validation of ultra-LDCT acquisitions, optimization of the smoking-cessation intervention. and prospective validation of the biomarkers.

Single CT Appointment for Double Lung and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Is the Time Ripe?

Annual screening of lung cancer (LC) with chest low-dose computed tomography (CT) and screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) with CT colonography every 5 years are recommended by the United States Prevention Service Task Force. We review epidemiological and pathological data on LC and CRC, and the features of screening chest low-dose CT and CT colonography comprising execution, reading, radiation exposure and harm, and the cost effectiveness of the two CT screening interventions. The possibility of combining chest low-dose CT and CT colonography examinations for double LC and CRC screening in a single CT appointment is then addressed. We demonstrate how this approach appears feasible and is already reasonable as an opportunistic screening intervention in 50–75-year-old subjects with smoking history and average CRC risk. In addition to the crucial role Computer Assisted Diagnosis systems play in decreasing the test reading times and the need to educate radiologists in screening chest LDCT and CT colonography, in view of a single CT appointment for double screening, the following uncertainties need to be solved: (1) the schedule of the screening CT; (2) the effectiveness of iterative reconstruction and deep learning algorithms affording an ultra-low-dose CT acquisition technique and (3) management of incidental findings. Resolving these issues will imply new cost-effectiveness analyses for LC screening with chest low dose CT and for CRC screening with CT colonography and, especially, for the double LC and CRC screening with a single-appointment CT.

Impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening on lung cancer-related mortality

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death in the world, however lung cancer screening has not been implemented in most countries at a population level. A previous Cochrane Review found limited evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening with chest radiography (CXR) or sputum cytology in reducing lung cancer-related mortality, however there has been increasing evidence supporting screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).  OBJECTIVES: To determine whether screening for lung cancer using LDCT of the chest reduces lung cancer-related mortality and to evaluate the possible harms of LDCT screening.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed the search in collaboration with the Information Specialist of the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group and included the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Trial Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library, current issue), MEDLINE (accessed via PubMed) and Embase in our search. We also searched the clinical trial registries to identify unpublished and ongoing trials. We did not impose any restriction on language of publication. The search was performed up to 31 July 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of lung cancer screening using LDCT and reporting mortality or harm outcomes.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors were involved in independently assessing trials for eligibility, extraction of trial data and characteristics, and assessing risk of bias of the included trials using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were lung cancer-related mortality and harms of screening. We performed a meta-analysis, where appropriate, for all outcomes using a random-effects model. We only included trials in the analysis of mortality outcomes if they had at least 5 years of follow-up. We reported risk ratios (RRs) and hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and used the I2 statistic to investigate heterogeneity.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 trials in this review with a total of 94,445 participants. Trials were conducted in Europe and the USA in people aged 40 years or older, with most trials having an entry requirement of ≥ 20 pack-year smoking history (e.g. 1 pack of cigarettes/day for 20 years or 2 packs/day for 10 years etc.). One trial included male participants only. Eight trials were phase three RCTs, with two feasibility RCTs and one pilot RCT. Seven of the included trials had no screening as a comparison, and four trials had CXR screening as a comparator. Screening frequency included annual, biennial and incrementing intervals. The duration of screening ranged from 1 year to 10 years. Mortality follow-up was from 5 years to approximately 12 years.  None of the included trials were at low risk of bias across all domains. The certainty of evidence was moderate to low across different outcomes, as assessed by GRADE. In the meta-analysis of trials assessing lung cancer-related mortality, we included eight trials (91,122 participants), and there was a reduction in mortality of 21% with LDCT screening compared to control groups of no screening or CXR screening (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87; 8 trials, 91,122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were probably no differences in subgroups for analyses by control type, sex, geographical region, and nodule management algorithm. Females appeared to have a larger lung cancer-related mortality benefit compared to males with LDCT screening. There was also a reduction in all-cause mortality (including lung cancer-related) of 5% (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99; 8 trials, 91,107 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  Invasive tests occurred more frequently in the LDCT group (RR 2.60, 95% CI 2.41 to 2.80; 3 trials, 60,003 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, analysis of 60-day postoperative mortality was not significant between groups (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.94; 2 trials, 409 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  False-positive results and recall rates were higher with LDCT screening compared to screening with CXR, however there was low-certainty evidence in the meta-analyses due to heterogeneity and risk of bias concerns. Estimated overdiagnosis with LDCT screening was 18%, however the 95% CI was 0 to 36% (risk difference (RD) 0.18, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.36; 5 trials, 28,656 participants; low-certainty evidence). Four trials compared different aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using various measures. Anxiety was pooled from three trials, with participants in LDCT screening reporting lower anxiety scores than in the control group (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.43, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.27; 3 trials, 8153 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data to comment on the impact of LDCT screening on smoking behaviour.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence supports a reduction in lung cancer-related mortality with the use of LDCT for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations (those over the age of 40 with a significant smoking exposure). However, there are limited data on harms and further trials are required to determine participant selection and optimal frequency and duration of screening, with potential for significant overdiagnosis of lung cancer. Trials are ongoing for lung cancer screening in non-smokers.

False-Negative Results in Lung Cancer Screening-Evidence and Controversies

Identifying false-negative cases is an important quality metric in lung cancer screening, but it has been infrequently and variably reported in previous studies. Although as a proportion of all screening participants, false-negative cases are uncommon, such cases may constitute a substantial proportion of all lung cancers diagnosed (up to 15%) within a screening program. This article reviews the impact and causes of false-negative lung cancer screening tests, including those related to radiologic evaluation, nodule management protocols, and management decisions made by multidisciplinary teams. Following a review of data from international screening studies, this article discusses the controversies within the screening literature surrounding the definition and classification of a false-negative lung cancer screening test and how data on false-negative rates should be captured and recorded. Challenges, such as avoiding overly cautious surveillance of lung nodules while minimizing overdiagnosis and investigation of indolent or benign lesions, are considered. Finally, the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to dealing with false-negative results in lung cancer screening are discussed.

Screen-detected multiple primary lung cancers in the ITALUNG trial

Occurrence of multiple primary lung cancers (MPLC) in individuals undergoing low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening has not been thoroughly addressed. We investigated MPLC in subjects recruited in the ITALUNG randomized clinical trial. Cases of cytologically/histologically proven MPLC detected at screening LDCT or follow-up CT were selected and pathologically re-evaluated according to the WHO 2015 classification. Overall 16 MPLC were diagnosed at screening LDCT (n=14, all present at baseline) or follow-up CT (n=2) in six subjects (4 in one subject, 3 in two and 2 in three subjects), representing 0.43% of the 1,406 screenees and 15.8% of the 38 subjects with at least one screen-detected primary lung cancer. MPLC included 9 adenocarcinomas in three subjects and a combination of 7 different tumour histotypes in three subjects. MPLC, mostly adenocarcinomas, are not uncommon in smokers and ex-smokers with at least one LDCT screen detected primary lung cancer.

Pleural plaques in lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: prevalence, association with lung cancer and mortality

Background

To report the prevalence of pleural plaques in a lung cancer screening trial by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and to test the association with incidence of lung cancer and mortality.

Methods

The LDCT of 2303 screenees were retrospectively reviewed with the specific aim of describing the prevalence and features of pleural plaques. Self-administered questionnaire was used to assess asbestos exposure. Frequency of lung cancer, lung cancer mortality, and overall mortality were detailed according to presence of pleural findings. Statistical analyses included comparison of mean or median, contingency tables, and Cox model for calculation of hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Among male screenees, 31/1570 (2%) showed pleural abnormalities, 128/1570 (8.2%) disclosed asbestos exposure, 23/31 (74.2%) subjects with pleural plaques consistently denied exposure to asbestos. There was a trend for higher frequency of lung cancer among subjects with pleural plaques (9.7% vs 4.2%). Lung cancer in subjects with pleural plaques was always diagnosed in advanced stage. Subjects with pleural plaques showed HR 5.48 (95% CI 1.61–18.70) for mortality from lung cancer.

Conclusions

Pleural plaques are a risk factor for lung cancer mortality that can be detected in lung cancer screening by LDCT, also in subjects that are not aware of asbestos exposure.

Trial registration

NCT02837809 - Retrospectively registered July 1, 2016 - Enrolment of first participant September 2005.

Evaluation of the solitary pulmonary nodule: size matters, but do not ignore the power of morphology

Abstract

Subsequent to the widespread use of multidetector computed tomography and growing interest in lung cancer screening, small pulmonary nodules are more frequently detected. The differential diagnosis for a solitary pulmonary nodule is extremely broad and includes both benign and malignant causes. Recognition of early lung cancers is vital, since stage at diagnosis is crucial for prognosis. Estimation of the probability of malignancy is a challenging task, but crucial for follow-up and further work-up. In addition to the clinical setting and metabolic assessment, morphological assessment on thin-section computed tomography is essential. Size and growth are key factors in assessment of the malignant potential of a nodule. The likelihood of malignancy positively correlates with nodule diameter: as the diameter increases, so does the likelihood of malignancy. Although there is a considerable overlap in the features of benign and malignant nodules, the importance of morphology however should not be underestimated. Features that are associated with benignity include a perifissural location and triangular morphology, internal fat and benign calcifications. Malignancy is suspected in nodules presenting with spiculation, lobulation, pleural indentation, vascular convergence sign, associated cystic airspace, bubble-like lucencies, irregular air bronchogram, and subsolid morphology. Nodules often show different features and combination of findings is certainly more powerful.

Teaching points

• Size of a pulmonary nodule is important, but morphological assessment should not be underestimated.

• Lung nodules should be evaluated on thin section CT, in both lung and mediastinal window setting.

• Features associated with benignity include a triangular morphology, internal fat and calcifications.

• Spiculation, pleural retraction and notch sign are highly suggestive of a malignant nature.

• Complex features (e.g. bubble-like lucencies) are highly indicative of a malignant nature.

Incidental perifissural nodules on routine chest computed tomography: lung cancer or not?

Objectives

Perifissural nodules (PFNs) are a common finding on chest CT, and are thought to represent non-malignant lesions. However, data outside a lung cancer-screening setting are currently lacking.

Methods

In a nested case-control design, out of a total cohort of 16,850 patients ≥ 40 years of age who underwent routine chest CT (2004-2012), 186 eligible subjects with incident lung cancer and 511 controls without were investigated. All non-calcified nodules ≥ 4 mm were semi-automatically annotated. Lung cancer location and subject characteristics were recorded.

Results

Cases (56 % male) had a median age of 64 years (IQR 59–70). Controls (60 % male) were slightly younger (p<0.01), median age of 61 years (IQR 51–70). A total of 262/1,278 (21 %) unique non-calcified nodules represented a PFN. None of these were traced to a lung malignancy over a median follow-up of around 4.5 years. PFNs were most often located in the lower lung zones (72 %, p<0.001). Median diameter was 4.6 mm (range: 4.0–8.1), volume 51 mm³ (range: 32–278). Some showed growth rates < 400 days.

Conclusions

Our data show that incidental PFNs do not represent lung cancer in a routine care, heterogeneous population. This confirms prior screening-based results.

Key Points

• One-fifth of non-calcified nodules represented a perifissural nodule in our non-screening population.

• PFNs fairly often show larger size, and can show interval growth.

• When morphologically resembling a PFN, nodules are nearly certainly not a malignancy.

• The assumed benign aetiology of PFNs seems valid outside the screening setting.

Multimodal lung cancer screening using the ITALUNG biomarker panel and low dose computed tomography. Results of the ITALUNG biomarker study

Asymptomatic high-risk subjects, randomized in the intervention arm of the ITALUNG trial (1,406 screened for lung cancer), were enrolled for the ITALUNG biomarker study (n = 1,356), in which samples of blood and sputum were analyzed for plasma DNA quantification (cut off 5 ng/ml), loss of heterozygosity and microsatellite instability. The ITALUNG biomarker panel (IBP) was considered positive if at least one of the two biomarkers included in the panel was positive. Subjects with and without lung cancer diagnosis at the end of the screening cycle with LDCT (n = 517) were evaluated. Out of 18 baseline screen detected lung cancer cases, 17 were IBP positive (94%). Repeat screen-detected lung cancer cases were 18 and 12 of them positive at baseline IBP test (66%). Interval cancer cases (2-years) and biomarker tests after a suspect Non Calcific Nodule follow-up were investigated. The single test versus multimodal screening measures of accuracy were compared in a simulation within the screened ITALUNG intervention arm, considering screen-detected and interval cancer cases. Sensitivity was 90% at baseline screening. Specificity was 71 and 61% for LDCT and IBP as baseline single test, and improved at 89% with multimodal, combined screening. The positive predictive value was 4.3% for LDCT at baseline and 10.6% for multimodal screening. Multimodal screening could improve the screening efficiency at baseline and strategies for future implementation are discussed. If IBP was used as primary screening test, the LDCT burden might decrease of about 60%.

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT in Europe: strength and weakness of diverse independent screening trials

A North American trial reported a significant reduction of lung cancer mortality and overall mortality as a result of annual screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). European trials prospectively tested a variety of possible screening strategies. The main topics of current discussion regarding the optimal screening strategy are pre-test selection of the high-risk population, interval length of LDCT rounds, definition of positive finding, and post-test apportioning of lung cancer risk based on LDCT findings. Despite the current lack of statistical evidence regarding mortality reduction, the European independent diverse strategies offer a multi-perspective view on screening complexity, with remarkable indications for improvements in cost-effectiveness and harm-benefit balance. The UKLS trial reported the advantage of a comprehensive and simple risk model for selection of patients with 5% risk of lung cancer in 5 years. Subjective risk prediction by biological sampling is under investigation. The MILD trial reported equal efficiency for biennial and annual screening rounds, with a significant reduction in the total number of LDCT examinations. The NELSON trial introduced volumetric quantification of nodules at baseline and volume-doubling time (VDT) for assessment of progression. Post-test risk refinement based on LDCT findings (qualitative or quantitative) is under investigation. Smoking cessation remains the most appropriate strategy for mortality reduction, and it must therefore remain an integral component of any lung cancer screening programme.

Spectrum of early lung cancer presentation in low-dose screening CT: a pictorial review

The typical presentation of early stage lung cancers on low-dose CT screening are non-calcified pulmonary nodules. However, there is a wide spectrum of unusual focal abnormalities that can be early presentations of lung cancer. These abnormalities include, for example, cancers associated with 'cystic airspaces' or scar-like cancers. The detection of lung cancer with low-dose CT can be affected by the absence of intravenous contrast medium. As a consequence, endobronchial and central lesions can be difficult to recognize, raising the potential for missed cancers. Focal lesions arising within pre-existing lung disease, such as lung fibrosis or apical scars, can also be early lung cancer manifestations and deserve particular consideration as recognition of these lesions may be hindered by the underlying disease. Furthermore, the unpredictable growth rate of lung cancer, which ranges from indolent to aggressive cancers, necessitates attention to the wide spectrum of progression in lung cancer appearance on serial low-dose CT scans. In this pictorial review we discuss the spectrum of early lung cancer presentation in low-dose CT screening, highlighting typical as well as unusual radiological features and the varied growth rates of early lung cancer. Teaching Points • There is a wide spectrum of early presentations of lung cancer on LDCT. • Low radiation dose and the absence of contrast medium injection can affect lung cancer detection. • Lung cancer growth shows various behaviours, ranging from indolent to aggressive cancers. • Familiarity with LDCT technique can improve CT screening effectiveness and avoid missed diagnosis.