Impact of CT screening in lung cancer: Scientific evidence and literature review

Evolving paradigms in breast cancer screening: Balancing efficacy, personalization, and equity

Breast cancer remains a significant global health challenge, with projections indicating a troubling increase in incidence. Breast cancer screening programs have long been hailed as life-saving initiatives, yet their true impact on mortality rates is a subject of ongoing debate. Screening poses the risk of false positives and the detection of indolent tumors, potentially leading to overtreatment. Bias factors, including lead time, length time, and selection biases, further complicate the assessment of screening efficacy. Recent studies suggest that AI-driven image analysis may revolutionize breast cancer screening, maintaining diagnostic accuracy while reducing radiologists' workload. However, the generalizability of these findings to diverse populations is a critical consideration. Personalized screening approaches and equitable access to advanced technologies are essential to mitigate disparities. In conclusion, the breast cancer screening landscape is evolving, emphasizing the need for risk stratification, appropriate imaging modalities, and a personalized approach to reduce overdiagnosis and focus on cancers with the potential to impact lives while prioritizing patient-centered care.

Sublobar resection versus lobectomy for stage IA non-small-cell lung cancer ≤ 2 cm: a systematic review and patient-level meta-analysis

Despite lobectomy being the standard of care for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), sublobar resection (segmentectomy or wedge resection) has recently been suggested to achieve similar outcomes. An electronic literature search was conducted to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or propensity score-matched studies (PSMs) comparing lobectomy to sublobar resection in stage IA NSCLC ≤ 2 cm in size, with provision of Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). A graphical reconstructive algorithm was used to obtain OS and DFS of individual patients, which was then pooled under random-effects individual patient data meta-analysis using Cox models to determine hazard ratios (HRs). Sensitivity analyses for OS and DFS were also performed, restricting to results from RCTs only. Seven studies (2528 patients) were retrieved. There were no significant differences in OS (shared-frailty HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.77-1.11, p = 0.378) or DFS (shared-frailty HR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.90-1.24, p = 0.476) between lobectomy and sublobar resection. This comparison remained non-significant even when restricted to RCTs only. Pooled Kaplan-Meier curves of OS appeared to diverge over time, in favor of sublobar resection. This was confirmed on analysis of restricted mean survival time curves. This patient-level meta-analysis of high-quality studies demonstrates that sublobar resection is equivalent to lobectomy in patients with small stage IA NSCLC. Sublobar resection offers greater down-the-road benefits in patients who experience recurrence or a second primary tumor since the lung-sparing index surgery allows patients to receive further treatment safely. This heralds sublobar resection as the new standard of care in carefully selected early-stage patients.Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42023385358.