Four-Year Results of Low-Dose CT Screening and Nodule Management in the ITALUNG Trial

Large cell carcinoma of the lung: LDCT features and survival in screen-detected cases

PURPOSE

To investigate the early radiological features and survival of Large Cell Carcinoma (LCC) cases diagnosed in low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening trials.

METHODS

Two radiologists jointly reviewed the radiological features of screen-detected LCCs observed in NLST, ITALUNG, and LUSI trials between 2002 and 2016, comprising a total of 29,744 subjects who underwent 3-5 annual screening LDCT examinations. Survival or causes of death were established according to the mortality registries extending more than 12 years since randomization.

RESULTS

LCC was diagnosed in 30 (4 %) of 750 subjects with screen-detected lung cancer (LC), including 15 prevalent and 15 incident cases. Three additional LCCs occurred as interval cancers during the screening period. LDCT images were available for 29 cases of screen-detected LCCs, and 28 showed a single, peripheral, and well-defined solid nodule or mass with regularly smooth (39 %), lobulated (43 %), or spiculated (18 %) margins. One case presented as hilar mass. In 9 incident LCCs, smaller solid nodules were identified in prior LDCT examinations, allowing us to calculate a mean Volume Doubling Time (VDT) of 98.7 ± 47.8 days. The overall five-year survival rate was 50 %, with a significant (p = 0.0001) difference between stages I-II (75 % alive) and stages III-IV (10 % alive).

CONCLUSIONS

LCC is a fast-growing neoplasm that can escape detection by annual LDCT screening. LCC typically presents as a single solid peripheral nodule or mass, often with lobulated margins, and exhibits a short VDT. The 5-year survival reflects the stage at diagnosis.

The Azygos Esophageal Recess Is Not to Be Missed in Screening Lung Cancer With LDCT

PURPOSE

Lesion overlooking and late diagnostic workup can compromise the efficacy of low-dose CT (LDCT) screening of lung cancer (LC), implying more advanced and less curable disease stages. We hypothesized that the azygos esophageal recess (AER) of the right lower lobe (RLL) might be an area prone to lesion overlooking in LC screening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two radiologists reviewed the LDCT examinations of all the screen-detected incident LCs observed in the active arm of 2 randomized clinical trials: ITALUNG and national lung screening trial. Those in the AER were compared with those in the remainder of the RLL for possible differences in diagnostic lag according to the Lung-RADS 1.1 recommendations, size, stage, and mortality.

RESULTS

Six (11.7%) of 51 screen-detected incident LCs of the RLL were located in the AER. The diagnostic lag time was significantly longer (P=0.046) in the AER LC (mean 14±9 mo) than in the LC in the remaining RLL (mean 7.3±1 mo). Size and stage at diagnosis were not significantly different. All 6 subjects with LC in the AER and 16 (35.5%) of 45 subjects with LC in the remaining RLL (P=0.004) died of LC after a median follow-up of 12 years.

CONCLUSION

Our retrospective study indicates that AER might represent a lung region of the RLL prone to have early LC overlooked due to detection or interpretation errors with possible detrimental consequences for the subject undergoing LC screening.

Effects of low dose computed tomography (LDCT) on lung cancer screening on incidence and mortality in regions with high tuberculosis prevalence: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a strategy for early-stage diagnosis. The implementation of LDCT screening in countries with a high prevalence/incidence of tuberculosis (TB) is controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to identify whether LCS using LDCT increases early-stage diagnosis and decreases mortality, as well as the false-positive rate, in regions with a high prevalence of TB.

METHODS/DESIGN

Studies were identified by searching BVS, PUBMED, EMBASE, and SCOPUS. RCT and cohort studies (CS) that show the effects of LDCT in LC screening on mortality and secondary outcomes were eligible. Two independent reviewers evaluated eligibility and a third judged disagreements. We used the Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR+) to extract the metadata and record decisions. The analyses were stratified by study design and incidence of TB. We used the Cochrane "Risk of bias" assessment tool.

RESULTS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) were used. Thirty-seven papers were included, referring to 22 studies (10 RCTs and 12 cohorts). Few studies were from regions with a high incidence of TB (One RCT and four cohorts). Nonetheless, the evidence is compatible with European and USA studies. RCTs and CS also had consistent results. There is an increase in early-stage (I-II) diagnoses and reduced LC mortality in the LCDT arm compared to the control. Although false-positive rates varied, they stayed within the 20 to 30% range.

DISCUSSION

This is the first meta-analysis of LDCT for LCS focused on its benefits in regions with an increased incidence/prevalence of TB. Although the specificity of Lung-RADS was higher in participants without TB sequelae than in those with TB sequelae, our findings point out that the difference does not invalidate implementing LDCT LCS in these regions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Systematic review registration Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42022309581.

Shall We Screen Lung Cancer with Volume Computed Tomography in Austria? A Cost-Effectiveness Modelling Study

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of a lung cancer screening (LCS) program using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in Austria. An existing decision tree with an integrated Markov model was used to analyze the cost-effectiveness of LCS versus no screening from a healthcare payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. A simulation was conducted to model annual LCS for an asymptomatic high-risk population cohort aged 50-74 with a smoking history using the Dutch-Belgian Lung Cancer Screening Study (NEderlands-Leuvens Longkanker ScreeningsONderzoek, NELSON) screening outcomes. The principal measure utilized to assess cost-effectiveness was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity and scenario analyses were employed to determine uncertainties surrounding the key model inputs. At an uptake rate of 50%, 300,277 eligible individuals would participate in the LCS program, yielding 56,122 incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 84,049 life years gained compared to no screening, with an ICER of EUR 24,627 per QALY gained or EUR 16,444 per life-year saved. Additionally, LCS led to the detection of 25,893 additional early-stage lung cancers and averted 11,906 premature lung cancer deaths. It was estimated that LCS would incur EUR 945 million additional screening costs and EUR 386 million additional treatment costs. These estimates were robust in sensitivity analyses. Implementation of annual LCS with LDCT for a high-risk population, using the NELSON screening outcomes, is cost-effective in Austria, at a threshold of EUR 50,000 per QALY.

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

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

An evaluation of CT radiation doses within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate radiation doses for all low-dose CT scans performed during the first year of a lung screening trial.

METHODS

For all lung screening scans that were performed using a CT protocol that delivered image quality meeting the RSNA QIBA criteria, radiation dose metrics, participant height, weight, gender, and age were recorded. Values of volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose length product (DLP) were evaluated as a function of weight in order to assess the performance of the scan protocol across the participant cohort. Calculated effective doses were used to establish the additional lifetime attributable cancer risks arising from trial scans.

RESULTS

Median values of CTDIvol, DLP, and effective dose (IQR) from the 3521 scans were 1.1 mGy (0.70), 42.4 mGycm (24.9), and 1.15 mSv (0.67), whilst for 60-80kg participants the values were 1.0 mGy (0.30), 35.8 mGycm (11.4), and 0.97 mSv (0.31). A statistically significant correlation between CTDIvol and weight was identified for males (r = 0.9123, P < .001) and females (r = 0.9052, P < .001), however, the effect of gender on CTDIvol was not statistically significant (P = .2328) despite notable differences existing at the extremes of the weight range. The additional lifetime attributable cancer risks from a single scan were in the range 0.001%-0.006%.

CONCLUSIONS

Low radiation doses can be achieved across a typical lung screening cohort using scan protocols that have been shown to deliver high levels of image quality. The observed dose levels may be considered as typical values for lung screening scans on similar types of scanners for an equivalent participant cohort.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Presentation of typical radiation dose levels for CT lung screening examinations in a large UK trial. Effective radiation doses can be of the order of 1 mSv for standard sized participants. Lifetime attributable cancer risks resulting from a single low-dose CT scan did not exceed 0.006%.

The Smokers Health Multiple ACtions (SMAC-1) Trial: Study Design and Results of the Baseline Round

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening with low-dose helical computed tomography (LDCT) reduces mortality in high-risk subjects. Cigarette smoking is linked to up to 90% of lung cancer deaths. Even more so, it is a key risk factor for many other cancers and cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases. The Smokers health Multiple ACtions (SMAC-1) trial aimed to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of an integrated program based on the early detection of smoking-related thoraco-cardiovascular diseases in high-risk subjects, combined with primary prevention. A new multi-component screening design was utilized to strengthen the framework on conventional lung cancer screening programs. We report here the study design and the results from our baseline round, focusing on oncological findings.

METHODS

High-risk subjects were defined as being >55 years of age and active smokers or formers who had quit within 15 years (>30 pack/y). A PLCOm2012 threshold >2% was chosen. Subject outreach was streamlined through media campaign and general practitioners' engagement. Eligible subjects, upon written informed consent, underwent a psychology consultation, blood sample collection, self-evaluation questionnaire, spirometry, and LDCT scan. Blood samples were analyzed for pentraxin-3 protein levels, interleukins, microRNA, and circulating tumor cells. Cardiovascular risk assessment and coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring were performed. Direct and indirect costs were analyzed focusing on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life years gained in different scenarios. Personalized screening time-intervals were determined using the "Maisonneuve risk re-calculation model", and a threshold <0.6% was chosen for the biennial round.

RESULTS

In total, 3228 subjects were willing to be enrolled. Out of 1654 eligible subjects, 1112 participated. The mean age was 64 years (M/F 62/38%), with a mean PLCOm2012 of 5.6%. Former and active smokers represented 23% and 77% of the subjects, respectively. At least one nodule was identified in 348 subjects. LDCTs showed no clinically significant findings in 762 subjects (69%); thus, they were referred for annual/biennial LDCTs based on the Maisonneuve risk (mean value = 0.44%). Lung nodule active surveillance was indicated for 122 subjects (11%). Forty-four subjects with baseline suspicious nodules underwent a PET-FDG and twenty-seven a CT-guided lung biopsy. Finally, a total of 32 cancers were diagnosed, of which 30 were lung cancers (2.7%) and 2 were extrapulmonary cancers (malignant pleural mesothelioma and thymoma). Finally, 25 subjects underwent lung surgery (2.25%). Importantly, there were zero false positives and two false negatives with CT-guided biopsy, of which the patients were operated on with no stage shift. The final pathology included lung adenocarcinomas (69%), squamous cell carcinomas (10%), and others (21%). Pathological staging showed 14 stage I (47%) and 16 stage II-IV (53%) cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

LDCTs continue to confirm their efficacy in safely detecting early-stage lung cancer in high-risk subjects, with a negligible risk of false-positive results. Re-calculating the risk of developing lung cancer after baseline LDCTs with the Maisonneuve model allows us to optimize time intervals to subsequent screening. The Smokers health Multiple ACtions (SMAC-1) trial offers solid support for policy assessments by policymakers. We trust that this will help in developing guidelines for the large-scale implementation of lung cancer screening, paving the way for better outcomes for lung cancer patients.

Lung Cancer Screening in Asia: An Expert Consensus Report

INTRODUCTION

The incidence and mortality of lung cancer are highest in Asia compared with Europe and USA, with the incidence and mortality rates being 34.4 and 28.1 per 100,000 respectively in East Asia. Diagnosing lung cancer at early stages makes the disease amenable to curative treatment and reduces mortality. In some areas in Asia, limited availability of robust diagnostic tools and treatment modalities, along with variations in specific health care investment and policies, make it necessary to have a more specific approach for screening, early detection, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with lung cancer in Asia compared with the West.

METHOD

A group of 19 advisors across different specialties from 11 Asian countries, met on a virtual Steering Committee meeting, to discuss and recommend the most affordable and accessible lung cancer screening modalities and their implementation, for the Asian population.

RESULTS

Significant risk factors identified for lung cancer in smokers in Asia include age 50 to 75 years and smoking history of more than or equal to 20 pack-years. Family history is the most common risk factor for nonsmokers. Low-dose computed tomography screening is recommended once a year for patients with screening-detected abnormality and persistent exposure to risk factors. However, for high-risk heavy smokers and nonsmokers with risk factors, reassessment scans are recommended at an initial interval of 6 to 12 months with subsequent lengthening of reassessment intervals, and it should be stopped in patients more than 80 years of age or are unable or unwilling to undergo curative treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Asian countries face several challenges in implementing low-dose computed tomography screening, such as economic limitations, lack of efforts for early detection, and lack of specific government programs. Various strategies are suggested to overcome these challenges in Asia.

Invasive Procedures Associated With Lung Cancer Screening in Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

The harm associated with imaging abnormalities related to lung cancer screening (LCS) is not well documented, especially outside the clinical trial and academic setting.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the frequency of invasive procedures and complications associated with a community based LCS program, including procedures for false-positive and benign, but clinically important, incidental findings?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We performed a single-center retrospective study of an LCS program at a nonuniversity teaching hospital from 2016 through 2019 to identify invasive procedures prompted by LCS results, including their indication and complications.

RESULTS

Among 2,003 LCS participants, 58 patients (2.9%) received a diagnosis of lung cancer and 71 patients (3.5%) received a diagnosis of any malignancy. Invasive procedures were performed 160 times in 103 participants (5.1%), including 1.7% of those without malignancy. Eight invasive procedures (0.4% of participants), including four surgeries (12% of diagnostic lung resections), were performed for false-positive lung nodules. Only 1% of Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4A nodules that proved benign were subject to an invasive procedure. Among those without malignancy, an invasive procedure was performed in eight participants for extrapulmonary false-positive findings (0.4%) and in 19 participants (0.9%) to evaluate incidental findings considered benign but clinically important. Procedures for the latter indication resulted in treatment, change in management, or diagnosis in 79% of individuals. Invasive procedures in those without malignancy resulted in three complications (0.15%). Seventy nonsurgical procedures (6% complication rate) and 48 thoracic surgeries (4% major complication rate) were performed in those with malignancy.

INTERPRETATION

The use of invasive procedures to resolve false-positive findings was uncommon in the clinical practice of a nonuniversity LCS program that adhered to a nodule management algorithm and used a multidisciplinary approach. Incidental findings considered benign but clinically important resulted in invasive procedure rates that were similar to those for false-positive findings and frequently had clinical value.

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

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

Pulmonary emphysema and coronary artery calcifications at baseline LDCT and long-term mortality in smokers and former smokers of the ITALUNG screening trial

OBJECTIVES

Cardiovascular disease (CVD), lung cancer (LC), and respiratory diseases are main causes of death in smokers and former smokers undergoing low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for LC screening. We assessed whether quantification of pulmonary emphysematous changes at baseline LDCT has a predictive value concerning long-term mortality.

METHODS

In this longitudinal study, we assessed pulmonary emphysematous changes with densitometry (volume corrected relative area below - 950 Hounsfield units) and coronary artery calcifications (CAC) with a 0-3 visual scale in baseline LDCT of 524 participants in the ITALUNG trial and analyzed their association with mortality after 13.6 years of follow-up using conventional statistics and a machine learning approach.

RESULTS

Pulmonary emphysematous changes were present in 32.3% of subjects and were mild (6% ≤ RA950 ≤ 9%) in 14.9% and moderate-severe (RA950 > 9%) in 17.4%. CAC were present in 67% of subjects (mild in 34.7%, moderate-severe in 32.2%). In the follow-up, 81 (15.4%) subjects died (20 of LC, 28 of other cancers, 15 of CVD, 4 of respiratory disease, and 14 of other conditions). After adjusting for age, sex, smoking history, and CAC, moderate-severe emphysema was significantly associated with overall (OR 2.22; 95CI 1.34-3.70) and CVD (OR 3.66; 95CI 1.21-11.04) mortality. Machine learning showed that RA950 was the best single feature predictive of overall and CVD mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-severe pulmonary emphysematous changes are an independent predictor of long-term overall and CVD mortality in subjects participating in LC screening and should be incorporated in the post-test calculation of the individual mortality risk profile.

KEY POINTS

• Densitometry allows quantification of pulmonary emphysematous changes in low-dose CT examinations for lung cancer screening. • Emphysematous lung density changes are an independent predictor of long-term overall and cardio-vascular disease mortality in smokers and former smokers undergoing screening. • Emphysematous changes quantification should be included in the post-test calculation of the individual mortality risk profile.

Metabolomic differentiation of benign vs malignant pulmonary nodules with high specificity via high-resolution mass spectrometry analysis of patient sera

Differential diagnosis of pulmonary nodules detected by computed tomography (CT) remains a challenge in clinical practice. Here, we characterize the global metabolomes of 480 serum samples including healthy controls, benign pulmonary nodules, and stage I lung adenocarcinoma. The adenocarcinoma demonstrates a distinct metabolomic signature, whereas benign nodules and healthy controls share major similarities in metabolomic profiles. A panel of 27 metabolites is identified in the discovery cohort (n = 306) to distinguish between benign and malignant nodules. The discriminant model achieves an AUC of 0.915 and 0.945 in the internal validation (n = 104) and external validation cohort (n = 111), respectively. Pathway analysis reveals elevation in glycolytic metabolites associated with decreased tryptophan in serum of lung adenocarcinoma vs benign nodules and healthy controls, and demonstrates that uptake of tryptophan promotes glycolysis in lung cancer cells. Our study highlights the value of the serum metabolite biomarkers in risk assessment of pulmonary nodules detected by CT 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.

Advances in lung cancer screening and early detection

Lung cancer is associated with a heavy cancer-related burden in terms of patients' physical and mental health worldwide. Two randomized controlled trials, the US-National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON), indicated that low-dose CT (LDCT) screening results in a statistically significant decrease in mortality in patients with lung cancer, LDCT has become the standard approach for lung cancer screening. However, many issues in lung cancer screening remain unresolved, such as the screening criteria, high false-positive rate, and radiation exposure. This review first summarizes recent studies on lung cancer screening from the US, Europe, and Asia, and discusses risk-based selection for screening and the related issues. Second, an overview of novel techniques for the differential diagnosis of pulmonary nodules, including artificial intelligence and molecular biomarker-based screening, is presented. Third, current explorations of strategies for suspected malignancy are summarized. Overall, this review aims to help clinicians understand recent progress in lung cancer screening and alleviate the burden of lung cancer.

Combining plasma extracellular vesicle Let-7b-5p, miR-184 and circulating miR-22-3p levels for NSCLC diagnosis and drug resistance prediction

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) Non-Small Cell Lung (NSCLC) screening is associated with high false-positive rates, leading to unnecessary expensive and invasive follow ups. There is a need for minimally invasive approaches to improve the accuracy of NSCLC diagnosis. In addition, NSCLC patients harboring sensitizing mutations in epidermal growth factor receptor EGFR (T790M, L578R) are treated with Osimertinib, a potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). However, nearly all patients develop TKI resistance. The underlying mechanisms are not fully understood. Plasma extracellular vesicle (EV) and circulating microRNA (miRNA) have been proposed as biomarkers for cancer screening and to inform treatment decisions. However, the identification of highly sensitive and broadly predictive core miRNA signatures remains a challenge. Also, how these systemic and diverse miRNAs impact cancer drug response is not well understood. Using an integrative approach, we examined plasma EV and circulating miRNA isolated from NSCLC patients versus screening controls with a similar risk profile. We found that combining EV (Hsa-miR-184, Let-7b-5p) and circulating (Hsa-miR-22-3p) miRNAs abundance robustly discriminates between NSCLC patients and high-risk cancer-free controls. Further, we found that Hsa-miR-22-3p, Hsa-miR-184, and Let-7b-5p functionally converge on WNT/βcatenin and mTOR/AKT signaling axes, known cancer therapy resistance signals. Targeting Hsa-miR-22-3p and Hsa-miR-184 desensitized EGFR-mutated (T790M, L578R) NSCLC cells to Osimertinib. These findings suggest that the expression levels of circulating hsa-miR-22-3p combined with EV hsa-miR-184 and Let-7b-5p levels potentially define a core biomarker signature for improving the accuracy of NSCLC diagnosis. Importantly, these biomarkers have the potential to enable prospective identification of patients who are at risk of responding poorly to Osimertinib alone but likely to benefit from Osimertinib/AKT blockade combination treatments.

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.

Comparison Between Wedge Resection and Lobectomy/Segmentectomy for Early-Stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Bayesian Meta-analysis and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Surgery has become an accepted method for the treatment of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The purpose of this Bayesian meta-analysis was to compare the overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and relapse-free survival (RFS) between wedge resection and lobectomy/segmentectomy for treatment of early-stage NSCLC.

METHODS

Eligible studies were retrieved from Web of Science, PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, and WanFang up to July 2021 and screened based on established selection criteria. The Bayesian meta-analysis was performed with the combination of the reported survival outcomes of the individual studies using a random-effect model. The OS, DFS, and RFS of the wedge resection group was compared with the lobectomy/segmentectomy group. The hazard ratio (HR) and standard error were extracted or calculated for each study using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

This study was registered with PROSPERO (INPLASY202080090).The pooled OS hazard ratio between segmentectomy and lobectomy was 1.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-1.4], the pooled HR between lobectomy and wedge resection was 0.71 [95% CI 0.52-0.96], and the pooled HR between segmentectomy and wedge was 0.80 [95% CI 0.56-1.10]. The pooled HR of DFS or RFS was not statistically significant among the three surgical approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with early-stage NSCLC received lobectomy had the lowest hazard ratio of OS than patients received wedge resection, indicating that the overall survival of patients received lobectomy was higher than patients received wedge resection. However, regarding DFS and RFS, the three surgical approaches showed no significant difference.

Moderate-severe coronary calcification predicts long-term cardiovascular death in CT lung cancer screening: The ITALUNG trial

PURPOSE

Coronary artery calcifications (CAC) are very strong indicators for increased cardio-vascular (CV) risk and can be evaluated also in low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening. We assessed whether a simple and fast CAC visual score is associated with CV mortality.

METHODS

CAC were retrospectively assessed by two observers using a 4-score (absent, mild, moderate and severe) scale in baseline LDCT obtained in 1364 participants to the ITALUNG trial who had 55-69 years of age and a smoking history ≥20 pack-years. Correlations with CV risk factors at baseline and with CV mortality after 11 years of follow-up were investigated.

RESULTS

CAC were absent in 470 (34.5%), mild in 433 (31.7%), moderate in 357 (26.2%) and severe in 104 (7.6%) subjects. CAC severity correlated (≤0.001) with age, male sex, pack-years, history of arterial hypertension or diabetes, obesity and treated hypercholesterolemia. Twenty-one CV deaths occurred. Moderate or severe CAC were significantly associated with higher CV mortality after adjustment for all other known risk factors (ARR = 2.72; 95 %CI:1.04-7.11). Notably, also in subjects with none or one only additional CV risk factor, the presence of moderate-severe CAC allowed to identify a subgroup of subjects with higher CV death risk (RR = 3.66; CI95%:1.06-12.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate or severe CAC visually assessed in LDCT examinations for lung cancer screening are independently associated with CV mortality.

Early Postoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes After Thoracoscopic Segmentectomy Versus Lobectomy for Small-Sized Peripheral Non-small-cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes are critical for obtaining valuable patient insight into different surgical treatment options with comparable clinical outcomes. This study aimed to compare early postoperative patient-reported symptoms and functioning between thoracoscopic segmentectomy and lobectomy for small-sized (≤ 2 cm) peripheral non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study included 110 patients who underwent thoracoscopic segmentectomy or lobectomy for peripheral NSCLC ≤ 2 cm in a multicenter prospective longitudinal study (CN-PRO-Lung 1). Symptom severity, functional status, and short-term clinical outcomes were compared between the groups. Symptom severity and functional status were measured using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Lung Cancer at baseline, daily post-surgery, and weekly post-discharge for up to 4 weeks. Both the proportion of moderate-to-severe scores and mean scores on a 0-10 scale were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 48 and 62 patients underwent thoracoscopic segmentectomy and lobectomy, respectively. No significant between-group differences were found in the severity of the top five symptoms (coughing, shortness of breath, pain, fatigue, and disturbed sleep) or in the impairment of all six function items (work, walking, general activity, enjoyment of life, mood, and relations with others) during both the 6-day postoperative hospitalization and the 4-week post-discharge (all p > 0.05). Short-term clinical outcomes of postoperative hospital stay, operative time, drainage time, postoperative in-hospital oral morphine equivalent dose, and complication rate were also comparable (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with peripheral NSCLC ≤ 2 cm, thoracoscopic segmentectomy and lobectomy might produce comparable symptom burden and functional impairment during the early postoperative period.

Analysis of the baseline performance of five UK lung cancer screening programmes

INTRODUCTION

Low-dose CT (LDCT) screening reduces lung cancer specific mortality. Several countries, including the UK, are evaluating the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening using the latest evidence. In this paper we report baseline screening performance from five UK-based lung cancer screening programmes.

METHODS

Data was collected at baseline from each screening programme. Measures of performance included prevalence of screen detected lung cancer, rate of surveillance imaging for indeterminate findings and surgical resection rates. Screening related harms were assessed by measuring false positive rates, number of invasive tests with associated complications in individuals without lung cancer and benign surgical resection rates.

RESULTS

A total of 11,148 individuals had a baseline LDCT scan during the period of analysis (2011 to 2020). Overall, 84.7% (n = 9,440) of baseline LDCT scans were categorised as negative, 11.1% (n = 1,239) as indeterminate and 4.2% (n = 469) as positive. The prevalence of screen detected lung cancer was 2.2%, ranging between 1.8% and 4.4% for individual programmes. The surgical resection rate was 66% (range 46% to 83%) and post-surgical 90-day mortality for those with lung cancer 1.2% (n = 2/165). The false positive rate was 2% (n = 219/10,898) and of those with a positive result, one in two had lung cancer diagnosed (53.3%). An invasive test was required in 0.6% (n = 61/10,898) of screening attendees without lung cancer; there were no associated major complications or deaths. The benign surgical resection rate was 4.6% (n = 8/173), equating to 0.07% of the screened population.

DISCUSSION

The performance of UK-based lung cancer screening programmes, delivered within or aligned to the National Health Service, compares favourably to published clinical trial data. Reported harms, including false positive and benign surgical resection rates are low. Ongoing monitoring of screening performance is vital to ensure standards are maintained and harms minimised.

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.

Results of Second Round Lung Cancer Screening by Low-Dose CT scan - French Cohort Study (DEP-KP80)

INTRODUCTION

Over the last few years, lung cancer screening by low-dose CT scan has demonstrated a decrease in lung cancer mortality. While this method has been in use since 2013 in the United States of America, no European country has yet implemented a systematic screening program. We hereby report the results from the second round of screening from a French cohort study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

DEP KP80 is a prospective study evaluating lung cancer screening by means of three low-dose computer tomography (CT) scans at 1-year intervals in 1,307 participants, aged 55 to 74 years old, all smokers or former smokers, having quit within the last 15 years, with over 30 pack years. The results of the first round demonstrated it was possible to conduct effective screening in real-life situations.

RESULTS

Participation was lower in this second round than in the first (35.3% vs. 73.1%, P < .001). The rate of negative results was significantly higher and that of undetermined results lower than those produced in the first round. Overall, 75% of cancers revealed were Stage 1 and 87.5% benefitted from surgical treatment. The incidence of cancer in the second round was 2.43%.

CONCLUSION

As with the first round, the results of this second round confirm the feasibility and efficacy of lung cancer screening. The lower participation rate for this second round is proof of the need to improve awareness among participants and healthcare professionals of the relevance of committing to an annual screening program.

Establishing scanning protocols for a CT lung cancer screening trial in the UK

OBJECTIVES

To develop a CT scanning protocol for lung cancer screening which achieved low radiation dose and a high level of objectively assessed image quality.

METHODS

An anthropomorphic chest phantom and a commercially available lung screening image quality phantom were scanned on a series of scan protocols from a previous UK lung screening pilot and on an alternative protocol. The chest phantom scans were used to assess the CT dose metrics on community-based mobile CT scanners and comparisons were made with published recommended doses. Scans of the image quality phantom were objectively assessed against the RSNA Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) recommendations. Protocol adjustments were made to ensure that the recommended dose and image quality levels were both achieved.

RESULTS

The alternative scan protocol yielded doses up to 72% lower than on the previously used protocols with a CTDIvol of 0.6mGy for the 55 kg equivalent phantom and 1.3mGy with an additional 6 cm of tissue equivalent material in place. Scans on the existing protocols failed on two of the QIBA image quality metrics (edge enhancement and 3D resolution aspect ratio). Following adjustments to the reconstruction parameters of the resulting image quality met all six QIBA recommendations. Radiologist review of phantom images with this scan protocol deemed them suitable for a lung screening trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Scan protocols yielding low radiation doses and high levels of objectively assessed image quality which meet published criteria can be established through the use of specific anthropomorphic and image quality phantoms, and are deliverable in community-based lung cancer screening.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Development of a standard methodology for establishing CT lung screening scanning protocolsUse of QIBA recommendations as objective image quality metricsStandardised lung phantoms are essential tools for setting up lung screening protocols.

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.

Determining cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening in urban Chinese populations using a state-transition Markov model

OBJECTIVES

This study analyses the cost-effectiveness of annual low-dose CT (LDCT) screening of high-risk cancer populations in Chinese urban areas.

DESIGN

We used a Markov model to evaluate LDCT screening from a sociological perspective.

SETTING

The data from two large lung cancer screening programmes in China were used.

PARTICIPANTS

The sample consisted of 100 000 smokers who underwent annual LDCT screening until age 76.

INTERVENTION

The study comprises five screening strategies, with the initial screening ages in both the screening strategies and their corresponding non-screening strategies being 40, 45, 50, 55 and 60 years, respectively.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between screening and non-screening strategies at the same initial age was evaluated.

RESULTS

In the baseline scenario, compared with those who were not screened, the specific mortality from lung cancer decreased by 18.52%-23.13% among those who underwent screening. The ICER of LDCT screening ranges from US$13 056.82 to US$15 736.06 per quality-adjusted life year, which is greater than one but less than three times the gross domestic product per capita in China. An initial screening age of 55 years is the most cost-effective strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline analysis shows that annual LDCT screening of heavy smokers in Chinese urban areas is likely to be cost-effective. The sensitivity analysis reveals that sensitivity, specificity and the overdiagnosis rate influence the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening. All scenarios tested demonstrate cost-effectiveness, except for the combination of worst values of sensitivity, specificity and overdiagnosis. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of a screening strategy depends on the performance of LDCT screenings.

Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT in Smokers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lung cancer continues to be one of the main causes of cancer death in Europe. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has shown high potential for screening of lung cancer in smokers, most recently in two European trials. The aim of this review was to assess lung cancer screening of smokers by LDCT with respect to clinical effectiveness, radiological procedures, quality of life, and changes in smoking behavior. We searched electronic databases in April 2020 for publications of randomized controlled trials (RCT) reporting on lung cancer and overall mortality, lung cancer morbidity, and harms of LDCT screening. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate effects on mortality. Forty-three publications on 10 RCTs were included. The meta-analysis of eight studies showed a statistically significant relative reduction of lung cancer mortality of 12% in the screening group (risk ratio = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.79-0.97). Between 4% and 24% of screening-LDCT scans were classified as positive, and 84-96% of them turned out to be false positive. The risk of overdiagnosis was estimated between 19% and 69% of diagnosed lung cancers. Lung cancer screening can reduce disease-specific mortality in (former) smokers when stringent requirements and quality standards for performance are met.

Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening by Chest Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis aims to combine and analyze randomized clinical trials comparing computed tomography lung screening (CTLS) versus either no screening (NS) or chest x-ray (CXR) in subjects with cigarette smoking history, to provide a precise and reliable estimation of the benefits and harms associated with CTLS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from all published randomized trials comparing CTLS versus either NS or CXR in a highly tobacco-exposed population were collected, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Subgroup analyses by comparator (NS or CXR) were performed. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and relative 95% CIs were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Nine eligible trials (88,497 patients) were included. Pooled analysis showed that CTLS is associated with: a significant reduction of lung cancer-related mortality (overall RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.98; NS RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.92); a significant increase of early-stage tumors diagnosis (overall RR, 2.84; 95% CI 1.76 to 4.58; NS RR, 3.33; 95% CI, 2.27 to 4.89; CXR RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.23); a significant decrease of late-stage tumors diagnosis (overall RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.83; NS RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.80); a significant increase of resectability rate (NS RR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.76 to 3.74); a nonsignificant reduction of all-cause mortality (overall RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.05); and a significant increase of overdiagnosis rate (NS, 38%; 95% CI, 14 to 63). The analysis of lung cancer-related mortality by sex revealed nonsignificant differences between men and women (P = .21; I-squared = 33.6%).

CONCLUSION

Despite there still being uncertainty about overdiagnosis estimate, this meta-analysis suggested that the CTLS benefits outweigh harms, in subjects with cigarette smoking history, ultimately supporting the systematic implementation of lung cancer screening worldwide.

[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.

Screening for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the US.

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence on screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through May 2019; references; experts; and literature surveillance through November 20, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language studies of screening with LDCT, accuracy of LDCT, risk prediction models, or treatment for early-stage lung cancer.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings. Data were not pooled because of heterogeneity of populations and screening protocols.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Lung cancer incidence, lung cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, test accuracy, and harms.

RESULTS

This review included 223 publications. Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (N = 86 486) evaluated lung cancer screening with LDCT; the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST, N = 53 454) and Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON, N = 15 792) were the largest RCTs. Participants were more likely to benefit than the US screening-eligible population (eg, based on life expectancy). The NLST found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.96]; number needed to screen [NNS] to prevent 1 lung cancer death, 323 over 6.5 years of follow-up) with 3 rounds of annual LDCT screening compared with chest radiograph for high-risk current and former smokers aged 55 to 74 years. NELSON found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (IRR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61-0.90]; NNS to prevent 1 lung cancer death of 130 over 10 years of follow-up) with 4 rounds of LDCT screening with increasing intervals compared with no screening for high-risk current and former smokers aged 50 to 74 years. Harms of screening included radiation-induced cancer, false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, and increases in distress. For every 1000 persons screened in the NLST, false-positive results led to 17 invasive procedures (number needed to harm, 59) and fewer than 1 person having a major complication. Overdiagnosis estimates varied greatly (0%-67% chance that a lung cancer was overdiagnosed). Incidental findings were common, and estimates varied widely (4.4%-40.7% of persons screened).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Screening high-risk persons with LDCT can reduce lung cancer mortality but also causes false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, increases in distress, and, rarely, radiation-induced cancers. Most studies reviewed did not use current nodule evaluation protocols, which might reduce false-positive results and invasive procedures for false-positive results.

Real-World Lung Cancer CT Screening Performance, Smoking Behavior, and Adherence to Recommendations: Lung-RADS Category and Smoking Status Predict Adherence

BACKGROUND. Low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening (LCS) has been shown to decrease mortality in persons with a significant smoking history. However, adherence in real-world LCS programs is significantly lower than in randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to assess real-world LDCT LCS performance and factors predictive of adherence to LCS recommendations. METHODS. We retrospectively identified all persons who underwent at least two LCS examinations from 2014 to 2019. Patient demographics, smoking history and behavior changes, Lung-RADS category, PPV, NPV, and adherence to screening recommendations were recorded. Predictors of adherence were assessed via univariate comparisons and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS. A total of 260 persons returned for follow-up LDCT (57.7% had two, 34.2% had three, 7.7% had four, and 0.4% had five LDCT examinations). A total of 43 of 260 (16.5%) had positive (Lung-RADS category 3 or above) scans, of which 27 of 260 persons (10.3%) were graded as Lung-RADS category 3, eight of 260 (3.1%) were category 4A, six of 260 (2.3%) were category 4B, and two of 260 (0.8%) were category 4X. Cancer was diagnosed in four of the 260 (three with lung cancer and one with metastatic melanoma). A total of 143 of 260 (55.0%) persons were current smokers at baseline and 121 of 260 (46.5%) were current smokers at the last round of LCS. LCS had sensitivity of 100.0%, specificity of 84.8%, PPV of 9.3%, and NPV of 100%. Overall adherence was 43.0% but increased progressively with higher Lung-RADS category (Lung-RADS 1: 33.2%; Lung-RADS 2: 46.3%; Lung-RADS 3: 53.8%; Lung-RADS 4A: 77.8%; Lung-RADS 4B: 83.3%; Lung-RADS 4X: 100%; p < .001). was also higher in former versus current smokers (50.0% vs 36.2%; p < .001). Being a former smoker and having a nodule that is Lung-RADS category 3 or greater were the only significant independent predictors of adherence. CONCLUSION. Our real-world LCS program showed very high sensitivity and NPV, but moderate specificity and very low PPV. Adherence to LCS recommendations increased with former versus current smokers and in those with positive (Lung-RADS categories 3, 4A, 4B, or 4X) LCS examinations. Adherence was less than 50.0% in current smokers and persons with negative (Lung-RADS categories 1 or 2) LCS examinations. CLINICAL IMPACT. Our results offer a road map for targeted performance improvement by focusing on LCS subjects less likely to remain in the program, such as persons with negative LCS examinations and persons who continue to smoke, potentially improving LCS cost effectiveness and maximizing its societal benefits.

Comparison of Chief Complaints and Patient-Reported Symptoms of Treatment-Naive Lung Cancer Patients Before Surgery

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer patients without chief complaints have been increasingly identified by physical examination. This study aimed to profile and compare chief complaints with patient-reported symptoms of lung cancer patients before surgery.

METHODS

Data were extracted from a multicenter, prospective longitudinal study (CN-PRO-Lung 1) in China from November 2017 to January 2020. A comparison between chief complaints and patient-reported symptoms was analyzed using the Chi-squared test.

RESULTS

A total of 201 (50.8%) lung cancer patients without chief complaints were found by physical examination at admission, and 195 (49.2%) patients had chief complaints. The top 5 chief complaints were coughing (38.1%), expectoration (25.5%), chest pain (13.6%), hemoptysis (10.6%), and shortness of breath (5.3%). There were significantly more patients with chief complaints of coughing (38.1% vs 15.0%, P <0.001) and pain (20.5% vs 6.9%, P<0.001) than those with the same symptoms rated ≥4 via MD Anderson Symptom Inventory‒Lung Cancer (MDASI-LC). There were less patients with chief complaints of fatigue (1.8% vs 10.9%, P<0.001), nausea (0.3% vs 2.5%, P=0.006), and vomiting (0.3% vs 1.8%, p=0.032) than those with the same symptoms rated ≥4 via MDASI-LC. In patients without chief complaints, the five most common moderate to severe patient-reported symptoms were disturbed sleep (19.5%), distress (13.5%), dry mouth (13%), sadness (12%), and difficulty remembering (11.1%).

CONCLUSION

Symptoms of lung cancer patients not included in the chief complaint could be identified via a patient-reported outcome instrument, suggesting the necessity of implementing the patient-reported outcome assessment before lung cancer surgery for better patient care.

Lung Screening Benefits and Challenges: A Review of The Data and Outline for Implementation

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, accounting for almost a fifth of all cancer-related deaths. Annual computed tomographic lung cancer screening (CTLS) detects lung cancer at earlier stages and reduces lung cancer-related mortality among high-risk individuals. Many medical organizations, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recommend annual CTLS in high-risk populations. However, fewer than 5% of individuals worldwide at high risk for lung cancer have undergone screening. In large part, this is owing to delayed implementation of CTLS in many countries throughout the world. Factors contributing to low uptake in countries with longstanding CTLS endorsement, such as the United States, include lack of patient and clinician awareness of current recommendations in favor of CTLS and clinician concerns about CTLS-related radiation exposure, false-positive results, overdiagnosis, and cost. This review of the literature serves to address these concerns by evaluating the potential risks and benefits of CTLS. Review of key components of a lung screening program, along with an updated shared decision aid, provides guidance for program development and optimization. Review of studies evaluating the population considered "high-risk" is included as this may affect future guidelines within the United States and other countries considering lung screening implementation.

Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT: a Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening on lung cancer (LC) outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

Meta-analyze LDCT lung cancer screening trials.

METHODS

We identified studies by searching PubMed, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov , and reference lists from retrieved publications. We abstracted data on study design features, stage I LC diagnoses, LC and overall mortality, false positive results, harm from invasive diagnostic procedures, overdiagnosis, and significant incidental findings. We assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We used random-effects models to calculate relative risks and assessed effect modulators with subgroup analyses and meta-regression.

RESULTS

We identified 9 studies that enrolled 96,559 subjects. The risk of bias across studies was judged to be low. Overall, LDCT screening significantly increased the detection of stage I LC, RR = 2.93 (95% CI, 2.16-3.98), I² = 19%, and reduced LC mortality, RR = 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75-0.93), I² = 0%. The number needed to screen to prevent an LC death was 265. Women had a lower risk of LC death (RR = 0.69, 95% CI, 0.40-1.21) than men (RR = 0.86, 95% CI, 0.66-1.13), p value for interaction = 0.11. LDCT screening did not reduce overall mortality, RR = 0.96 (95% CI, 0.91-1.01), I² = 0%. The pooled false positive rate was 8% (95% CI, 4-18); subjects with false positive results had < 1 in 1000 risk of major complications following invasive diagnostic procedures. The most valid estimates for overdiagnosis and significant incidental findings were 8.9% and 7.5%, respectively.

DISCUSSION

LDCT screening significantly reduced LC mortality, though not overall mortality, with women appearing to benefit more than men. The estimated risks for false positive results, screening complications, overdiagnosis, and incidental findings were low. Long-term survival data were available only for North American and European studies limiting generalizability.

Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis and Lung Cancer. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Rationale: The association between idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and lung cancer has been previously reported. However, there is the potential for significant confounding by age and smoking, and an accurate summary risk estimate has not been previously ascertained.Objectives: To determine the risk and burden of lung cancer in patients with IPF, accounting for known confounders.Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases and used the Newcastle Ottawa criteria to assess study quality. We then assessed the quality of ascertainment of IPF cases based on modern consensus criteria. Data that relied on administrative claims or autopsies were excluded. We calculated summary risk estimates using a random effects model.Results: Twenty-five cohort studies were included in the final analysis. The estimated adjusted incidence rate ratio from two studies was 6.42 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.21-9.62) and accounted for age, sex, and smoking. The summary incidence rate from 11 studies was 2.07 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 1.46-2.67), and the summary mortality rate was 1.06 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 0.62-1.51) obtained from three studies. The summary prevalence from 11 studies was 13.74% (95% CI, 10.17-17.30), and the proportion of deaths attributable to lung cancer was 10.20 (95% CI, 8.52-11.87) and was obtained from nine studies.Conclusions: IPF is an increased independent risk factor for lung cancer, even after accounting for smoking. Further well-designed studies using modern consensus criteria are needed to explore mechanisms of this association.

Utility of FDG PET/CT for assessment of lung nodules identified during low dose computed tomography screening

BACKGROUND

Many clinical guidelines recommend FDG PET/CT for the evaluation of pulmonary nodules ≥8 mm detected during low dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening. However, its added value in this setting requires confirmation. We evaluated the clinical utility of FDG PET/CT, including incidental findings, during the evaluation of lung nodules detected on LDCT screening.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed among 75 patients who completed FDG PET/CT between January 2010 and December 2017, after lung nodules > 8 mm had been detected on LDCT lung cancer screening. We report demographic variables, characteristics of the initial nodules on LDCT and FDG PET/CT, incidental findings on FDG PET/CT, as well as further work up performed and the influence of FDG PET/CT findings on management.

RESULTS

Nodules were reported to be benign on FDG PET/CT in 38/75 (50.6%) patients. Physicians chose either radiological follow-up or no further work up in all 38. FDG PET/CT was indeterminate or suggested malignancy in 37 (49.3%) patients. Biopsy was performed in 32 (86%) of these patients. Incidental findings on FDG PET/CT were reported in 37/75 (49%) patients. Further work-up of incidental findings was performed in 21/75 (28%) of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, for majority of individuals with lung nodules identified during LDCT lung cancer screening, FDG PET/CT results were able to guide physicians in choosing between routine follow up or invasive biopsies. Conversely, 28% of these patients required additional investigations to address incidental findings.

Lobectomy versus sublobar resection in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review

Surgery is the gold standard treatment of lung cancer. The minimally invasive technique does not only concern access to the chest but also the limits of parenchymal resection. The study debates on the safety and oncological adequacy of sublobar resections in bronchogenic carcinoma patients. A systematic analysis of the data in the literature was carried out, comparing the outcomes of patients with resectable non-small lung cancer (NSCLC) who underwent lobectomy or sublobar resection. These last interventions include both segmentectomies and wedge resections taking into consideration the following parameters: complications, relapse rate and overall survival. The complication rate is higher in patients underwent lobectomy compared to sublobar resection, especially in presence of high comorbidity index or octogenarian patients (overall values respectively between 0 and 48% and 0 and 46.6%). Contrarily, the relapse rate (6.2% to 32% vs. 3.6% to 53.4%) and overall survival (50.2% to 93.8% vs. 38.6% to 100%) are more favorable in patients undergoing lobectomy. Sublobar resections are particularly indicated in elderly patients and in patients with high comorbidity index or reduced respiratory functional reserve. However, pulmonary lobectomy still remains the safest and oncologically correct method in patients with good performance status or higher risk of recurrence.

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.Key Points• Pulmonologists and radiologists both have key roles in the set up of multidisciplinary LCS teams with experts from many other fields.• Pulmonologists identify people eligible for LCS, reach out to family doctors, share the decision-making process and promote tobacco cessation.• Radiologists ensure appropriate image quality, minimum dose and a standardised reading/reporting algorithm, together with a clear definition of a "positive screen".• Strict algorithms define the exact management of screen-detected nodules and incidental findings.• For LCS to be (cost-)effective, it has to target a population defined by risk prediction models.

Decreased cardiovascular mortality in the ITALUNG lung cancer screening trial: Analysis of underlying factors

OBJECTIVES

In the ITALUNG lung cancer screening trial after 9.3 years of follow-up we observed an unexpected significant decrease of cardiovascular (CV) mortality in subjects invited for low-dose CT (LDCT) screening as compared to controls undergoing usual care. Herein we extended the mortality follow-up and analyzed the potential factors underlying such a decrease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The following factors were assessed in screenes and controls: burden of CV disease at baseline, changes in smoking habits, use of CV drugs and frequency of planned vascular procedures after randomisation. Moreover, in the screenes we evaluated inclusion of presence of coronary artery calcification (CAC) in the LDCT report form that was transmitted to the participant and his/her General Practitioner.

RESULTS

The 2-years extension of follow-up confirmed a significant decrease of CV mortality in the subjects of the active group compared to control subjects (15.6 vs 34.0 per 10,000; p = 0.001) that was not observed in the drops-out of the active group. None of the explaining factors we considered significantly differed between active and control group. However, the subjects of the active group with reported CAC experienced a not significantly lower CV mortality and showed a significantly higher use of CV drugs and frequency of planned vascular procedures than the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

LDCT screening for lung cancer offers the opportunity for detection of CAC that is an important CV risk factor. Although the underlying mechanisms are not clear, our results suggest that the inclusion of information about CAC presence in the LDCT report may represent a candidate factor to explain the decreased CV mortality observed in screened subjects of the ITALUNG trial, possibly resulting in intervention for patient care to prevent CV deaths. Further studies investigating whether prospective reporting and rating of CAC have independent impact on such interventions and CV mortality are worthy.

Smoking Cessation in the ITALUNG Lung Cancer Screening: What Does “Teachable Moment” Mean?

Background

Changes in smoking habits and predictors of smoking cessation were examined in the randomized ITALUNG lung cancer screening trial.

Methods

In three centers, eligible smokers or ex-smokers (55–69 years, ≥20 pack-years in the last 10 years) were randomized to receive annual invitation for low-dose computed tomography for 4 years or usual care. At invitation, subjects received written information for a free smoking cessation program. Quitting outcome was assessed at year 4.

Results

Among participants who completed baseline assessments and year 4 screening, higher quitting (20.8% vs. 16.7%, p = .029) and lower relapse (6.41% vs. 7.56%, p = .50) rates were observed in the active screening group as compared to the usual-care control group. Corresponding figures in the intention-to-treat analysis were as follows: 16.04% versus 14.64% (p = .059) and 4.88% versus 6.43% (p = .26). Quitting smoking was significantly associated to male gender, lower pack-years, and having pulmonary nodules at baseline. Center-specific analyses showed a threefold statistically significant higher probability to quit associated with participating in the smoking cessation program. A subsample of smokers of the scan group from one center showed higher quitting rates over 12-month follow-up as compared to matched controls from the general population who underwent the same smoking cessation program.

Conclusions

Consistently with previous reports, in the ITALUNG trial, screened subjects showed significantly higher quit rates than controls, and higher quit rates were associated with both the presence of pulmonary nodules and participating in a smoking cessation program. Maximal effect on quitting outcome was observed with the participation in the smoking cessation program.

Implications

Participating in lung cancer screening promotes smoking cessation. An effective “teachable moment” may be achieved when the smoking cessation intervention is structured as integral part of the screening clinical visits and conducted by a dedicated team of health care professionals. Standardized guidelines for smoking cessation interventions in lung cancer screening are needed.

Second round results from the Manchester 'Lung Health Check' community-based targeted lung cancer screening pilot

We report results from the second annual screening round (T1) of Manchester's 'Lung Health Check' pilot of community-based lung cancer screening in deprived areas (undertaken June to August 2017). Screening adherence was 90% (n=1194/1323): 92% of CT scans were classified negative, 6% indeterminate and 2.5% positive; there were no interval cancers. Lung cancer incidence was 1.6% (n=19), 79% stage I, treatments included surgery (42%, n=9), stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (26%, n=5) and radical radiotherapy (5%, n=1). False-positive rate was 34.5% (n=10/29), representing 0.8% of T1 participants (n=10/1194). Targeted community-based lung cancer screening promotes high screening adherence and detects high rates of early stage lung cancer.

CT screening for lung cancer: Are we ready to implement in Europe?

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) is already available in certain parts of the world, such as the United States, but not yet in Europe. The recently published European position statement on lung cancer screening has recommended planning for implementation of screening to start within 18-months [1]. Pilot European programmes are already underway, primarily in the United Kingdom (UK), delivering lung cancer screening to their local populations. This review article acknowledges the evidence base for LDCT screening and will discuss the challenges that still need to be overcome in an attempt to answer the question: are we ready to implement in Europe?

Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of lung cancer frequently occurs in its later stages. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could detect lung cancer early.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LDCT lung cancer screening in high-risk populations.

DATA SOURCES

Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library.

METHODS

Clinical effectiveness - a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDCT screening programmes with usual care (no screening) or other imaging screening programmes [such as chest X-ray (CXR)] was conducted. Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Meta-analyses, including network meta-analyses, were performed. Cost-effectiveness - an independent economic model employing discrete event simulation and using a natural history model calibrated to results from a large RCT was developed. There were 12 different population eligibility criteria and four intervention frequencies [(1) single screen, (2) triple screen, (3) annual screening and (4) biennial screening] and a no-screening control arm.

RESULTS

Clinical effectiveness - 12 RCTs were included, four of which currently contribute evidence on mortality. Meta-analysis of these demonstrated that LDCT, with ≤ 9.80 years of follow-up, was associated with a non-statistically significant decrease in lung cancer mortality (pooled relative risk 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.19). The findings also showed that LDCT screening demonstrated a non-statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality. Given the considerable heterogeneity detected between studies for both outcomes, the results should be treated with caution. Network meta-analysis, including six RCTs, was performed to assess the relative clinical effectiveness of LDCT, CXR and usual care. The results showed that LDCT was ranked as the best screening strategy in terms of lung cancer mortality reduction. CXR had a 99.7% probability of being the worst intervention and usual care was ranked second. Cost-effectiveness - screening programmes are predicted to be more effective than no screening, reduce lung cancer mortality and result in more lung cancer diagnoses. Screening programmes also increase costs. Screening for lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), but may be cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000/QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a single screen in smokers aged 60-75 years with at least a 3% risk of lung cancer is £28,169 per QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Screening was only cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/QALY in only a minority of analyses.

LIMITATIONS

Clinical effectiveness - the largest of the included RCTs compared LDCT with CXR screening rather than no screening. Cost-effectiveness - a representative cost to the NHS of lung cancer has not been recently estimated according to key variables such as stage at diagnosis. Certain costs associated with running a screening programme have not been included.

CONCLUSIONS

LDCT screening may be clinically effective in reducing lung cancer mortality, but there is considerable uncertainty. There is evidence that a single round of screening could be considered cost-effective at conventional thresholds, but there is significant uncertainty about the effect on costs and the magnitude of benefits.

FUTURE WORK

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness estimates should be updated with the anticipated results from several ongoing RCTs [particularly the NEderlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) screening trial].

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016048530.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Do we know enough about the effect of low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer on survival to act? A systematic review, meta-analysis and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of lung cancer frequently occurs in its later stages. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could detect lung cancer early.

METHODS

Our objective was to estimate the effect of LDCT lung cancer screening on mortality in high-risk populations. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDCT screening programmes with usual care (no screening) or other imaging screening programme (such as chest X-ray (CXR)) was conducted. RCTs of CXR screening were additionally included in the network meta-analysis. Bibliographic sources including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched to January 2017. All key review steps were done by two persons. Quality assessment used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Four RCTs were included. More will provide data in the future. Meta-analysis demonstrated that LDCT screening with up to 9.80 years of follow-up was associated with a statistically non-significant decrease in lung cancer mortality (pooled relative risk (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.19; p = 0.62). There was a statistically non-significant increase in all-cause mortality. Given the considerable heterogeneity for both outcomes, the results should be treated with caution.Network meta-analysis including the four original RCTs plus two further RCTs assessed the relative effectiveness of LDCT, CXR and usual care. The results showed that in terms of lung cancer mortality reduction LDCT was ranked as the best screening strategy, CXR screening as the worst strategy and usual care intermediate.

CONCLUSIONS

LDCT screening may be effective in reducing lung cancer mortality but there is considerable uncertainty: the largest of the RCTs compared LDCT with CXR screening rather than no screening; there is imprecision of the estimates; and there is important heterogeneity between the included study results. The uncertainty about the effect on all-cause mortality is even greater. Maturing trials may resolve the uncertainty.

Low-dose computed tomography screening reduces lung cancer mortality

Lung cancer causes an estimated 1.6 million deaths each year, being the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the world. Late diagnosis and, in some cases, the high aggressiveness of the tumour result in low overall five-year survival rates of 12% among men and 7% among women. The cure is most likely in early-stage disease. The poor outcomes of treatment in lung cancer resulting from the fact that most cases are diagnosed in the advanced stage of the disease justify the implementation of an optimal lung cancer prevention in the form of smoking cessation and screening programmes that would offer a chance to detect early stages of the disease, while fitting within specific economic constraints. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) - the largest and most expensive randomised, clinical trial in the USA demonstrated a 20% mortality rate reduction in patients who had undergone chest low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening, as compared to patients screened with a conventional chest X-ray. Results of the NLST enabled the implementation of lung cancer screening programme among highrisk patients in the USA and parts of China. In 2017, recommendations of the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons also strongly recommend an implementation of a screening programme in the EU. Further studies of improved lung cancer risk assessment scores and of effective molecular markers should intensify in order to reduce all potential harms to the high-risk group and to increase cost-effectiveness of the screening.

Cost-utility analysis of a potential lung cancer screening program for a high-risk population in Germany: A modelling approach

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in Germany. Although several randomized trials in Europe have evaluated the effectiveness of lung cancer screening programs, evidence on the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a population-based lung cancer screening program from the perspective of a German payer.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis from the public payer perspective for a high-risk population defined as heavy former and current smokers (≥20 cigarettes per day) between 55 and 75 years of age. The underlying model consisted of two Markov models. We differentiated between a population-based annual screening program and standard clinical care. Depending on stage at diagnosis, simulated patients were assigned to one of five treatment paths according to the German clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. Costs, life years saved, and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were used as outcomes. Values for input parameters were taken from the literature. The model was run for 60 cycles with a cycle length of three months. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

In the base case, annual lung cancer screening led to an increase in incremental costs (€ 1,153 per person) compared to standard clinical care. However, the screening approach was associated with an incremental gain in life years (0.06 per person) and QALYs (0.04 per person). Thus, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was € 19,302 per life year saved and € 30,291 per QALY. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 10,000 draws resulted in average ICERs of € 22,118 per life year and € 34,841 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

We provide evidence that lung cancer screening for a high-risk population may be more effective, but also more costly, than standard clinical care from the perspective of a German payer.

The narrow path to organized LDCT lung cancer screening programs in Europe

A recent position statement by a group of European experts reviewed the current evidence for low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, based on the outcomes and screening performance of the published randomized trials and identified actions needed for eventual future implementation. After the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) outcome publication, guidelines changed in USA and Canada, but there are still problems in real-world screening practice. In Europe any decision was postponed to the publication of the European randomized trial outcomes and recommendations continue to discourage screening for lung cancer in all member countries. The NELSON randomized controlled trial (RCT), the largest one in Europe, outcome results are still waited, whereas the MILD, DANTE, DLSCT and ITALUNG (all with small sample size) RCTs have published mortality and incidence data with adequate follow up. The implementation of an organized screening in Europe is conditioned by a health technology assessment process at European level. According with the European policy, confirmed in the recent European Cancer Code [2015], screening is transferred in current public-health practice according with evidence-based recommendations and based on organized, usually population-based, programs. Guidelines, standard indicators of performance, training of dedicated radiologists and professionals and a comprehensive quality assurance system is requested in European countries to implement nationally a public health screening program. Waiting the NELSON randomized trial results, key issues as modality for selection of high risk subjects and recruitment, integration of screening and smoking cessation, optimal screening regimen and related research on biomarkers should be assessed, discussed and reviewed. Informed decision making, promotion of primary prevention and integration of screening and smoking cessation are all essential components of a comprehensive risk reduction policy. The path to an Evidence-based screening practice is narrow and, in the absence of a well-established decision-making process, the risk of a spontaneous, uncontrolled use of LDCT screening or, on the other side, an oversight of the screening opportunity is high.