Lung Cancer Screening With Low Dose Computed Tomography in Patients With and Without Prior History of Cancer in the National Lung Screening Trial

Association of radiotherapy for stage I-III breast cancer survivors and second primary malignant cancers: a population-based study

PURPOSE

With life span extending, breast cancer survivors may face the possibility of developing second primary cancers (SPCs). The objective of this research is to investigate the risk factors, risk attribute to radiotherapy and the survivalship for SPCs.

METHODS

A total of 445 523 breast cancer patients were enrolled from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database in 2000-2018. The risk factors for SPCs development were confirmed by competing risk model, and then were integrated to the nomogram establishment. The cumulative incidence of SPCs including SBC (second breast cancer), SGC (second gynecological cancer), and SLC (second lung cancer) were estimated. The radiotherapy-associated risk for SPCs were evaluated by Poisson regression in radiotherapy and no-radiotherapy. Propensity score matching was used to reduce possible bias for survival comparison.

RESULTS

There were 57.63% patients in radiotherapy. The risk factors for developing SPCs were age, year, race, tumor size, stage, radiotherapy, grade, surgery, and histology. The cumulative incidence of SPCs was 7.75% in no-radiotherapy and 10.33% in radiotherapy. SLC, SBC, and SGC also appeared the similar results. The increased risk of developing SPCs were associated with radiotherapy in majority subgroups. The dynamic radiotherapy-associated risk for SPCs by age slightly increased risk was observed. Regardless radiotherapy or no-radiotherapy, the 10-year overall survival for SBC (radiotherapy: 59.41%; no-radiotherapy: 55.53%) and SGC (radiotherapy: 48.61%; no-radiotherapy: 35.53%) were worse than that among matched patients with only primary cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast cancer survivors remained a high radiotherapy-associated risk for developing SPCs. The prognosis in radiotherapy was better than in no-radiotherapy for some specific SPCs. Largely attention should be paid to these patients.

DenseNet_ HybWWoA: A DenseNet-Based Brain Metastasis Classification with a Hybrid Metaheuristic Feature Selection Strategy

Brain metastases (BM) are the most severe consequence of malignancy in the brain, resulting in substantial illness and death. The most common primary tumors that progress to BM are lung, breast, and melanoma. Historically, BM patients had poor clinical outcomes, with limited treatment options including surgery, stereotactic radiation therapy (SRS), whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT), systemic therapy, and symptom control alone. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is a valuable tool for detecting cerebral tumors, though it is not infallible, as cerebral matter is interchangeable. This study offers a novel method for categorizing differing brain tumors in this context. This research additionally presents a combination of optimization algorithms called the Hybrid Whale and Water Waves Optimization Algorithm (HybWWoA), which is used to identify features by reducing the size of recovered features. This algorithm combines whale optimization and water waves optimization. The categorization procedure is consequently carried out using a DenseNet algorithm. The suggested cancer categorization method is evaluated on a number of factors, including precision, specificity, and sensitivity. The final assessment findings showed that the suggested approach exceeded the authors' expectations, with an F1-score of 97% and accuracy, precision, memory, and recollection of 92.1%, 98.5%, and 92.1%, respectively.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Lung Cancer Screening: 2022 Update

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality for men and women in the United States. Screening for lung cancer with annual low-dose CT is saving lives, and the continued implementation of lung screening can save many more. In 2015, the CMS began covering annual lung screening for those who qualified based on the original United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung screening criteria, which included patients 55 to 77 year of age with a 30 pack-year history of smoking, who were either currently using tobacco or who had smoked within the previous 15 years. In 2021, the USPSTF issued new screening guidelines, decreasing the age of eligibility to 80 years of age and pack-years to 20. Lung screening remains controversial for those who do not meet the updated USPSTF criteria, but who have additional risk factors for the development of lung cancer. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Deep learning-based detection algorithm for brain metastases on black blood imaging

Brain metastases (BM) are the most common intracranial tumors, and their prevalence is increasing. High-resolution black-blood (BB) imaging was used to complement the conventional contrast-enhanced 3D gradient-echo imaging to detect BM. In this study, we propose an efficient deep learning algorithm (DLA) for BM detection in BB imaging with contrast enhancement scans, and assess the efficacy of an automatic detection algorithm for BM. A total of 113 BM participants with 585 metastases were included in the training cohort for five-fold cross-validation. The You Only Look Once (YOLO) V2 network was trained with 3D BB sampling perfection with application-optimized contrasts using different flip angle evolution (SPACE) images to investigate the BM detection. For the observer performance, two board-certified radiologists and two second-year radiology residents detected the BM and recorded the reading time. For the training cohort, the overall performance of the five-fold cross-validation was 87.95%, 24.82%, 19.35%, 14.48, and 18.40 for sensitivity, precision, F1-Score, the false positive average for the BM dataset, and the false positive average for the normal individual dataset, respectively. For the comparison of reading time with and without DLA, the average reading time was reduced by 20.86% in the range of 15.22-25.77%. The proposed method has the potential to detect BM with a high sensitivity and has a limited number of false positives using BB imaging.

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.

Subsequent primary cancer risk among five-year survivors of adolescent and young adult cancers

BACKGROUND

A comprehensive examination of the incidence and mortality of subsequent primary cancers (SPCs) among adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors in the US is lacking.

METHODS

Cancer incidence and mortality among 170,404 ≥ 5-year cancer survivors aged 15-39 years at first primary cancer diagnosis during 1975-2013 in 9 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries were compared to those in the general population using standardized incidence ratio (SIR), absolute excess incidence (AEI), standardized mortality ratio (SMR), and absolute excess mortality (AEM).

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 14.6 years, 13,420 SPC cases and 5,008 SPC deaths occurred among survivors (excluding the same-site as index cancer), corresponding to 25% higher incidence (95%CI = 1.23-1.27; AEI = 10.8 per 10,000) and 84% higher mortality (95%CI = 1.79-1.89; AEM = 9.2 per 10,000) than that in the general population. Overall SPC risk was statistically significantly higher for 20 of 29 index cancers for incidence and 26 for mortality, with the highest SIR among female Hodgkin lymphoma survivors (SIR = 3.05, 95%CI = 2.88-3.24; AEI = 73.0 per 10,000) and the highest SMR among small intestine cancer survivors (SMR = 6.97, 95%CI = 4.80-9.79; AEM = 64.1 per 10,000). Type-specific SPC risks varied substantially by index cancers; however, SPCs of the female breast, lung, and colorectum combined constituted 36% of all SPC cases and 39% of all SPC deaths, with lung cancer alone representing 11% and 24% of all cases and deaths, respectively.

CONCLUSION

AYA cancer survivors are almost twice as likely to die from a new primary cancer as the general population, highlighting the need for primary care clinicians to prioritize cancer prevention and targeted surveillance strategies in these individuals.

European lung cancer screening: valuable trial evidence for optimal practice implementation

Lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose computed tomography is a strategy for secondary prevention of lung cancer. In the last two decades, LCS trials showed several options to practice secondary prevention in association with primary prevention, however, the translation from trial to practice is everything but simple. In 2020, the European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society published their joint statement paper on LCS. This commentary aims to provide the readership with detailed description about hurdles and potential solutions that could be encountered in the practice of LCS.

Development and Validation of a Risk Prediction Tool for Second Primary Lung Cancer

Background

With advancing therapeutics, lung cancer (LC) survivors are rapidly increasing in number. Although mounting evidence suggests LC survivors have high risk of second primary lung cancer (SPLC), there is no validated prediction model available for clinical use to identify high-risk LC survivors for SPLC.

Methods

Using data from 6325 ever-smokers in the Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) study diagnosed with initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) in 1993-2017, we developed a prediction model for 10-year SPLC risk after IPLC diagnosis using cause-specific Cox regression. We evaluated the model’s clinical utility using decision curve analysis and externally validated it using 2 population-based data—Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) and National Lung Screening Trial (NLST)—that included 2963 and 2844 IPLC (101 and 93 SPLC cases), respectively.

Results

Over 14 063 person-years, 145 (2.3%) ever-smoking IPLC patients developed SPLC in MEC. Our prediction model demonstrated a high predictive accuracy (Brier score = 2.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.4 to 3.3) and discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristics [AUC] = 81.9%, 95% CI = 78.2% to 85.5%) based on bootstrap validation in MEC. Stratification by the estimated risk quartiles showed that the observed SPLC incidence was statistically significantly higher in the 4th vs 1st quartile (9.5% vs 0.2%; P < .001). Decision curve analysis indicated that in a wide range of 10-year risk thresholds from 1% to 20%, the model yielded a larger net-benefit vs hypothetical all-screening or no-screening scenarios. External validation using PLCO and NLST showed an AUC of 78.8% (95% CI = 74.6% to 82.9%) and 72.7% (95% CI = 67.7% to 77.7%), respectively.

Conclusions

We developed and validated a SPLC prediction model based on large population-based cohorts. The proposed prediction model can help identify high-risk LC patients for SPLC and can be incorporated into clinical decision making for SPLC surveillance and screening.