Baseline Characteristics and Mortality Outcomes of Control Group Participants and Eligible Non-Responders in the NELSON Lung Cancer Screening Study

Artificial Intelligence in Lung Cancer Screening: The Future Is Now

Lung cancer has one of the worst morbidity and fatality rates of any malignant tumour. Most lung cancers are discovered in the middle and late stages of the disease, when treatment choices are limited, and patients' survival rate is low. The aim of lung cancer screening is the identification of lung malignancies in the early stage of the disease, when more options for effective treatments are available, to improve the patients' outcomes. The desire to improve the efficacy and efficiency of clinical care continues to drive multiple innovations into practice for better patient management, and in this context, artificial intelligence (AI) plays a key role. AI may have a role in each process of the lung cancer screening workflow. First, in the acquisition of low-dose computed tomography for screening programs, AI-based reconstruction allows a further dose reduction, while still maintaining an optimal image quality. AI can help the personalization of screening programs through risk stratification based on the collection and analysis of a huge amount of imaging and clinical data. A computer-aided detection (CAD) system provides automatic detection of potential lung nodules with high sensitivity, working as a concurrent or second reader and reducing the time needed for image interpretation. Once a nodule has been detected, it should be characterized as benign or malignant. Two AI-based approaches are available to perform this task: the first one is represented by automatic segmentation with a consequent assessment of the lesion size, volume, and densitometric features; the second consists of segmentation first, followed by radiomic features extraction to characterize the whole abnormalities providing the so-called "virtual biopsy". This narrative review aims to provide an overview of all possible AI applications in lung cancer screening.

Radiomics and artificial intelligence for precision medicine in lung cancer treatment

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. It exhibits, at the mesoscopic scale, phenotypic characteristics that are generally indiscernible to the human eye but can be captured non-invasively on medical imaging as radiomic features, which can form a high dimensional data space amenable to machine learning. Radiomic features can be harnessed and used in an artificial intelligence paradigm to risk stratify patients, and predict for histological and molecular findings, and clinical outcome measures, thereby facilitating precision medicine for improving patient care. Compared to tissue sampling-driven approaches, radiomics-based methods are superior for being non-invasive, reproducible, cheaper, and less susceptible to intra-tumoral heterogeneity. This review focuses on the application of radiomics, combined with artificial intelligence, for delivering precision medicine in lung cancer treatment, with discussion centered on pioneering and groundbreaking works, and future research directions in the area.

Dynamic data-enabled stratified sampling for trial invitations with application in NHS-Galleri

BACKGROUND

Participants of health research studies such as cancer screening trials usually have better health than the target population. Data-enabled recruitment strategies might be used to help minimise healthy volunteer effects on study power and improve equity.

METHODS

A computer algorithm was developed to help target trial invitations. It assumes participants are recruited from distinct sites (such as different physical locations or periods in time) that are served by clusters (such as general practitioners in England, or geographical areas), and the population may be split into defined groups (such as age and sex bands). The problem is to decide the number of people to invite from each group, such that all recruitment slots are filled, healthy volunteer effects are accounted for, and equity is achieved through representation in sufficient numbers of all major societal and ethnic groups. A linear programme was formulated for this problem.

RESULTS

The optimisation problem was solved dynamically for invitations to the NHS-Galleri trial (ISRCTN91431511). This multi-cancer screening trial aimed to recruit 140,000 participants from areas in England over 10 months. Public data sources were used for objective function weights, and constraints. Invitations were sent by sampling according to lists generated by the algorithm. To help achieve equity the algorithm tilts the invitation sampling distribution towards groups that are less likely to join. To mitigate healthy volunteer effects, it requires a minimum expected event rate of the primary outcome in the trial.

CONCLUSION

Our invitation algorithm is a novel data-enabled approach to recruitment that is designed to address healthy volunteer effects and inequity in health research studies. It could be adapted for use in other trials or research studies.

Understanding patient barriers and facilitators to uptake of lung screening using low dose computed tomography: a mixed methods scoping review of the current literature

BACKGROUND

Targeted lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality by upwards of twenty percent. However, screening is not universally available and uptake is variable and socially patterned. Understanding screening behaviour is integral to designing a service that serves its population and promotes equitable uptake. We sought to review the literature to identify barriers and facilitators to screening to inform the development of a pilot lung screening study in Scotland.

METHODS

We used Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology and PRISMA-ScR framework to identify relevant literature to meet the study aims. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies published between January 2000 and May 2021 were identified and reviewed by two reviewers for inclusion, using a list of search terms developed by the study team and adapted for chosen databases.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles met the final inclusion criteria. Articles were published between 2003 and 2021 and came from high income countries. Following data extraction and synthesis, findings were organised into four categories: Awareness of lung screening, Enthusiasm for lung screening, Barriers to lung screening, and Facilitators or ways of promoting uptake of lung screening. Awareness of lung screening was low while enthusiasm was high. Barriers to screening included fear of a cancer diagnosis, low perceived risk of lung cancer as well as practical barriers of cost, travel and time off work. Being health conscious, provider endorsement and seeking reassurance were all identified as facilitators of screening participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding patient reported barriers and facilitators to lung screening can help inform the implementation of future lung screening pilots and national lung screening programmes.

Participation in community-based lung cancer screening: the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial

BACKGROUND

Screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality; however, the most effective strategy for optimising participation is unknown. Here we present data from the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial, including response to invitation, screening eligibility and uptake of community-based LDCT screening.

METHODS

Individuals aged 55-80 years, identified from primary care records as having ever smoked, were randomised prior to consent to invitation to telephone lung cancer risk assessment or usual care. The invitation strategy included general practitioner endorsement, pre-invitation and two reminder invitations. After telephone triage, those at higher risk were invited to a Lung Health Check (LHC) with immediate access to a mobile CT scanner.

RESULTS

Of 44 943 individuals invited, 50.8% (n=22 815) responded and underwent telephone-based risk assessment (16.7% and 7.3% following first and second reminders, respectively). A lower response rate was associated with current smoking status (adjusted OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.42-0.46) and socioeconomic deprivation (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.54-0.62 for the most versus the least deprived quintile). Of those responding, 34.4% (n=7853) were potentially eligible for screening and offered a LHC, of whom 86.8% (n=6819) attended. Lower uptake was associated with current smoking status (adjusted OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.87) and socioeconomic deprivation (adjusted OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.98). In total, 6650 individuals had a baseline LDCT scan, representing 99.7% of eligible LHC attendees.

CONCLUSIONS

Telephone risk assessment followed by a community-based LHC is an effective strategy for lung cancer screening implementation. However, lower participation associated with current smoking status and socioeconomic deprivation underlines the importance of research to ensure equitable access to screening.

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.

Comorbidity and life expectancy in shared decision making for lung cancer screening

Shared decision making (SDM) is an important part of lung cancer screening (LCS) that includes discussing the risks and benefits of screening, potential outcomes, patient eligibility and willingness to participate, tobacco cessation, and tailoring a strategy to an individual patient. More than other cancer screening tests, eligibility for LCS is nuanced, incorporating the patient's age as well as tobacco use history and overall health status. Since comorbidities and multimorbidity (ie, 2 or more comorbidities) impact the risks and benefits of LCS, these topics are a fundamental part of decision-making. However, there is currently little evidence available to guide clinicians in addressing comorbidities and an individual's "appropriateness" for LCS during SDM visits. Therefore, this literature review investigates the impact of comorbidities and multimorbidity among patients undergoing LCS. Based on available evidence and guideline recommendations, we identify comorbidities that should be considered during SDM conversations and review best practices for navigating SDM conversations in the context of LCS. Three conditions are highlighted since they concomitantly portend higher risk of developing lung cancer, potentially increase risk of screening-related evaluation and treatment complications and can be associated with limited life expectancy: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and human immunodeficiency virus infection.

Lung Cancer Screening in Asbestos-Exposed Populations

Asbestos exposure is the most important cause of occupational lung cancer mortality. Two large randomized clinical trials in the U.S. and Europe conclusively demonstrate that annual low-dose chest CT (LDCT) scan screening reduces lung cancer mortality. Age and smoking are the chief risk factors tested in LDCT studies, but numerous risk prediction models that incorporate additional lung cancer risk factors have shown excellent performance. The studies of LDCT in asbestos-exposed populations shows favorable results but are variable in design and limited in size and generalizability. Outstanding questions include how to: (1) identify workers appropriate for screening, (2) organize screening programs, (3) inform and motivate people to screen, and (4) incorporate asbestos exposure into LDCT decision-making in clinical practice. Conclusion: Screening workers aged ≥50 years with a history of ≥5 years asbestos exposure (or fewer years given intense exposure) in combination with either (a) a history of smoking at least 10 pack-years with no limit on time since quitting, or (b) a history of asbestos-related fibrosis, chronic lung disease, family history of lung cancer, personal history of cancer, or exposure to multiple workplace lung carcinogens is a reasonable approach to LDCT eligibility, given current knowledge. The promotion of LDCT-based screening among asbestos-exposed workers is an urgent priority.

Psychological Targets for Lung Cancer Screening Uptake: A Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening by high-risk groups compromises its effectiveness and equity as a population-level early detection strategy. Numerous psychological factors are implicated qualitatively or retrospectively, but prospective data are needed to validate their associations with uptake behavior and specify psychological targets for intervention.

METHODS

This is a prospective, longitudinal cohort study evaluating psychological correlates of lung cancer screening uptake. Ever-smokers (aged 55-77 y) were invited to a lung health check, at which low-dose computed tomography screening was offered through the SUMMIT Study-a multicenter screening implementation trial. One week after their screening invitation, 44,000 invitees were mailed the self-regulatory questionnaire for lung cancer screening. Regression analyses evaluated the constructs' associations with uptake (telephoning for an appointment) and sociodemographic characteristics.

RESULTS

Higher odds of uptake were associated with both positive and negative perceptions. Positive perceptions included lung cancer controllability, benefits of early diagnosis, improved survival when lung cancer is detected early, willingness to be treated, and believing smoking cessation is effective in reducing risk. Negative perceptions included a higher lung cancer risk perception, negative beliefs about the consequences of lung cancer, perceiving lung cancer as stigmatized, and a negative emotional response. Although current smokers held the highest risk perceptions, they also reported negative perceptions that could undermine how they behave in response to their risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to improve uptake should focus on changing perceptions that affect how an individual reacts when they believe their risk of lung cancer is high.

[Lung cancer screening with low dose computed tomography : a systematic review]

INTRODUCTION

Bronchial cancer, often diagnosed at a late stage, is the leading cause of cancer death. As early detection could potentially lead to curative treatment, several studies have evaluated low-dose chest CT (LDCT) as a screening method. The main objective of this work is to determine the impact of LDCT screening on overall mortality of a smoking population.

METHODS

Systematic review of randomised controlled screening trials comparing LDCT with no screening or chest x-ray.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomised controlled trials were identified, seven of which reported mortality results. NSLT showed a significant reduction of 6.7% in overall mortality and 20% in lung cancer mortality after 6.5 years of follow-up. NELSON showed a significant reduction in lung cancer mortality of 24% at 10 years among men. LUSI and MILD showed a reduction in lung cancer mortality of 69% at 8 years among women and 39% at 10 years, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Screening for bronchial cancer is a complex issue. Clarification is needed regarding the selection of individuals, the definition of a positive result and the attitude towards a suspicious nodule.

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.

Implementation of lung cancer screening: what are the main issues?

Two large-scale RCTs have shown computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening to be efficacious in reducing lung cancer mortality (8–24% in men, 26–59% in women). However, lung cancer screening implicitly means personalised and risk-based approaches. Health care systems’ implementation of personalised screening and prevention is still sparse, and likely to be of variable quality, because of important remaining uncertainties, which have been incompletely addressed or not at all so far. Further optimisation of lung cancer screening programs is expected to reduce harms and maintain or enhance benefit for eligible European citizens, whilst significantly reducing health care costs. Some main uncertainties (e.g., Risk-based eligibility, Risk-based screening intervals, Volume CT screening, Smoking Cessation, Gender and Sex differences, Cost-Effectiveness) are discussed in this review. 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN (acronym for: Towards INdividually tailored INvitations, screening INtervals and INtegrated co-morbidity reducing strategies in lung cancer screening) is the first multi-centred implementation trial on volume CT lung cancer screening amongst 24,000 males and females, at high risk for developing lung cancer, across five European countries, started in January 2020. Through providing answers to the remaining questions with this trial, many EU citizens will swiftly benefit from this high-quality screening technology, others will face less harms than previously anticipated, and health care costs will be substantially reduced. Implementing a new cancer screening programme is a major task, with many stakeholders and many possible facilitators but also barriers and obstacle.

Lung cancer screening and smoking cessation efforts

Randomized-controlled trials have confirmed substantial reductions in lung cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening. Evidence on how to integrate smoking cessation support in lung cancer screening is however scarce. This represents a significant gap in the literature, as a combined strategy of lung cancer screening and smoking cessation greatly reduces the mortality risk due to lung cancer and other related comorbidities. In this review, a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar was performed to identify randomized-controlled and observational studies investigating the effect of lung cancer screening trials and integrated cessation interventions on smoking cessation. Of the 236 identified records, we included 32 original publications. Smoking cessation rates in lung cancer screening trials are promising. Especially findings suspicious for lung cancer and referral to a physician might function as a teachable moment to motivate smoking abstinence in current smokers or recent quitters. More intensive, personalized and multi-modality smoking cessation interventions delivered by a clinician appear to be the most successful in influencing smoking behavior. While it is evident that smoking cessation should be incorporated in lung cancer screening, further research is required to ascertain the optimal treatment type, modality, timing, and content of communication including the incorporation of CT results to motivate health behavior change.

Participation in lung cancer screening

Although there is now strong evidence for the efficacy of low-radiation dose computed tomography in reducing lung cancer mortality, the challenge is to establish screening programmes that have the maximum impact on the disease. In screening programmes, participation rates are a major determinant of the success of the programme. Informed uptake, participation, and adherence (to successive screening rounds) determine the overall impact of the intervention by ensuring the maximum number of people at risk of the disease are screened regularly and therefore have the most chance of benefiting. Existing cancer screening programmes have taught us a great deal about methods that improve participation. Although evidence is emerging for the efficacy of some of those methods in lung cancer screening, there is still much work to do in the specific demographic that is most at risk of lung cancer. This demographic, characterised by higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation, may be less willing to engage with healthcare interventions and present a particular challenge in the process of ensuring informed choice. In this article we review the evidence for improving participation and describe the challenges that need to be addressed to ensure the successful implementation of CT screening programmes.

Lung cancer survival and comorbidities in lung cancer screening participants of the Gdańsk screening cohort

BACKGROUND

In 2010, the World Health Organisation recommended implementation of screening programmes in four groups of diseases-neoplasms, cardiovascular diseases (CVD), diabetes mellitus (DM) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It is due to the fact that they share the same, modifiable risk factors.

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2011, 8637 heavy smokers (aged 50-75, smoking history >20 pack-years) were screened in the Pomeranian Pilot Lung Cancer Screening Programme (PPP) in Gdańsk, Poland. We looked at 5-year follow-up and analysed the medical events and comorbidities of all participants. One health care provider in the Polish health care system provides a unique opportunity to gather most reliable data on all medical events in each person.

RESULTS

In 52.0% of lung cancer screening participants CVD (33.5%), DM (26.0%) and COPD (21.0%) were diagnosed. Prevalence of these diseases is higher in lung cancer patients than in the non-cancer screening group (P < 0.0001). One hundred and seven (1.2%) lung cancers were diagnosed during PPP programme performance and another 382 cases (4.4%) in the 5-year follow-up, so the potential mean annual lung cancer detection rate is 0.77%.

CONCLUSIONS

Lung cancer screening programme offers a great potential for joint screening of lung cancer, CVD, diabetes and COPD.

Recommendations for Implementing Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose Computed Tomography in Europe

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was demonstrated in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) to reduce mortality from the disease. European mortality data has recently become available from the Nelson randomised controlled trial, which confirmed lung cancer mortality reductions by 26% in men and 39-61% in women. Recent studies in Europe and the USA also showed positive results in screening workers exposed to asbestos. All European experts attending the "Initiative for European Lung Screening (IELS)"-a large international group of physicians and other experts concerned with lung cancer-agreed that LDCT-LCS should be implemented in Europe. However, the economic impact of LDCT-LCS and guidelines for its effective and safe implementation still need to be formulated. To this purpose, the IELS was asked to prepare recommendations to implement LCS and examine outstanding issues. A subgroup carried out a comprehensive literature review on LDCT-LCS and presented findings at a meeting held in Milan in November 2018. The present recommendations reflect that consensus was reached.

Recommendations for Implementing Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose Computed Tomography in Europe

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was demonstrated in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) to reduce mortality from the disease. European mortality data has recently become available from the Nelson randomised controlled trial, which confirmed lung cancer mortality reductions by 26% in men and 39-61% in women. Recent studies in Europe and the USA also showed positive results in screening workers exposed to asbestos. All European experts attending the "Initiative for European Lung Screening (IELS)"-a large international group of physicians and other experts concerned with lung cancer-agreed that LDCT-LCS should be implemented in Europe. However, the economic impact of LDCT-LCS and guidelines for its effective and safe implementation still need to be formulated. To this purpose, the IELS was asked to prepare recommendations to implement LCS and examine outstanding issues. A subgroup carried out a comprehensive literature review on LDCT-LCS and presented findings at a meeting held in Milan in November 2018. The present recommendations reflect that consensus was reached.

Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Testing Targeted Invitation Materials

Rationale: Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, particularly by current smokers of a low socioeconomic position, compromises effectiveness and equity.Objectives: To compare the effect of a targeted, low-burden, and stepped invitation strategy versus control on uptake of hospital-based Lung Health Check appointments offering LDCT screening.Methods: In a two-arm, blinded, between-subjects, randomized controlled trial, 2,012 participants were selected from 16 primary care practices using these criteria: 1) aged 60 to 75 years, 2) recorded as a current smoker within the last 7 years, and 3) no prespecified exclusion criteria contraindicating LDCT screening. Both groups received a stepped sequence of preinvitation, invitation, and reminder letters from their primary care practitioner offering prescheduled appointments. The key manipulation was the accompanying leaflet. The intervention group's leaflet targeted psychological barriers and provided low-burden information, mimicking the concept of the U.K. Ministry of Transport's annual vehicle test ("M.O.T. For Your Lungs").Measurements and Main Results: Uptake was 52.6%, with no difference between intervention (52.3%) and control (52.9%) groups in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.16) or adjusted (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.17) analyses. Current smokers were less likely to attend (adjusted OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86) than former smokers. Socioeconomic deprivation was significantly associated with lower uptake for the control group only (P < 0.01).Conclusions: The intervention did not improve uptake. Regardless of trial arm, uptake was considerably higher than previous clinical and real-world studies, particularly given that the samples were predominantly lower socioeconomic position smokers. Strategies common to both groups, including a Lung Health Check approach, could represent a minimum standard.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101) and registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study (N21774741).

Tracking the Nonenrolled: Lung Cancer Screening Patterns Among Individuals not Accrued to a Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

For lung cancer screening, the available data are often derived from patients enrolled prospectively in clinical trials. We, therefore, investigated lung cancer screening patterns among individuals eligible for, but not enrolled in, a screening trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From February 2017 through February 2019, we enrolled subjects in a trial examining telephone-based navigation during low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening. We identified patients for whom LDCT was ordered and who were approached, but not enrolled, in the trial. We categorized nonenrollment as the patient had declined or could not be reached. We compared the characteristics and LDCT completion rates among these groups and the enrolled population using the 2-sample t test and χ² test.

RESULTS

Of 900 individuals approached for participation (mean age, 62 years; 45% women, 53% black), 447 were enrolled in the screening clinical trial. No significant demographic differences were found between the enrolled and nonenrolled cohorts. Of the 453 individuals not enrolled, 251 (55%) had declined participation and 202 (45%) could not be reached, despite up to 6 attempts. LDCT completion was significantly associated with enrollment status: 81% of enrolled individuals, 73% of individuals who declined participation, and 49% of those who could not be reached (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the present single-center study, demographic factors did not predict for participation in a lung cancer screening trial. Lung cancer screening adherence rates were substantially lower for those not enrolled in a screening trial, especially for those who could not be contacted. These findings may inform the broader implementation of screening programs.

Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Volume CT Screening in a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

There are limited data from randomized trials regarding whether volume-based, low-dose computed tomographic (CT) screening can reduce lung-cancer mortality among male former and current smokers.

METHODS

A total of 13,195 men (primary analysis) and 2594 women (subgroup analyses) between the ages of 50 and 74 were randomly assigned to undergo CT screening at T0 (baseline), year 1, year 3, and year 5.5 or no screening. We obtained data on cancer diagnosis and the date and cause of death through linkages with national registries in the Netherlands and Belgium, and a review committee confirmed lung cancer as the cause of death when possible. A minimum follow-up of 10 years until December 31, 2015, was completed for all participants.

RESULTS

Among men, the average adherence to CT screening was 90.0%. On average, 9.2% of the screened participants underwent at least one additional CT scan (initially indeterminate). The overall referral rate for suspicious nodules was 2.1%. At 10 years of follow-up, the incidence of lung cancer was 5.58 cases per 1000 person-years in the screening group and 4.91 cases per 1000 person-years in the control group; lung-cancer mortality was 2.50 deaths per 1000 person-years and 3.30 deaths per 1000 person-years, respectively. The cumulative rate ratio for death from lung cancer at 10 years was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.94; P = 0.01) in the screening group as compared with the control group, similar to the values at years 8 and 9. Among women, the rate ratio was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.38 to 1.14) at 10 years of follow-up, with values of 0.41 to 0.52 in years 7 through 9.

CONCLUSIONS

In this trial involving high-risk persons, lung-cancer mortality was significantly lower among those who underwent volume CT screening than among those who underwent no screening. There were low rates of follow-up procedures for results suggestive of lung cancer. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization of Health Research and Development and others; NELSON Netherlands Trial Register number, NL580.).

Evaluation of a health service adopting proactive approach to reduce high risk of lung cancer: The Liverpool Healthy Lung Programme

OBJECTIVES

This Liverpool Healthy Lung Programme is a response to high rates of lung cancer and respiratory diseases locally and aims to diagnose lung cancer at an earlier stage by proactive approach to those at high risk of lung cancer. The objective of this study is to evaluate the programme in terms of its likely effect on mortality from lung cancer and its delivery to deprived populations.

METHODS

Persons aged 58-75 years, with a history of smoking or a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)² according to general practice records were invited for lung health check in a community health hub setting. A detailed risk assessment and spirometry were performed in eligible patients. Those with a 5% or greater five-year risk of lung cancer were referred for a low dose CT³ scan.

RESULTS

A total of 4 566 subjects attended the appointment for risk assessment and 3 591 (79%) consented to data sharing. More than 80% of the patients were in the most deprived quintile of the index of multiple deprivation. Of those attending, 63% underwent spirometry and 43% were recommended for a CT scan. A total of 25 cancers were diagnosed, of which 16 (64%) were stage I. Comparison with the national stage distribution implied that the programme was reducing lung cancer mortality by 22%.

CONCLUSIONS

Community based proactive approaches to early diagnosis of lung cancer in health deprived regions are likely to be effective in early detection of lung cancer.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Lung Cancer Screening

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in both men and women. Smoking is the single greatest risk factor for the development of lung cancer. For patients between the age of 55 and 80 with 30 or more pack years smoking history who currently smoke or who have quit within the last 15 years should undergo lung cancer screening with low-dose CT. In patients who do not meet these criteria but who have additional risk factors for lung cancer, lung cancer screening with low-dose CT is controversial but may be appropriate. Imaging is not recommended for lung cancer screening of patient younger than 50 years of age or patients older than 80 years of age or patients of any age with less than 20 packs per year history of smoking and no additional risk factor (ie, radon exposure, occupational exposure, cancer history, family history of lung cancer, history of COPD, or history of pulmonary fibrosis). 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 include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Reviewing Lung Cancer Screening: The Who, Where, When, Why, and How

Lung cancer screening with annual low-dose computed tomography (CT) decreases lung cancer mortality in high-risk patients, as defined by smoking history (> 30 pack-years) and age (55-74 years). Risks to screening include overdiagnosis, anxiety about indeterminate nodules, and radiation exposure. To be effective, lung cancer screening must combine individualized risk assessment, shared decision-making, smoking cessation, structured reporting, high quality and multi-specialty cancer care, and reliable follow-up; a multidisciplinary approach is crucial. Specialty organizations have outlined both the components of high quality lung cancer screening programs and the proposed metrics that programs should track. Long-term outcomes of lung cancer screening in the general population, further refinement of who to screen, and use of biomarkers for early cancer detection are ongoing research questions.

Association of Smoking with Metabolic Volatile Organic Compounds in Exhaled Breath

Lung cancer (LC) screening will be more efficient if it is applied to a well-defined high-risk population. Characteristics including metabolic byproducts may be taken into account to access LC risk more precisely. Breath examination provides a non-invasive method to monitor metabolic byproducts. However, the association between volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath and LC risk or LC risk factors is not studied. Exhaled breath samples from 122 healthy persons, who were given routine annual exam from December 2015 to December 2016, were analyzed using thermal desorption coupled with gas chromatography mass spectrometry (TD-GC-MS). Smoking characteristics, air quality, and other risk factors for lung cancer were collected. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate the relationship between VOCs and LC risk factors. 7, 7, 11, and 27 VOCs were correlated with smoking status, smoking intensity, years of smoking, and depth of inhalation, respectively. Exhaled VOCs are related to smoking and might have a potential to evaluate LC risk more precisely. Both an assessment of temporal stability and testing in a prospective study are needed to establish the performance of VOCs such as 2,5-dimethylfuranm and 4-methyloctane as lung cancer risk biomarkers.

Pilot study on use of home telephoning to identify and recruit high-risk individuals for lung cancer screening

Widespread lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography is urgently needed in Europe to identify lung cancers early and reduce lung cancer deaths. The most effective method of identifying high-risk individuals and recruiting them for screening has not been determined. In the present pilot study we investigated direct telephoning to families as a way of identifying high risk individuals and recruiting them to a screening/smoking cessation program, that avoided the selection bias of voluntary screening. Families in the province of Milan, Italy, were contacted by telephone at their homes and asked about family members over 50 years who were heavy smokers (30 or more pack-years). Persons meeting these criteria were contacted and asked to participate in the program. Those who agreed were given an appointment to undergo screening and receive smoking cessation counseling. Among the 1000 contacted families, involving 2300 persons, 44 (1.9%) were eligible for LDCT screening, and 12 (27%) of these participated in the program. The cost of this recruitment strategy pilot study was around 150 euro per screened subject. We obtained useful information on the proportion of the general population eligible for lung cancer screening and the proportion of those who responded. However the cost of home telephone calling is probably too high to be practicable as a method of recruiting high risk persons for screening. Alternative recruitment methods, possibly involving family physicians practitioners, need to be investigated.

Lung Cancer Screening, Cancer Treatment, and Addressing the Continuum of Health Risks Caused by Tobacco

Tobacco use is the largest preventable risk factor for the development of several cancers, and continued tobacco use by patients with cancer and survivors of cancer causes adverse outcomes. Worldwide tobacco control efforts have reduced tobacco use and improved health outcomes in many countries, but several countries continue to suffer from increased tobacco use and associated adverse health effects. Continued tobacco use by patients undergoing cancer screening or treatment results in continued risk for cancer-related and noncancer-related health conditions. Although integrating tobacco assessment and cessation support into lung cancer screening and cancer care is well justified and feasible, most patients with cancer unfortunately do not receive evidence-based tobacco cessation support. Combining evidence-based methods of treating tobacco addiction, such as behavioral counseling and pharmacotherapy, with practical clinical considerations in the setting of lung cancer screening and cancer treatment should result in substantial improvements in access to evidence-based care and resultant improvements in health risks and cancer treatment outcomes.