The Cost-Effectiveness of High-Risk Lung Cancer Screening and Drivers of Program Efficiency

Improving Lung Cancer Screening Selection: The HUNT Lung Cancer Risk Model for Ever-Smokers Versus the NELSON and 2021 United States Preventive Services Task Force Criteria in the Cohort of Norway: A Population-Based Prospective Study

Background

Improving the method for selecting participants for lung cancer (LC) screening is an urgent need. Here, we compared the performance of the Helseundersøkelsen i Nord-Trøndelag (HUNT) Lung Cancer Model (HUNT LCM) versus the Dutch-Belgian lung cancer screening trial (Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON)) and 2021 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria regarding LC risk prediction and efficiency.

Methods

We used linked data from 10 Norwegian prospective population-based cohorts, Cohort of Norway. The study included 44,831 ever-smokers, of which 686 (1.5%) patients developed LC; the median follow-up time was 11.6 years (0.01-20.8 years).

Results

Within 6 years, 222 (0.5%) individuals developed LC. The NELSON and 2021 USPSTF criteria predicted 37.4% and 59.5% of the LC cases, respectively. By considering the same number of individuals as the NELSON and 2021 USPSTF criteria selected, the HUNT LCM increased the LC prediction rate by 41.0% and 12.1%, respectively. The HUNT LCM significantly increased sensitivity (p < 0.001 and p = 0.028), and reduced the number needed to predict one LC case (29 versus 40, p < 0.001 and 36 versus 40, p = 0.02), respectively. Applying the HUNT LCM 6-year 0.98% risk score as a cutoff (14.0% of ever-smokers) predicted 70.7% of all LC, increasing LC prediction rate with 89.2% and 18.9% versus the NELSON and 2021 USPSTF, respectively (both p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The HUNT LCM was significantly more efficient than the NELSON and 2021 USPSTF criteria, improving the prediction of LC diagnosis, and may be used as a validated clinical tool for screening selection.

Rural communities experience higher radon exposure versus urban areas, potentially due to drilled groundwater well annuli acting as unintended radon gas migration conduits

Repetitive, long-term inhalation of radioactive radon gas is one of the leading causes of lung cancer, with exposure differences being a function of geographic location, built environment, personal demographics, activity patterns, and decision-making. Here, we examine radon exposure disparities across the urban-to-rural landscape, based on 42,051 Canadian residential properties in 2034 distinct communities. People living in rural, lower population density communities experience as much as 31.2% greater average residential radon levels relative to urban equivalents, equating to an additional 26.7 Bq/m3 excess in geometric mean indoor air radon, and an additional 1 mSv/year in excess alpha radiation exposure dose rate to the lungs for occupants. Pairwise and multivariate analyses indicate that community-based radon exposure disparities are, in part, explained by increased prevalence of larger floorplan bungalows in rural areas, but that a majority of the effect is attributed to proximity to, but not water use from, drilled groundwater wells. We propose that unintended radon gas migration in the annulus of drilled groundwater wells provides radon migration pathways from the deeper subsurface into near-surface materials. Our findings highlight a previously under-appreciated determinant of radon-induced lung cancer risk, and support a need for targeted radon testing and reduction in rural communities.

Sensitivity of US Preventive Services Task Force and PLCOm2012 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria in individuals with lung cancer in South Dakota self-reporting as Indigenous and non-Indigenous

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Screening individuals who are at elevated risk using low-dose computed tomography reduces lung cancer mortality by ≥20%. Individuals who have community-based factors that contribute to an increased risk of developing lung cancer have high lung cancer rates and are diagnosed at younger ages. In this study of lung cancer in South Dakota, the authors compared the sensitivity of screening eligibility criteria for self-reported Indigenous race and evaluated the need for screening at younger ages.

METHODS

US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2013 and 2021 (USPSTF2013 and USPSTF2021) criteria and two versions of the PLCOm2012 risk-prediction model (based on the 2012 Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian [PLCO] Cancer Screening Trial), one with a predictor for race and one without, were applied at USPSTF-equivalent thresholds of ≥1.7% in 6 years and ≥1.0% in 6 years to 1565 individuals who were sequentially diagnosed with lung cancer (of whom 12.7% self-reported as Indigenous) at the Monument Health Cancer Care Institute in South Dakota (2010-2019).

RESULTS

Eligibility sensitivities of USPSTF criteria did not differ significantly between individuals who self-reported their race as Indigenous and those who did not (p > .05). Sensitivities of both PLCOm2012 models were significantly higher than comparable USPSTF criteria. The sensitivity of USPSTF2021 criteria was 66.1% and, for comparable PLCOm2012 models with and without race, sensitivity was 90.7% and 89.6%, respectively (both p < .001); 1.4% of individuals were younger than 50 years, and proportions did not differ by Indigenous classification (p = .518).

CONCLUSIONS

Disparities in screening eligibility were not observed for individuals who self-reported their race as Indigenous. USPSTF criteria had lower sensitivities for lung cancer eligibility. Both PLCOm2012 models had high sensitivities, with higher sensitivity for the model that included race. The PLCOm2012noRace model selected effectively in this population, and screening individuals younger than 50 years did not appear to be justified.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Studies show that using low-dose computed tomography scans to screen people who smoke or who used to smoke and are at elevated risk for lung cancer reduces lung cancer deaths. This study of 1565 individuals with lung cancer in South Dakota compared screening eligibility using US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and a lung cancer risk-prediction model (PLCOm2012; from the 2012 Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian [PLCO] Cancer Screening Trial). The model had higher sensitivity and picked more people with lung cancer to screen compared with USPSTF criteria. Eligibility sensitivities were similar for individuals who self-reported as Indigenous versus those who did not between USPSTF criteria and the model.

Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening and Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the US

Importance

The revised 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for lung cancer screening have been shown to reduce disparities in screening eligibility and performance between African American and White individuals vs the 2013 guidelines. However, potential disparities across other racial and ethnic groups in the US remain unknown. Risk model-based screening may reduce racial and ethnic disparities and improve screening performance, but neither validation of key risk prediction models nor their screening performance has been examined by race and ethnicity.

Objective

To validate and recalibrate the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial 2012 (PLCOm2012) model-a well-established risk prediction model based on a predominantly White population-across races and ethnicities in the US and evaluate racial and ethnic disparities and screening performance through risk-based screening using PLCOm2012 vs the USPSTF 2021 criteria.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In a population-based cohort design, the Multiethnic Cohort Study enrolled participants in 1993-1996, followed up through December 31, 2018. Data analysis was conducted from April 1, 2022, to May 19. 2023. A total of 105 261 adults with a smoking history were included.

Exposures

The 6-year lung cancer risk was calculated through recalibrated PLCOm2012 (ie, PLCOm2012-Update) and screening eligibility based on a 6-year risk threshold greater than or equal to 1.3%, yielding similar eligibility as the USPSTF 2021 guidelines.

Outcomes

Predictive accuracy, screening eligibility-incidence (E-I) ratio (ie, ratio of the number of eligible to incident cases), and screening performance (sensitivity, specificity, and number needed to screen to detect 1 lung cancer).

Results

Of 105 261 participants (60 011 [57.0%] men; mean [SD] age, 59.8 [8.7] years), consisting of 19 258 (18.3%) African American, 27 227 (25.9%) Japanese American, 21 383 (20.3%) Latino, 8368 (7.9%) Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and 29 025 (27.6%) White individuals, 1464 (1.4%) developed lung cancer within 6 years from enrollment. The PLCOm2012-Update showed good predictive accuracy across races and ethnicities (area under the curve, 0.72-0.82). The USPSTF 2021 criteria yielded a large disparity among African American individuals, whose E-I ratio was 53% lower vs White individuals (E-I ratio: 9.5 vs 20.3; P < .001). Under the risk-based screening (PLCOm2012-Update 6-year risk ≥1.3%), the disparity between African American and White individuals was substantially reduced (E-I ratio: 15.9 vs 18.4; P < .001), with minimal disparities observed in persons of other minoritized groups, including Japanese American, Latino, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. Risk-based screening yielded superior overall and race and ethnicity-specific performance to the USPSTF 2021 criteria, with higher overall sensitivity (67.2% vs 57.7%) and lower number needed to screen (26 vs 30) at similar specificity (76.6%).

Conclusions

The findings of this cohort study suggest that risk-based lung cancer screening can reduce racial and ethnic disparities and improve screening performance across races and ethnicities vs the USPSTF 2021 criteria.

Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: How Much Uncertainty Is in the Results?

Cost-effectiveness analyses of new cancer treatments in real-world settings (e.g., post-clinical trials) inform healthcare decision makers about their healthcare investments for patient populations. The results of these analyses are often, though not always, presented with statistical uncertainty. This paper identifies five ways to characterize statistical uncertainty: (1) a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); (2) a 95% CI for the incremental net benefit (INB); (3) an INB by willingness-to-pay (WTP) plot; (4) a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC); and (5) a cost-effectiveness scatterplot. It also explores their usage in 22 articles previously identified by a rapid review of real-world cost effectiveness of novel cancer treatments. Seventy-seven percent of these articles presented uncertainty results. The majority those papers (59%) used administrative data to inform their analyses while the remaining were conducted using models. Cost-effectiveness scatterplots were the most commonly used method (34.3%), with 40% indicating high levels of statistical uncertainty, suggesting the possibility of a qualitatively different result from the estimate given. Understanding the necessity for and the meaning of uncertainty in real-world cost-effectiveness analysis will strengthen knowledge translation efforts to improve patient outcomes in an efficient manner.

Population-Based Screening Using Low-Dose Chest Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations

BACKGROUND

Chest low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a promising technology for population-based screening because it is non-invasive, relatively inexpensive, associated with low radiation and highly sensitive to lung cancer. To improve the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening, simultaneous screening for other diseases could be considered. This systematic review was conducted to analyse studies that published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of chest LDCT screening programs for different diseases.

METHODS

Scopus and PubMed were searched for English publications (1 January 2011-22 July 2022) using search terms related to screening, computed tomography and cost-effectiveness. An additional search specifically searched for the cost-effectiveness of screening for lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cardiovascular disease. Included publications should present a full health economic evaluation of population screening with chest LDCT. The extracted data included the disease screened for, model type, country context of screening, inclusion of comorbidities or incidental findings, incremental costs, incremental effects and the resulting cost-effectiveness ratio amongst others. Reporting quality was assessed using the 2022 Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1799 unique papers, of which 43 were included. Most papers focused on lung cancer screening (n = 40), and three were on coronary calcium scoring. Microsimulation was the most commonly applied modelling type (n = 16), followed by life table analysis (n = 10) and Markov cohort models (n = 10). Studies reflected the healthcare context of the US (n = 15), Canada (n = 4), the UK (n = 3) and 13 other countries. The reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from US$10,000 to US$90,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for lung cancer screening compared to no screening and was US$15,900/QALY-US$45,300/QALY for coronary calcium scoring compared to no screening.

DISCUSSION

Almost all health economic evaluations of LDCT screening focused on lung cancer. Literature regarding the health economic benefits of simultaneous LDCT screening for multiple diseases is absent. Most studies suggest LDCT screening is cost-effective for current and former smokers aged 55-74 with a minimum of 30 pack-years of smoking history. Consequently, more evidence on LDCT is needed to support further cost-effectiveness analyses. Preferably evidence on simultaneous screening for multiple diseases is needed, but alternatively, on single-disease screening.

REGISTRATION OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews registration CRD42021290228 can be accessed https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=290228 .

Estimating time and transportation costs associated with lung cancer screening and diagnostic lung procedures in Taiwan: a cross-sectional survey in a medical centre

OBJECTIVES

Earlier research has evaluated the non-medical costs after lung cancer diagnosis. This study estimated the time costs and transportation costs associated with low-dose CT (LDCT) screening and diagnostic lung procedures in Taiwan.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

A tertiary referral medical centre.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

The study participants were individuals aged 50-80 years who underwent LDCT screening or diagnostic lung procedures between 2021 and 2022. Participants completed a questionnaire including items on time spent on receiving care, time spent on travel and its cost and time taken off from work by the participant and any accompanying caregiver.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Time costs were valued using the age- and sex-specific average daily wage for employed participants/caregivers. Costs of informal healthcare sector consisted of time cost of the participant, transportation cost and time cost of the caregiver.

RESULTS

A total of 209 participants who underwent LDCT screening (n=84) or non-surgical (n=12) or surgical (n=113) diagnostic lung procedures for the first time were enrolled. Considering the purchasing power parity, the average costs of informal healthcare sector were US$126.4 (95% CI 101.6 to 151.2), US$290.7 (95% CI 106.9 to 474.5) and US$749.8 (95% CI 567.3 to 932.4), respectively, for LDCT screening, non-surgical procedures and surgical procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

This study estimated time and transportation costs associated with LDCT screening and diagnostic lung procedures, which could be used for future analysis of cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening in Taiwan.

LDANet: Automatic lung parenchyma segmentation from CT images

Automatic segmentation of the lung parenchyma from computed tomography (CT) images is helpful for the subsequent diagnosis and treatment of patients. In this paper, based on a deep learning algorithm, a lung dense attention network (LDANet) is proposed with two mechanisms: residual spatial attention (RSA) and gated channel attention (GCA). RSA is utilized to weight the spatial information of the lung parenchyma and suppress feature activation in irrelevant regions, while the weights of each channel are adaptively calibrated using GCA to implicitly predict potential key features. Then, a dual attention guidance module (DAGM) is designed to maximize the integration of the advantages of both mechanisms. In addition, LDANet introduces a lightweight dense block (LDB) that reuses feature information and a positioned transpose block (PTB) that realizes accurate positioning and gradually restores the image resolution until the predicted segmentation map is generated. Experiments are conducted on two public datasets, LIDC-IDRI and COVID-19 CT Segmentation, on which LDANet achieves Dice similarity coefficient values of 0.98430 and 0.98319, respectively, outperforming a state-of-the-art lung segmentation model. Additionally, the effectiveness of the main components of LDANet is demonstrated through ablation experiments.

Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

In their 2021 lung cancer screening recommendation update, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) evaluated strategies that select people based on their personal lung cancer risk (risk model-based strategies), highlighting the need for further research on the benefits and harms of risk model-based screening.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of risk model-based lung cancer screening strategies versus the USPSTF recommendation and to explore optimal risk thresholds.

DESIGN

Comparative modeling analysis.

DATA SOURCES

National Lung Screening Trial; Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; U.S. Smoking History Generator.

TARGET POPULATION

1960 U.S. birth cohort.

TIME HORIZON

45 years.

PERSPECTIVE

U.S. health care sector.

INTERVENTION

Annual low-dose computed tomography in risk model-based strategies that start screening at age 50 or 55 years, stop screening at age 80 years, with 6-year risk thresholds between 0.5% and 2.2% using the PLCOm2012 model.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier connecting strategies with the highest health benefit at a given cost.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

Risk model-based screening strategies were more cost-effective than the USPSTF recommendation and exclusively comprised the cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier. Among the strategies on the efficiency frontier, those with a 6-year risk threshold of 1.2% or greater were cost-effective with an ICER less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Specifically, the strategy with a 1.2% risk threshold had an ICER of $94 659 (model range, $72 639 to $156 774), yielding more QALYs for less cost than the USPSTF recommendation, while having a similar level of screening coverage (person ever-screened 21.7% vs. USPSTF's 22.6%).

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

Risk model-based strategies were robustly more cost-effective than the 2021 USPSTF recommendation under varying modeling assumptions.

LIMITATION

Risk models were restricted to age, sex, and smoking-related risk predictors.

CONCLUSION

Risk model-based screening is more cost-effective than the USPSTF recommendation, thus warranting further consideration.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute (NCI).

Economic impact of using risk models for eligibility selection to the International lung screening Trial

OBJECTIVES

Using risk models as eligibility criteria for lung screening can reduce race and sex-based disparities. We used data from the International Lung Screening Trial(ILST; NCT02871856) to compare the economic impact of using the PLCOm2012 risk model or the US Preventative Services' categorical age-smoking history-based criteria (USPSTF-2013).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of using PLCOm2012 versus USPSTF-2013 was evaluated with a decision analytic model based on the ILST and other screening trials. The primary outcomes were costs in 2020 International Dollars ($), quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental net benefit (INB, in $ per QALY). Secondary outcomes were selection characteristics and cancer detection rates (CDR).

RESULTS

Compared with the USPSTF-2013 criteria, the PLCOm2012 risk model resulted in $355 of cost savings per 0.2 QALYs gained (INB=$4294 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $20 000/QALY (95 %CI: $4205-$4383). Using the risk model was more cost-effective in females at both a 1.5 % and 1.7 % 6-year risk threshold (INB=$6616 and $6112, respectively), compared with males ($5221 and $695). The PLCOm2012 model selected more females, more individuals with fewer years of formal education, and more people with other respiratory illnesses in the ILST. The CDR with the risk model was higher in females compared with the USPSTF-2013 criteria (Risk Ratio = 7.67, 95 % CI: 1.87-31.38).

CONCLUSION

The PLCOm2012 model saved costs, increased QALYs and mitigated socioeconomic and sex-based disparities in access to screening.

Updated cost-effectiveness analysis of lung cancer screening for Australia, capturing differences in the health economic impact of NELSON and NLST outcomes

BACKGROUND

A national, lung cancer screening programme is under consideration in Australia, and we assessed cost-effectiveness using updated data and assumptions.

METHODS

We estimated the cost-effectiveness of lung screening by applying screening parameters and outcomes from either the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) or the NEderlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) to Australian data on lung cancer risk, mortality, health-system costs, and smoking trends using a deterministic, multi-cohort model. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

The ICER for lung screening compared to usual care in the NELSON-based scenario was AU$39,250 (95% CI $18,150-108,300) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY); lower than the NLST-based estimate (ICER = $76,300, 95% CI $41,750-236,500). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, lung screening was cost-effective in 15%/60% of NELSON-like simulations, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $30,000/$50,000 per QALY, respectively, compared to 0.5%/6.7% for the NLST. ICERs were most sensitive to assumptions regarding the screening-related lung cancer mortality benefit and duration of benefit over time. The cost of screening had a larger impact on ICERs than the cost of treatment, even after quadrupling the 2006-2016 healthcare costs of stage IV lung cancer.

DISCUSSION

Lung screening could be cost-effective in Australia, contingent on translating trial-like lung cancer mortality benefits to the clinic.

EarlyCDT Lung blood test for risk classification of solid pulmonary nodules: systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

EarlyCDT Lung (Oncimmune Holdings plc, Nottingham, UK) is a blood test to assess malignancy risk in people with solid pulmonary nodules. It measures the presence of seven lung cancer-associated autoantibodies. Elevated levels of these autoantibodies may indicate malignant disease. The results of the test might be used to modify the risk of malignancy estimated by existing risk calculators, including the Brock and Herder models.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to determine the diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of EarlyCDT Lung; and to develop a conceptual model and identify evidence requirements for a robust cost-effectiveness analysis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (including Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily and Ovid MEDLINE), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Science Citation Index, EconLit, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database ( NHS EED ) and the international Health Technology Assessment database were searched on 8 March 2021.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review was performed of evidence on EarlyCDT Lung, including diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Study quality was assessed with the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2 tool. Evidence on other components of the pulmonary nodule diagnostic pathway (computerised tomography surveillance, Brock risk, Herder risk, positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and biopsy) was also reviewed. When feasible, bivariate meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy were performed. Clinical outcomes were synthesised narratively. A simulation study investigated the clinical impact of using EarlyCDT Lung. Additional reviews of cost-effectiveness studies evaluated (1) other diagnostic strategies for lung cancer and (2) screening approaches for lung cancer. A conceptual model was developed.

RESULTS

A total of 47 clinical publications on EarlyCDT Lung were identified, but only five cohorts (695 patients) reported diagnostic accuracy data on patients with pulmonary nodules. All cohorts were small or at high risk of bias. EarlyCDT Lung on its own was found to have poor diagnostic accuracy, with a summary sensitivity of 20.2% (95% confidence interval 10.5% to 35.5%) and specificity of 92.2% (95% confidence interval 86.2% to 95.8%). This sensitivity was substantially lower than that estimated by the manufacturer (41.3%). No evidence on the clinical impact of EarlyCDT Lung was identified. The simulation study suggested that EarlyCDT Lung might potentially have some benefit when considering intermediate risk nodules (10-70% risk) after Herder risk analysis. Two cost-effectiveness studies on EarlyCDT Lung for pulmonary nodules were identified; none was considered suitable to inform the current decision problem. The conceptualisation process identified three core components for a future cost-effectiveness assessment of EarlyCDT Lung: (1) the features of the subpopulations and relevant heterogeneity, (2) the way EarlyCDT Lung test results affect subsequent clinical management decisions and (3) how changes in these decisions can affect outcomes. All reviewed studies linked earlier diagnosis to stage progression and stage shift to final outcomes, but evidence on these components was sparse.

LIMITATIONS

The evidence on EarlyCDT Lung among patients with pulmonary nodules was very limited, preventing meta-analyses and economic analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence on EarlyCDT Lung among patients with pulmonary nodules is insufficient to draw any firm conclusions as to its diagnostic accuracy or clinical or economic value.

FUTURE WORK

Prospective cohort studies, in which EarlyCDT Lung is used among patients with identified pulmonary nodules, are required to support a future assessment of the clinical and economic value of this test. Studies should investigate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of EarlyCDT Lung in combination with Brock and Herder risk assessments. A well-designed cost-effectiveness study is also required, integrating emerging relevant evidence with the recommendations in this report.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021242248.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Implementation of an Integrated Lung Cancer Prevention and Screening Program Using a Mobile Computed Tomography (CT) Unit in Brazil

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the deadliest cancer worldwide and in Brazil. Despite strong evidence, lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in high-risk individuals is far from a reality in many countries, particularly in Brazil. Brazil has a universal public health system marked with important inequalities. One affordable strategy to increase the coverage of resources is to use mobile units.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the implementation and results of an innovative lung cancer prevention program that integrates tobacco cessation and lung cancer screening using a mobile CT unit.

METHODOLOGY

From May 2019 to Dec 2020, health professionals from 18 public primary health care units in Barretos, Brazil, were trained to offer smoking cessation counseling and treatment. Eligible high-risk participants of this program were also invited to perform lung cancer screening in a mobile LDCT unit that was specially conceived to be dispatched to the community. A detailed epidemiological questionnaire was administered to the LDCT participants.

RESULTS

Among the 233 screened participants, the majority were women (54.9%), and the average age was 62 years old. A total of 52.8% of participants showed high or very high nicotine dependence. After 1 year, 27.8% of participants who were involved in smoking cessation groups had quit smoking. The first LDCT round revealed that the majority of participants (83.7%) exhibited lung-Rads 1 or 2; 7.3% exhibited lung-Rads 3; 7.7% exhibited lung-Rads 4a; and 3% exhibited lung-Rads 4b or 4x. The three participants with lung-Rads 4b were further confirmed, and their surgery led to the diagnosis of early-stage cancer (1 case of adenocarcinoma and two cases of squamous cell carcinoma), leading to a cancer diagnosis rate of 12.8/1000.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate promising outcomes for an onsite integrative program enrolling high-risk individuals in a middle-income country. Evidence barriers and challenges remain to be overcome.

Rapid Review of Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Cancer Interventions in Canada

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CE Analysis) provides evidence about the incremental gains in patient outcomes costs from new treatments and interventions in cancer care. The utilization of "real-world" data allows these analyses to better reflect differences in costs and effects for actual patient populations with comorbidities and a range of ages as opposed to randomized controlled trials, which use a restricted population. This rapid review was done through PubMed and Google Scholar in July 2022. Relevant articles were summarized and data extracted to summarize changes in costs (in 2022 CAD) and effectiveness in cancer care once funded by the Canadian government payer system. We conducted statistical analyses to examine the differences between means and medians of costs, effects, and incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Twenty-two studies were selected for review. Of those, the majority performed a CE Analysis on cancer drugs. Real-world cancer drug studies had significantly higher costs and effects than non-drug therapies. Studies that utilized a model to project longer time-horizons saw significantly smaller ICER values for the treatments they examined. Further, differences in drug costs increased over time. This review highlights the importance of performing real-world CE Analysis on cancer treatments to better understand their costs and impacts on a general patient population.

Expected Cost Savings from Low Dose Computed Tomography Scan Screening for Lung Cancer in Alberta, Canada

Introduction

The expensive modern therapeutic regimens for advanced lung cancer (LC) stages have been recently approved. We evaluated whether low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) LC screening of high-risk Albertans is cost saving.

Methods

We used a decision analytical modeling technique with a health system perspective and a time horizon of 3 years to compare benefits associated with reduced health service utilization (HSU) from earlier diagnosis to the costs of screening. Using patient-level data, HSU costs by stage of disease were estimated for patients with LC, including inpatient, outpatient, and physician services, and costs for prescription drugs and cancer treatments.

Results

Of 101,000 people aged 55 to 74 years eligible for screening, an estimated 88,476 scans would be performed in Alberta in 3 years. Given LDCT sensitivity and specificity of 90.5% and 93.1%, respectively, we estimated that a stage shift toward earlier diagnosis would be expected whereby 43% more patients would be identified at stage 1 or 2 as compared with without screening. The estimated cost of screening is $35.6 million (M), whereas the stage shift associated with screening would avoid $42M in HSU costs. The net cost avoidance associated with screening is therefore $6.65M. The probability for the screening to be cost saving is estimated at 72%.

Conclusions

This study has revealed that LDCT LC screening is likely to be cost saving in Alberta. Adoption of this program into the provincial health care system is worth considering provided constraints in the system related to surgical capacity and CT wait times could be addressed.

Lung Cancer Screening: New Perspective and Challenges in Europe

Simple Summary

Screening for lung cancer in a high-risk population has been shown to be beneficial, with reduced mortality in large randomised trials. However, the general implementation of screening is not evident and many factors have to be considered. In this paper, we will review the current status of screening for lung cancer in Europe and the many hurdles that have to be overcome. Multidisciplinary cooperation between all specialists dealing with lung cancer is required to obtain the best outcome. Hopefully, Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan will incorporate screening for lung cancer to allow general implementation by similar programmes in every European Member State. This will also provide an opportunity for further, large-scale studies to refine the inclusion of specific risk populations, diagnosis and management of screen-detected nodules.

Abstract

Randomized-controlled trials have shown clear evidence that lung cancer screening with low-dose CT in a high-risk population of current or former smokers can significantly reduce lung-cancer-specific mortality by an inversion of stage distribution at diagnosis. This paper will review areas in which there is good or emerging evidence and areas which still require investment, research or represent implementation challenges. The implementation of population-based lung cancer screening in Europe is variable and fragmented. A number of European countries seem be on the verge of implementing lung cancer screening, mainly through the implementation of studies or trials. The cost and capacity of CT scanners and radiologists are considered to be the main hurdles for future implementation. Actions by the European Commission, related to its published Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan and the proposal to update recommendations on cancer screening, could be an incentive to help speed up its implementation.

Earlier diagnosis of lung cancer

The purpose of this article is to review options for more rapid diagnosis of lung cancer at an earlier stage, thereby improving survival. These options include screening, allowing general practitioners to refer patients directly to low-dose computed tomography scan instead of a chest X-ray and the abolition of the "visitation filter", i.e. hospital doctors' ability to reject referrals from general practitioners without prior discussion with the referring doctor.

Implementing lung cancer screening in Europe: taking a systems approach

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in Europe. Screening by means of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) can shift detection to an earlier stage and reduce lung cancer mortality in high-risk individuals. However, to date, Poland, Croatia, Italy, and Romania are the only European countries to commit to large-scale implementation of targeted LDCT screening. Using a health systems approach, this article evaluates key factors needed to enable the successful implementation of screening programs across Europe. Recent literature on LDCT screening was reviewed for 10 countries (Belgium, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom) and complemented by 17 semistructured interviews with local experts. Research findings were mapped against a health systems framework adapted for lung cancer screening. The European policy landscape is highly variable, but potential barriers to implementation are similar across countries and consistent with those reported for other cancer screening programs. While consistent quality and safety of screening must be ensured across all screening centers, system factors are also important. These include appropriate data infrastructure, targeted recruitment methods that ensure equity in participation, sufficient capacity and workforce training, full integration of screening with multidisciplinary care pathways, and smoking cessation programs. Stigma and underlying perceptions of lung cancer as a self-inflicted condition are also important considerations. Building on decades of implementation research, governments now have a unique opportunity to establish effective, efficient, and equitable lung cancer screening programs adapted to their health systems, curbing the impact of lung cancer on their populations.

Variation in Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer: A Methodological Review

OBJECTIVES

There is significant heterogeneity in the results of published model-based economic evaluations of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer. We sought to understand and demonstrate how these models differ.

METHODS

An expansion and update of a previous systematic review (N = 19). Databases (including MEDLINE and Embase) were searched. Studies were included if strategies involving (single or multiple) LDCT screening were compared with no screening or other imaging modalities, in a population at risk of lung cancer. More detailed data extraction of studies from the previous review was conducted. Studies were critically appraised using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list.

RESULTS

A total of 16 new studies met the inclusion criteria, giving a total of 35 studies. There are geographic and temporal differences and differences in screening intervals and eligible populations. Studies varied in the types of models used, for example, decision tree, Markov, and microsimulation models. Most conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (using life-years gained) or cost-utility analysis. The potential for overdiagnosis was considered in many models, unlike with other potential consequences of screening. Some studies report considering lead-time bias, but fewer mention length bias. Generally, the more recent studies, involving more complex modeling, tended to meet more of the critical appraisal criteria, with notable exceptions.

CONCLUSIONS

There are many differences across the economic evaluations contributing to variation in estimates of the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening for lung cancer. Several methodological factors and evidence needs have been highlighted that will require consideration in future economic evaluations to achieve better agreement.

The Future of Lung Cancer Screening: Current Challenges and Research Priorities

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, primarily because most people present when the stage is too advanced to offer any reasonable chance of cure. Over the last two decades, evidence has accumulated to show that early detection of lung cancer, using low-radiation dose computed tomography, in people at higher risk of the condition reduces their mortality. Many countries are now making progress with implementing programmes, although some have concerns about cost-effectiveness. Lung cancer screening is complex, and many factors influence clinical and cost-effectiveness. It is important to develop strategies to optimise each element of the intervention from selection and participation through optimal scanning, management of findings and treatment. The overall aim is to maximise benefits and minimise harms. Additional integrated interventions must include at least smoking cessation. In this review, we summarize the evidence that has accumulated to guide optimisation of lung cancer screening, discuss the remaining open questions about the best approach and identify potential barriers to successful implementation.

USPSTF2013 versus PLCOm2012 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria (International Lung Screening Trial): interim analysis of a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is a major health problem. CT lung screening can reduce lung cancer mortality through early diagnosis by at least 20%. Screening high-risk individuals is most effective. Retrospective analyses suggest that identifying individuals for screening by accurate prediction models is more efficient than using categorical age-smoking criteria, such as the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria. This study prospectively compared the effectiveness of the USPSTF2013 and PLCOm2012 model eligibility criteria.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, participants from the International Lung Screening Trial (ILST), aged 55-80 years, who were current or former smokers (ie, had ≥30 pack-years smoking history or ≤15 quit-years since last permanently quitting), and who met USPSTF2013 criteria or a PLCOm2012 risk threshold of at least 1·51% within 6 years of screening, were recruited from nine screening sites in Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, and the UK. After enrolment, patients were assessed with the USPSTF2013 criteria and the PLCOm2012 risk model with a threshold of at least 1·70% at 6 years. Data were collected locally and centralised. Main outcomes were the comparison of lung cancer detection rates and cumulative life expectancies in patients with lung cancer between USPSTF2013 criteria and the PLCOm2012 model. In this Article, we present data from an interim analysis. To estimate the incidence of lung cancers in individuals who were USPSTF2013-negative and had PLCOm2012 of less than 1·51% at 6 years, ever-smokers in the Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) who met these criteria and their lung cancer incidence were applied to the ILST sample size for the mean follow-up occurring in the ILST. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02871856. Study enrolment is almost complete.

FINDINGS

Between June 17, 2015, and Dec 29, 2020, 5819 participants from the International Lung Screening Trial (ILST) were enrolled on the basis of meeting USPSTF2013 criteria or the PLCOm2012 risk threshold of at least 1·51% at 6 years. The same number of individuals was selected for the PLCOm2012 model as for the USPSTF2013 criteria (4540 [78%] of 5819). After a mean follow-up of 2·3 years (SD 1·0), 135 lung cancers occurred in 4540 USPSTF2013-positive participants and 162 in 4540 participants included in the PLCOm2012 of at least 1·70% at 6 years group (cancer sensitivity difference 15·8%, 95% CI 10·7-22·1%; absolute odds ratio 4·00, 95% CI 1·89-9·44; p<0·0001). Compared to USPSTF2013-positive individuals, PLCOm2012-selected participants were older (mean age 65·7 years [SD 5·9] vs 63·3 years [5·7]; p<0·0001), had more comorbidities (median 2 [IQR 1-3] vs 1 [1-2]; p<0·0001), and shorter life expectancy (13·9 years [95% CI 12·8-14·9] vs 14·8 [13·6-16·0] years). Model-based difference in cumulative life expectancies for those diagnosed with lung cancer were higher in those who had PLCOm2012 risk of at least 1·70% at 6 years than individuals who were USPSTF2013-positive (2248·6 years [95% CI 2089·6-2425·9] vs 2000·7 years [1841·2-2160·3]; difference 247·9 years, p=0·015).

INTERPRETATION

PLCOm2012 appears to be more efficient than the USPSTF2013 criteria for selecting individuals to enrol into lung cancer screening programmes and should be used for identifying high-risk individuals who benefit from the inclusion in these programmes.

FUNDING

Terry Fox Research Institute, The UBC-VGH Hospital Foundation and the BC Cancer Foundation, the Alberta Cancer Foundation, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK and a consortium of funders, and the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation for the UK Lung Screen Uptake Trial.

Lung cancer screening primer: Key information for primary care providers

OBJECTIVE

To review new evidence reported since the 2016 publication of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care recommendations and to summarize key facets of lung cancer screening to better equip primary care providers (PCPs) in anticipation of wider implementation of the recommendations.

QUALITY OF EVIDENCE

A new, large randomized controlled trial has been published since 2016, as have updates from 4 other trials. PubMed was searched for studies published between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2020, using search words including lung cancer screening eligibility, lung cancer screening criteria, and lung cancer screening guidelines. All information from peer-reviewed articles, reference lists, books, and websites was considered.

MAIN MESSAGE

Lung cancers diagnosed at stage 4 have a 5-year survival rate of only 5% and have a disproportionate impact on those with lower socioeconomic status, rural populations, and Indigenous populations. By downstaging, or diagnosing lung cancers at an earlier and more treatable stage, lung cancer screening reduces mortality with a number needed to screen of 250 to prevent 1 death. Practical aspects of lung cancer screening are reviewed, including criteria to screen, appropriate low-dose computed tomography screening, and management of findings. Harms of screening, such as overdiagnosis and incidental findings, are discussed to allow PCPs to appropriately counsel their patients in the face of ongoing implementation of new lung cancer screening programs.

CONCLUSION

Lung cancer screening, with its embedded emphasis on smoking cessation, is an excellent addition to PCPs' preventive health care tools. The implementation of formal and pilot lung cancer screening programs across Canada means that PCPs will be increasingly required to counsel their patients around the uptake of lung cancer screening.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND

Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part because of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, and increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not.

METHODS

Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, and key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses were performed when enough evidence was available. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in seven graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can impact this balance.

The smell of lung disease: a review of the current status of electronic nose technology

There is a need for timely, accurate diagnosis, and personalised management in lung diseases. Exhaled breath reflects inflammatory and metabolic processes in the human body, especially in the lungs. The analysis of exhaled breath using electronic nose (eNose) technology has gained increasing attention in the past years. This technique has great potential to be used in clinical practice as a real-time non-invasive diagnostic tool, and for monitoring disease course and therapeutic effects. To date, multiple eNoses have been developed and evaluated in clinical studies across a wide spectrum of lung diseases, mainly for diagnostic purposes. Heterogeneity in study design, analysis techniques, and differences between eNose devices currently hamper generalization and comparison of study results. Moreover, many pilot studies have been performed, while validation and implementation studies are scarce. These studies are needed before implementation in clinical practice can be realised. This review summarises the technical aspects of available eNose devices and the available evidence for clinical application of eNose technology in different lung diseases. Furthermore, recommendations for future research to pave the way for clinical implementation of eNose technology are provided.

Validating Methylated HOXA9 in Bronchial Lavage as a Diagnostic Tool in Patients Suspected of Lung Cancer

Diagnosing lung cancer requires invasive procedures with high risk of complications. Methylated tumor DNA in bronchial lavage has previously shown potential as a diagnostic biomarker. We aimed to develop and validate methylated HOXA9 in bronchial lavage as a diagnostic biomarker of lung cancer. Participants were referred on suspicion of lung cancer. Ten mL lavage fluid was collected at bronchoscopy for analysis of methylated HOXA9 based on droplet digital PCR according to our previously published method. HOXA9 status was compared with the final diagnosis. The Discovery and Validation cohorts consisted of 101 and 95 consecutively enrolled participants, respectively. In the discovery cohort, the sensitivity and specificity were 73.1% (95% CI 60.9-83.2%) and 85.3% (95% CI 68.9-95.0%), respectively. In the validation cohort, the values were 80.0% (95% CI 66.3-90.0%) and 75.6% (95% CI 60.5-87.1%), respectively. A multiple logistic regression model including age, smoking status, and methylated HOXA9 status resulted in an AUC of 84.9% (95% CI 77.3-92.4%) and 85.9% (95% CI 78.4-93.4%) for the Discovery and Validation cohorts, respectively. Methylated HOXA9 in bronchial lavage holds potential as a supplementary tool in the diagnosis of lung cancer with a clinically relevant sensitivity and specificity. It remained significant when adjusting for age and smoking status.

Contemporary issues in the implementation of lung cancer screening

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography can reduce death from lung cancer by 20-24% in high-risk smokers. National lung cancer screening programmes have been implemented in the USA and Korea and are being implemented in Europe, Canada and other countries. Lung cancer screening is a process, not a test. It requires an organised programmatic approach to replicate the lung cancer mortality reduction and safety of pivotal clinical trials. Cost-effectiveness of a screening programme is strongly influenced by screening sensitivity and specificity, age to stop screening, integration of smoking cessation intervention for current smokers, screening uptake, nodule management and treatment costs. Appropriate management of screen-detected lung nodules has significant implications for healthcare resource utilisation and minimising harm from radiation exposure related to imaging studies, invasive procedures and clinically significant distress. This review focuses on selected contemporary issues in the path to implement a cost-effective lung cancer screening at the population level. The future impact of emerging technologies such as deep learning and biomarkers are also discussed.

Addressing Gender Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility: USPSTF versus PLCOm2012 Criteria

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in women in the United States. Prospective randomized lung screening trials suggest a greater lung cancer mortality benefit from screening women compared to men.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Do the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung screening guidelines that are based solely on age and smoking history contribute to gender disparities in eligibility, and if so, does the use of the PLCOm2012 risk prediction model that is based on 11 predictors of lung cancer reduce gender disparities?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective analysis of 883 lung cancer cases in the Chicago Race Eligibility for Screening Cohort (CREST) determined the sensitivity of USPSTF versus PLCOm2012 eligibility criteria, stratified by gender. For comparisons to the USPSTF 2013and the recently published USPSTF 2021(released March 9^th, 2021) eligibility criteria, the PLCOm2012 model was used with risk thresholds of ≥1.7%/6y and >1.0%/6y, respectively.

RESULTS

The sensitivities for screening by the USPSTF 2013were 46.7% for women and 64.6% for men (p=0.003) and by the USPSTF 2021were 56.8% and 71.8%, respectively (p=0.02). In contrast, the PLCOm2012 ≥1.7%/6y sensitivities were 64.6% and 70.4%, respectively, and the PLCOm2012 ≥1.0%/6y sensitivities were 77.4% and 82.4%, respectively. The PLCOm2012 differences in sensitivity using ≥1.7%/6y and ≥1.0%/6y thresholds between women and men were nonsignificant (both p=0.07). Compared to men, women were more likely to be ineligible by the USPSTF 2021criteria because their smoking exposures were <20 pack-years (22.8% vs 14.8%, OR_{Women vs Men} 1.70, 95% CI 1.19-2.44; p=0.002) and 27% of these ineligible women were eligible by the PLCOm2012 >1.0%/6y criteria.

INTERPRETATION

Although the USPSTF 2021eligibility criteria are more sensitive than the USPSTF 2013guidelines, there remains gender disparities in eligibility. Adding the PLCOm2012 risk prediction model to the USPSTF guidelines would improve sensitivity and attenuate gender disparities.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report - Executive Summary

BACKGROUND

Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part due to the results of the National Lung Screening Trial. Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, as well as increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not.

METHODS

Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, as well as key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the GRADE approach. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and un-graded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in 7 graded recommendations and 9 ungraded consensus statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions, can impact this balance.

Lung cancer screening implementation: Complexities and priorities

Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer death worldwide. The benefits of lung cancer screening to reduce mortality and detect early-stage disease are no longer in any doubt based on the results of two landmark trials using LDCT. Lung cancer screening has been implemented in the US and South Korea and is under consideration by other communities. Successful translation of demonstrated research outcomes into the routine clinical setting requires careful implementation and co-ordinated input from multiple stakeholders. Implementation aspects may be specific to different healthcare settings. Important knowledge gaps remain, which must be addressed in order to optimize screening benefits and minimize screening harms. Lung cancer screening differs from all other cancer screening programmes as lung cancer risk is driven by smoking, a highly stigmatized behaviour. Stigma, along with other factors, can impact smokers' engagement with screening, meaning that smokers are generally 'hard to reach'. This review considers critical points along the patient journey. The first steps include selecting a risk threshold at which to screen, successfully engaging the target population and maximizing screening uptake. We review barriers to smoker engagement in lung and other cancer screening programmes. Recruitment strategies used in trials and real-world (clinical) programmes and associated screening uptake are reviewed. To aid cross-study comparisons, we propose a standardized nomenclature for recording and calculating recruitment outcomes. Once participants have engaged with the screening programme, we discuss programme components that are critical to maximize net benefit. A whole-of-programme approach is required including a standardized and multidisciplinary approach to pulmonary nodule management, incorporating probabilistic nodule risk assessment and longitudinal volumetric analysis, to reduce unnecessary downstream investigations and surgery; the integration of smoking cessation; and identification and intervention for other tobacco related diseases, such as coronary artery calcification and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. National support, integrated with tobacco control programmes, and with appropriate funding, accreditation, data collection, quality assurance and reporting mechanisms will enhance lung cancer screening programme success and reduce the risks associated with opportunistic, ad hoc screening. Finally, implementation research must play a greater role in informing policy change about targeted LDCT screening programmes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography in an Iranian high-risk population

OBJECTIVE

The results of recent studies have shown that using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for screening of lung cancer (LC) improves cancer outcomes. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LDCT in an Iranian high-risk population.

METHODS

A Markov cohort simulation model with four health states was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LDCT from a healthcare system perspective in the people aged 55-74 who smoked 25 or more cigarettes per day for 10-30 years. Cost data were collected, reviewing 324 medical records of patients with LC, and utilities and transition probabilities were extracted from the literature. The Monte Carlo simulation method was applied to run the model. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way analysis were also performed.

RESULTS

LC screening in comparison to a no-screening strategy was costly and effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of screening versus no-screening was IRR (Iranian rials) 98,515,014.04 which falls below the Iranian threshold of three times GDP (gross domestic product) per capita. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results of the economic analysis were robust to variations in the key inputs for both.

CONCLUSIONS

Using LDCT for screening of LC patients in a high-risk population is a cost-effective strategy.

Personalising lung cancer screening: An overview of risk-stratification opportunities and challenges

Randomised clinical trials have shown the efficacy of computed tomography lung cancer screening, initiating discussions on whether and how to implement population‐based screening programs. Due to smoking behaviour being the primary risk‐factor for lung cancer and part of the criteria for determining screening eligibility, lung cancer screening is inherently risk‐based. In fact, the selection of high‐risk individuals has been shown to be essential in implementing lung cancer screening in a cost‐effective manner. Furthermore, studies have shown that further risk‐stratification may improve screening efficiency, allow personalisation of the screening interval and reduce health disparities. However, implementing risk‐based lung cancer screening programs also requires overcoming a number of challenges. There are indications that risk‐based approaches can negatively influence the trade‐off between individual benefits and harms if not applied thoughtfully. Large‐scale implementation of targeted, risk‐based screening programs has been limited thus far. Consequently, questions remain on how to efficiently identify and invite high‐risk individuals from the general population. Finally, while risk‐based approaches may increase screening program efficiency, efficiency should be balanced with the overall impact of the screening program. In this review, we will address the opportunities and challenges in applying risk‐stratification in different aspects of lung cancer screening programs, as well as the balance between screening program efficiency and impact.

Lung cancer screening: who pays? Who receives? The European perspectives

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, and its early detection is critical to achieving a curative treatment and to reducing mortality. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a highly sensitive technique for detecting noninvasive small lung tumors in high-risk populations. We here analyze the current status of lung cancer screening (LCS) from a European point of view. With economic burden of health care in most European countries resting on the state, it is important to reduce costs of screening and improve its effectiveness. Current cost-effectiveness analyses on LCS have indicated a favorable economic profile. The most recently published analysis reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €3,297 per 1 life-year gained adjusted for the quality of life (QALY) and €2,944 per life-year gained, demonstrating a 90% probability of ICER being below €15,000 and a 98.1% probability of being below €25,000. Different risk models have been used to identify the target population; among these, the PLCOM2012 in particular allows for the selection of the population to be screened with high sensitivity. Risk models should also be employed to define screening intervals, which can reduce the general number of LDCT scans after the baseline round. Future perspectives of screening in a European scenario are related to the will of the policy makers to implement policy on a large scale and to improve the effectiveness of a broad screening of smoking-related disease, including cardiovascular prevention, by measuring coronary calcium score on LDCT. The employment of artificial intelligence (AI) in imaging interpretation, the use of liquid biopsies for the characterization of CT-detected undetermined nodules, and less invasive, personalized surgical treatments, will improve the effectiveness of LCS.

Lung cancer screening in Australia and New Zealand: the evidence and the challenge

Lung cancer remains the commonest cause of cancer death in Australia and New Zealand. Targeted screening of individuals at highest risk of lung cancer aims to detect early stage disease, which may be amenable to potentially curative treatment. While current policy recommendations in Australia and New Zealand have acknowledged the efficacy of lung cancer screening in clinical trials, there has been no implementation of national programmes. With the recent release of findings from large international trials, the evidence and experience in lung cancer screening has broadened. This article discusses the latest evidence and implications for Australia and New Zealand.

Risk Perception Among a Lung Cancer Screening Population

BACKGROUND

A successful lung cancer screening program requires a patient cohort at sufficient risk of developing cancer who are willing to participate. Among other factors, a patient's lung cancer risk perception may inform their attitudes toward screening and smoking cessation programs.

RESEARCH QUESTION

This study analyzed data from the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer (PanCan) Study to address the following questions: Which factors are associated with the perception of lung cancer risk? Is there an association between risk perception for lung cancer and actual calculated risk? Is there an association between risk perception for lung cancer and the intent to quit smoking? Are there potential targets for lung cancer screening awareness?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

The PanCan study recruited current or former smokers aged 50 to 75 years who had at least a 2% risk of developing lung cancer over 6 years to undergo low-dose screening CT. Risk perception and worry about lung cancer were captured on a baseline questionnaire. Cumulative logistic regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between baseline risk variables and both lung cancer risk perception and worry.

RESULTS

Among the 2,514 individuals analyzed, a higher perceived risk of lung cancer was positively associated with calculated risk (P = .032). Younger age, being a former smoker, respiratory symptoms, lower FEV₁, COPD, and a family history of lung cancer were associated with higher perceived risk. Conversely, a consistent relationship between calculated risk and worry was not identified. There was a positive association between risk perception and lung cancer worry and reported intent to quit smoking.

INTERPRETATION

Individuals' lung cancer risk perception correlated positively with calculated risk in a screening population. Promotion of screening programs may benefit from focusing on factors associated with higher risk perception; conversely, harnessing worry seemingly holds less value.

Automated Muscle Measurement on Chest CT Predicts All-Cause Mortality in Older Adults From the National Lung Screening Trial

BACKGROUND

Muscle metrics derived from computed tomography (CT) are associated with adverse health events in older persons, but obtaining these metrics using current methods is not practical for large datasets. We developed a fully automated method for muscle measurement on CT images. This study aimed to determine the relationship between muscle measurements on CT with survival in a large multicenter trial of older adults.

METHOD

The relationship between baseline paraspinous skeletal muscle area (SMA) and skeletal muscle density (SMD) and survival over 6 years was determined in 6,803 men and 4,558 women (baseline age: 60-69 years) in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). The automated machine learning pipeline selected appropriate CT series, chose a single image at T12, and segmented left paraspinous muscle, recording cross-sectional area and density. Associations between SMA and SMD with all-cause mortality were determined using sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age, race, height, weight, pack-years of smoking, and presence of diabetes, chronic lung disease, cardiovascular disease, and cancer at enrollment.

RESULTS

After a mean 6.44 ± 1.06 years of follow-up, 635 (9.33%) men and 265 (5.81%) women died. In men, higher SMA and SMD were associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, in fully adjusted models. A one-unit standard deviation increase was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) = 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.79, 0.91; p < .001) for SMA and HR = 0.91 (95% CI = 0.84, 0.98; p = .012) for SMD. In women, the associations did not reach significance.

CONCLUSION

Higher paraspinous SMA and SMD, automatically derived from CT exams, were associated with better survival in a large multicenter cohort of community-dwelling older men.

A Comparative Modeling Analysis of Risk-Based Lung Cancer Screening Strategies

BACKGROUND

Risk-prediction models have been proposed to select individuals for lung cancer screening. However, their long-term effects are uncertain. This study evaluates long-term benefits and harms of risk-based screening compared with current United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations.

METHODS

Four independent natural history models were used to perform a comparative modeling study evaluating long-term benefits and harms of selecting individuals for lung cancer screening through risk-prediction models. In total, 363 risk-based screening strategies varying by screening starting and stopping age, risk-prediction model used for eligibility (Bach, PLCOm2012, or Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool [LCDRAT]), and risk threshold were evaluated for a 1950 US birth cohort. Among the evaluated outcomes were percentage of individuals ever screened, screens required, lung cancer deaths averted, life-years gained, and overdiagnosis.

RESULTS

Risk-based screening strategies requiring similar screens among individuals ages 55-80 years as the USPSTF criteria (corresponding risk thresholds: Bach = 2.8%; PLCOm2012 = 1.7%; LCDRAT = 1.7%) averted considerably more lung cancer deaths (Bach = 693; PLCOm2012 = 698; LCDRAT = 696; USPSTF = 613). However, life-years gained were only modestly higher (Bach = 8660; PLCOm2012 = 8862; LCDRAT = 8631; USPSTF = 8590), and risk-based strategies had more overdiagnosed cases (Bach = 149; PLCOm2012 = 147; LCDRAT = 150; USPSTF = 115). Sensitivity analyses suggest excluding individuals with limited life expectancies (<5 years) from screening retains the life-years gained by risk-based screening, while reducing overdiagnosis by more than 65.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk-based lung cancer screening strategies prevent considerably more lung cancer deaths than current recommendations do. However, they yield modest additional life-years and increased overdiagnosis because of predominantly selecting older individuals. Efficient implementation of risk-based lung cancer screening requires careful consideration of life expectancy for determining optimal individual stopping ages.

An Audit of Opportunistic Lung Cancer Screening in a Canadian Province

OBJECTIVES

Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death in Canada. Early detection can improve outcomes and despite recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to screen patients who are 55 to 74 years old and have a 30+ pack-year history, formal screening programs are rare in Canada. Our goal was to determine if screening is being performed in a representative Canadian population, if recommendations are being followed, and how screening impacts lung cancer stage at diagnosis and prognosis.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patients either screened for lung cancer or imaged due to lung cancer symptoms in Eastern Newfoundland between 2015 and 2018. Age, smoking history, screening modality, diagnosis, cancer stage, and mortality were recorded.

RESULTS

Under 6.0% of the eligible population were screened for lung cancer with only 28.13% meeting age and smoking criteria and being screened appropriately with low-dose CT. However, 70% of patients that had lung cancers found by screening met age and smoking screening criteria. While lung cancer detection rates were similar, screening detected cancer in patients at an earlier stage (50% Stage 1) compared to patients who were not screened (20% Stage 1). Patients who were screened had an improved prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians are opportunistically screening for lung cancer, but not consistently following screening guidelines. As screening is sensitive, leads to earlier stage diagnosis, and has a mortality benefit, implementation of an organized screening program could increase quality assurance and prevent many lung-cancer related deaths.

An update on CT screening for lung cancer: the first major targeted cancer screening programme

Screening for lung cancer with low radiation dose CT has been shown to be effective in reducing lung cancer mortality by two major randomised controlled trials. Lung cancer screening is set to become the largest targeted cancer screening programme globally, but the effectiveness of the programme is dependent on many different factors. This article describes the key evidence for lung cancer screening, the key factors important for optimisation and the progress towards implementation.

The challenges of implementing low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries

Lung cancer accounts for an alarming human and economic burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Recent landmark trials from high-income countries (HICs) by demonstrating that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening effectively reduces lung cancer mortality have engendered enthusiasm for this approach. Here we examine the effectiveness and affordability of LDCT screening from the viewpoint of LMICs. We consider resource-restricted perspectives and discuss implementation challenges and strategies to enhance the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening in LMICs.

Potential Financial Impact of Incidental Cardiac Pathology Detected During Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is broadly accepted. Screening also identifies incidental cardiac findings (S findings) that need follow-up. We report the magnitude of the potential downstream revenue generated by appropriate S finding management after 4 years of our free LCS program.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective database and chart review of a single-center free LCS program in the underserved southeast were performed. All patients who were enrolled in the screening required a primary care physician (PCP) as part of the decision-making model. Referrals to cardiac specialists for S findings found on LCS were recorded. Cost analysis was performed to track potential downstream revenue generated for the institution based upon Medicare allowable or Diagnosis-related group calculations.

RESULTS

One thousand one hundred thirty-two scans were reviewed with 262 (23%) yielding positive S findings for 1 or more organ systems. 181/262 (69%) patients had cardiac findings, only 64/181 (35%) of these patients were referred to cardiology specialists by the PCP. The total Medicare billable amount for all cardiac referrals/interventions was $284 379, representing 35% of the potential billable amount of $804 260. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was the highest billable amount at $18 568. Eight percent of the patients undergoing appropriate cardiac evaluation required a PCI. If not for the screening and cardiac specialist referral, this patient group may not have received appropriate cardiovascular diagnosis and treatment.

DISCUSSION

Lung cancer screening also identifies patients with significant cardiac disease, many of whom may not be appropriately referred. Identification and treatment of incidentally noted cardiovascular findings may both improve patient care and justify supporting free LCS programs.

Lung cancer LDCT screening and mortality reduction - evidence, pitfalls and future perspectives

In the past decade, the introduction of molecularly targeted agents and immune-checkpoint inhibitors has led to improved survival outcomes for patients with advanced-stage lung cancer; however, this disease remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Two large randomized controlled trials of low-dose CT (LDCT)-based lung cancer screening in high-risk populations - the US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and NELSON - have provided evidence of a statistically significant mortality reduction in patients. LDCT-based screening programmes for individuals at a high risk of lung cancer have already been implemented in the USA. Furthermore, implementation programmes are currently underway in the UK following the success of the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial, which included the Liverpool Health Lung Project, Manchester Lung Health Check, the Lung Screen Uptake Trial, the West London Lung Cancer Screening pilot and the Yorkshire Lung Screening trial. In this Review, we focus on the current evidence on LDCT-based lung cancer screening and discuss the clinical developments in high-risk populations worldwide; additionally, we address aspects such as cost-effectiveness. We present a framework to define the scope of future implementation research on lung cancer screening programmes referred to as Screening Planning and Implementation RAtionale for Lung cancer (SPIRAL).

Cost-effectiveness of radon remediation programmes in the UK in the 2020s

Radon, a gaseous radioactive decay product of naturally-occurring uranium is widely distributed in the environment in rocks and soils and, in certain circumstances, can accumulate in the built environment. Initial studies confirmed a direct link between exposure to both radon gas and its short-lived radioactive progeny, and increased lung-cancer incidence, and demonstrated that radon levels in domestic housing can be sufficiently high to expose occupants to increased risk of lung-cancer. Subsequent studies worldwide have shown that it is cost-effective to detect and reduce domestic radon levels in order to reduce this risk. Recent advances in the early detection of lung-cancer, coupled with the development of improved treatment procedures, have progressively improved survival from the disease, with the numbers surviving at 5 years doubling over recent years, during which period the real costs of lung cancer treatment have risen by around 30%. In the meantime, however, in addition to radon and tobacco-smoke, other airborne pollutants have been identified as risk-factors for lung-cancer. This paper reviews both these actual developments and anticipated future trends, and concludes that since these advances in diagnosis and treatment of lung-cancer have had only a modest effect on cost-effectiveness, it is still important to conduct radon monitoring and remediation programmes. While the general increase in life-expectancy improves the cost-effectiveness of radon remediation programmes significantly, reducing tobacco-smoking incidence reduces that cost-effectiveness but with the overall benefit of reducing radon-related lung-cancers. The challenge remains of encouraging affected householders to remediate their homes to reduce radon levels.

Impact of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer on ethnic health inequities in New Zealand: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

There are large inequities in the lung cancer burden for the Indigenous Māori population of New Zealand. We model the potential lifetime health gains, equity impacts and cost-effectiveness of a national low-dose CT (LDCT) screening programme for lung cancer in smokers aged 55-74 years with a 30 pack-year history, and for formers smokers who have quit within the last 15 years.

DESIGN

A Markov macrosimulation model estimated: health benefits (health-adjusted life-years (HALYs)), costs and cost-effectiveness of biennial LDCT screening. Input parameters came from literature and NZ-linked health datasets.

SETTING

New Zealand.

PARTICIPANTS

Population aged 55-74 years in 2011.

INTERVENTIONS

Biennial LDCT screening for lung cancer compared with usual care.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated using the average difference in costs and HALYs between the screened and the unscreened populations. Equity analyses included substituting non-Māori values for Māori values of background morbidity, mortality and stage-specific survival. Changes in inequities in lung cancer survival and 'health-adjusted life expectancy' (HALE) were measured.

RESULTS

LDCT screening in NZ is likely to be cost-effective for the total population: NZ$34 400 per HALY gained (95% uncertainty interval NZ$27 500 to NZ$42 900) and for Māori separately (using a threshold of gross domestic product per capita NZ$45 000). Health gains per capita for Māori females were twice that for non-Māori females and 25% greater for Māori males compared with non-Māori males. LDCT screening will narrow absolute inequities in HALE and lung cancer mortality for Māori, but will slightly increase relative inequities in mortality from lung cancer (compared with non-Māori) due to differential stage-specific survival.

CONCLUSION

A national biennial LDCT lung cancer screening programme in New Zealand is likely to be cost-effective, will improve total population health and reduce health inequities for Māori. Attention must be paid to addressing ethnic inequities in stage-specific lung cancer survival.

Risk Prediction Model Versus United States Preventive Services Task Force Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility Criteria: Reducing Race Disparities

INTRODUCTION

Disparities exist in lung cancer outcomes between African American and white people. The current United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung cancer screening eligibility criteria, which is based solely on age and smoking history, may exacerbate racial disparities. We evaluated whether the PLCOm2012 risk prediction model more effectively selects African American ever-smokers for screening.

METHODS

Lung cancer cases diagnosed between 2010 and 2019 at an urban medical center serving a racially and ethnically diverse population were retrospectively reviewed for lung cancer screening eligibility based on the USPSTF criteria versus the PLCOm2012 model.

RESULTS

This cohort of 883 ever-smokers comprised the following racial and ethnic makeup: 258 white (29.2%), 497 African American (56.3%), 69 Hispanic (7.8%), 24 Asian (2.7%), and 35 other (4.0%). Compared with the USPSTF criteria, the PLCOm2012 model increased the sensitivity for the African American cohort at lung cancer risk thresholds of 1.51%, 1.70%, and 2.00% per 6 years (p < 0.0001). For example, at the 1.70% risk threshold, the PLCOm2012 model identified 71.3% African American cases, whereas the USPSTF criteria only identified 50.3% (p < 0.0001). In contrast, in case of whites there was no difference (66.0% versus 62.4%, respectively [p = 0.203]). Of the African American ever-smokers who were PLCO1.7%-positive and USPSTF-negative, the criteria missed from the USPSTF were those with pack-years less than 30 (67.7%), quit time of greater than 15 years (22.5%), and age less than 55 years (13.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The PLCOm2012 model was found to be preferable over the USPSTF criteria at identifying African American ever-smokers for lung cancer screening. The broader use of this model in racially diverse populations may help overcome disparities in lung cancer screening and outcomes.