Smoking habits in the randomised Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial with low-dose CT: final results after a 5-year screening programme

The pros and cons of lung cancer screening

Several trials have shown that low-dose computed tomography-based lung cancer screening (LCS) allows a substantial reduction in lung cancer-related mortality, carrying the potential for other clinical benefits. There are, however, some uncertainties to be clarified and several aspects to be implemented to optimize advantages and minimize the potential harms of LCS. This review summarizes current evidence on LCS, discussing some of the well-established and potential benefits, including lung cancer (LC)-related mortality reduction and opportunity for smoking cessation interventions, as well as the disadvantages of LCS, such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Different perspectives are provided on LCS based on the updated literature. KEY POINTS: Lung cancer is a leading cancer-related cause of death and screening should reduce associated mortality. This review summarizes current evidence related to LCS. Several aspects need to be implemented to optimize benefits and minimize potential drawbacks of LCS.

Study rationale and design of the PEOPLHE trial

PURPOSE

Lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) demonstrated a 20-40% reduction in lung cancer mortality. National stakeholders and international scientific societies are increasingly endorsing LCS programs, but translating their benefits into practice is rather challenging. The "Model for Optimized Implementation of Early Lung Cancer Detection: Prospective Evaluation Of Preventive Lung HEalth" (PEOPLHE) is an Italian multicentric LCS program aiming at testing LCS feasibility and implementation within the national healthcare system. PEOPLHE is intended to assess (i) strategies to optimize LCS workflow, (ii) radiological quality assurance, and (iii) the need for dedicated resources, including smoking cessation facilities.

METHODS

PEOPLHE aims to recruit 1.500 high-risk individuals across three tertiary general hospitals in three different Italian regions that provide comprehensive services to large populations to explore geographic, demographic, and socioeconomic diversities. Screening by LDCT will target current or former (quitting < 10 years) smokers (> 15 cigarettes/day for > 25 years, or > 10 cigarettes/day for > 30 years) aged 50-75 years. Lung nodules will be volumetric measured and classified by a modified PEOPLHE Lung-RADS 1.1 system. Current smokers will be offered smoking cessation support.

CONCLUSION

The PEOPLHE program will provide information on strategies for screening enrollment and smoking cessation interventions; administrative, organizational, and radiological needs for performing a state-of-the-art LCS; collateral and incidental findings (both pulmonary and extrapulmonary), contributing to the LCS implementation within national healthcare systems.

Strategies to Improve Smoking Cessation for Participants in Lung Cancer Screening Program: Analysis of Factors Associated with Smoking Cessation in Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project (K-LUCAS)

PURPOSE

Smoking cessation intervention is one of the key components of successful lung cancer screening program. We investigated the effectiveness and related factors of smoking cessation services provided to the participants in a population-based lung cancer screening trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project (K-LUCAS) is a nationwide, multi-center lung cancer screening trial that evaluates the feasibility of implementing population-based lung cancer screening. All 5,144 current smokers who participated in the K-LUCAS received a mandatory smoking cessation counseling. Changes in smoking status were followed up using a telephone survey in 6 months after lung cancer screening participation. The lung cancer screening's impact on smoking cessation is analyzed by variations in the smoking cessation interventions provided in screening units.

RESULTS

Among 4,136 survey responders, participant's motivation to quit smoking increased by 9.4% on average after lung cancer screening. After 6 months from the initial screening, 24.3% of participants stopped smoking, and 10.6% of participants had not smoked continuously for at least 6 months after screening. Over 80% of quitters stated that participation in lung cancer screening motivated them to quit smoking. Low-cost public smoking cessation program combined with lung cancer screening increased the abstinence rates. The smokers were three times more likely to quit smoking when the smoking cessation counseling was provided simultaneously with low-dose computed tomography screening results than when provided separately.

CONCLUSION

A mandatory smoking cessation intervention integrated with screening result counselling by a physician after participation in lung cancer screening could be effective for increasing smoking cessation attempts.

Ten reasons to screen women at risk of lung cancer

This opinion piece reviews major reasons for promoting lung cancer screening in at-risk women who are smokers or ex-smokers, from the age of 50. The epidemiology of lung cancer in European women is extremely worrying, with lung cancer mortality expected to surpass breast cancer mortality in most European countries. There are conflicting data as to whether women are at increased risk of developing lung cancer compared to men who have a similar tobacco exposure. The sharp increase in the incidence of lung cancer in women exceeds the increase in their smoking exposure which is in favor of greater susceptibility. Lung and breast cancer screening could be carried out simultaneously, as the screening ages largely coincide. In addition, lung cancer screening could be carried out every 2 years, as is the case for breast cancer screening, if the baseline CT scan is negative.As well as detecting early curable lung cancer, screening can also detect coronary heart disease and osteoporosis induced by smoking. This enables preventive measures to be taken in addition to smoking cessation assistance, to reduce morbidity and mortality in the female population. Key points • The epidemiology of lung cancer in European women is very worrying.• Lung cancer is becoming the leading cause of cancer mortality in European women.• Women benefit greatly from screening in terms of reduced risk of death from lung cancer.

The impact of low-dose CT on smoking behavior among non-smokers, former-smokers, and smokers: A population-based screening cohort in rural China

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening may provide a "teachable moment" for the smoking cessation and relapse prevention. However, the impact of lung cancer screening on smoking initiation in non-smokers has not been reported.

METHODS

A baseline smoking behavior survey was conducted in 2000 participants who were screened by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) from 2014 to 2018. All participants were re-surveyed on their smoking behavior in 2019. Of these, 312 participants were excluded, leaving 1688 participants in the final analysis. The smoking initiation rate in baseline non-smokers, the relapse rate in baseline former smokers, and the abstinence rate in baseline current smokers were calculated, respectively. The associations between screening results, demographic characteristics, and smoking behavior change were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

From 2014 to 2019, smoking prevalence significantly decreased from 52.6% to 49.1%. The prevalence of smoking initiation, relapse, and abstinence in baseline non-smokers, former, and current smokers was 16.8%, 22.9%, and 23.7%, respectively. The risk of smoking initiation in baseline non-smokers was significantly higher in those with negative screening result (adjusted OR = 2.97, 95% CI: 1.27-6.94). Compared to smokers who only received baseline screening, the chance of smoking abstinence in baseline current smokers was reduced by over 80% in those who attended 5 rounds of screening (adjusted OR = 0.15, 95% CI:0.08-0.27). No significant associations were found between smoking relapse and prior screening frequency, with at least one positive screening result. Age, gender, occupational exposure, income, and smoking pack years were also associated with smoking behavior changes.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall decreased smoking prevalence indicated an overwhelming effect of "teachable moment" on "license to smoke." A tailored smoking cessation strategy should be integrated into lung cancer screening.

Early Diagnosis and Lung Cancer Screening

Lung cancer remains the most significant cause of cancer death, accounting for about 20% of all cancer-related mortality. A significant reason for this is delayed diagnosis, either due to lack of symptoms in early-stage disease or presentation with non-specific symptoms common with a broad range of alternative diagnoses. More is needed in terms of increasing public awareness, providing adequate healthcare professional education and implementing clinical pathways that improve the earlier diagnosis of symptomatic lung cancer. Low-dose computed tomography screening of high-risk, asymptomatic populations has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality, with focus now shifting towards how best to implement lung cancer screening on a wider scale in a safe, efficient and cost-effective manner. For maximum benefit, efforts must be made to optimise uptake, especially among high-risk populations with significant socioeconomic deprivation, as well as successfully incorporate tobacco-dependency treatment. Quality assured programme management will be critical to minimising screening-related harms and adequately managing incidental findings. By undertaking the above, there can be optimism that lung cancer outcomes can be improved significantly in the near future.

[Low-dose Spiral Computed Tomography in Lung Cancer Screening]

Lung cancer is one of the malignant tumors with the highest morbidity and mortality in the world. The low early diagnosis rate and poor prognosis of patients have caused serious social burden. Regular screening of high-risk population by low-dose spiral computed tomography (LDCT) can significantly improve the early diagnosis rate of lung cancer and bring new opportunities for the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. In recent years, LDCT lung cancer screening programs have been carried out in many countries around the world and achieved good results, but there are still some controversies in the selection of screening subjects, screening frequency, cost effectiveness and other aspects. In this paper, the key factors of LDCT lung cancer screening, screening effect, pulmonary nodule management and artificial intelligence contribution to the development of LDCT will be reviewed, and the application progress of LDCT in lung cancer screening will be discussed.
.

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.

Low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening: Clinical evidence and implementation research

Lung cancer causes more deaths than breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer combined. Nevertheless, population-based lung cancer screening is still not considered standard practice in most countries worldwide. Early lung cancer detection leads to better survival outcomes: patients diagnosed with stage 1A lung cancer have a >75% 5-year survival rate, compared to <5% at stage 4. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) thorax imaging for the secondary prevention of lung cancer has been studied at length, and has been shown to significantly reduce lung cancer mortality in high-risk populations. The US National Lung Screening Trial reported a 20% overall reduction in lung cancer mortality when comparing LDCT to chest X-ray, and the Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON) trial more recently reported a 24% reduction when comparing LDCT to no screening. Hence, the focus has now shifted to implementation research. Consequently, the 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN consortium based in five European countries, has set up a large-scale multicenter implementation trial. Successful implementation of and accessibility to LDCT lung cancer screening are dependent on many factors, not limited to population selection, recruitment strategy, computed tomography screening frequency, lung-nodule management, participant compliance, and cost effectiveness. This review provides an overview of current evidence for LDCT lung cancer screening, and draws attention to major factors that need to be addressed to successfully implement standardized, effective, and accessible screening throughout Europe. Evidence shows that through the appropriate use of risk-prediction models and a more personalized approach to screening, efficacy could be improved. Furthermore, extending the screening interval for low-risk individuals to reduce costs and associated harms is a possibility, and through the use of volumetric-based measurement and follow-up, false positive results can be greatly reduced. Finally, smoking cessation programs could be a valuable addition to screening programs and artificial intelligence could offer a solution to the added workload pressures radiologists are facing.

Improved motivation and readiness to quit shortly after lung cancer screening: Evidence for a teachable moment

BACKGROUND

For patients at high risk for lung cancer, screening using low-dose computed tomography (lung cancer screening [LCS]) is recommended. The purpose of this study was to examine whether screening may serve as a teachable moment for smoking-related outcomes.

METHODS

In a smoking-cessation trial, participants (N = 843) completed 2 phone interviews before randomization: before LCS (T0) and after LCS (T1). By using logistic and linear regression, the authors examined teachable moment variables (perceived risk, lung cancer worry) and outcomes (readiness, motivation, and cigarettes per day [CPD]).

RESULTS

Participants were a mean ± SD age of 63.7 ± 5.9 years, had 47.8 ± 7.1 pack-years of smoking, 35.2% had a high school diploma or General Educational Development (high school equivalency) degree or less, and 42.3% were undergoing their first scan. Between T0 and T1, 25.7% of participants increased readiness to quit, 9.6% decreased readiness, and 64.7% reported no change (P < .001). Motivation to quit increased (P < .05) and CPD decreased between assessments (P < .001), but only 1.3% self-reported quitting. Compared with individuals who reported no lung cancer worry/little worry, extreme worry was associated with readiness to quit in the next 30 days (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0) and with higher motivation (b = 0.83; P < .001) at T1. Individuals undergoing a baseline (vs annual) scan were more ready to quit in the next 30 days (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.5).

CONCLUSIONS

During the brief window between registering for LCS and receiving the results, the authors observed that very few participants quit smoking, but a significant proportion improved on readiness and motivation to quit, particularly among individuals who were undergoing their first scan and those who were extremely worried about lung cancer. These results indicate that providing evidence-based tobacco treatment can build upon this teachable moment.

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.

Two-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Study of Integrated Smoking Cessation in a Lung Cancer Screening Program

Introduction

Smoking cessation activities incorporated into lung cancer screening programs have been broadly recommended, but studies to date have not exhibited increased quit rates associated with cessation programs in this setting. We aimed to determine the long-term effectiveness of smoking cessation counseling in smokers presenting for lung cancer screening.

Methods

This was a randomized control trial of an intensive, telephone-based smoking cessation counseling intervention incorporating lung cancer screening results versus usual care (information pamphlet). This analysis reports on the long-term impact (24-mo) of the intervention on abstinence from smoking.

Results

A total of 337 active smokers who participated in the screening study were randomized to active smoking cessation counseling (n = 171) or control arm (n = 174) and completed a 24-month assessment. The 30-day smoking abstinence rates at 24 months postrandomization was 18.3% and 21.4% in the control and intervention arms, respectively—a 3.1% difference (95% confidence interval: −5.4 to 11.6, p = 0.48). No statistically significant differences in the 7-day abstinence, the use of pharmacologic cessation aids, nicotine replacement therapies, nor intent to quit in the following 30 days were noted (p > 0.05). The abstinence rates at 24-months were higher overall than at 12-months (19.9% versus 13.3%, p < 0.001), and smoking intensity was lower than at baseline for ongoing smokers.

Conclusions

A telephone-based smoking cessation counseling intervention incorporating lung cancer screening results did not result in increased long-term cessation rates versus written information alone in unselected smokers undergoing lung cancer screening. Overall, quit rates were high and continued to improve throughout participation in the screening program. (ClinicalTrials.govNCT02431962).

Contemporary issues in the implementation of lung cancer screening

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Lung cancer screening implementation: Complexities and priorities

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

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.

[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.

Ongoing challenges in implementation of lung cancer screening

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in Europe and around the world. Although available therapies have undergone considerable development in the past decades, the five-year survival rate for lung cancer remains low. This sobering outlook results mainly from the advanced stages of cancer most patients are diagnosed with. As the population at risk is relatively well defined and early stage disease is potentially curable, lung cancer outcomes may be improved by screening. Several studies already show that lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality. However, for a successful implementation of LCS programmes, several challenges have to be overcome: selection of high-risk individuals, standardization of nodule classification and measurement, specific training of radiologists, optimization of screening intervals and screening duration, handling of ancillary findings are some of the major points which should be addressed. Last but not least, the psychological impact of screening on screened individuals and the impact of potential false positive findings should not be neglected. The aim of this review is to discuss the different challenges of implementing LCS programmes and to give some hints on how to overcome them. Finally, we will also discuss the psychological impact of screening on quality of life and the importance of smoking cessation.

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.

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

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

Lung cancer screening and smoking cessation efforts

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

[Smoking cessation and lung cancer screening]

Several studies have shown that lung cancer screening, using annual low-dose computed tomography (CT) scan in a targeted population of smokers and ex-smokers reduces overall and lung cancer specific mortality rates. This form of screening strategy is not currently established for use in France by the French High Authority for Health. Quitting smoking is the most important measure in reducing mortality from lung cancer. The maximum benefit in reducing mortality from lung cancer should be seen through an effective combination of smoking cessation intervention and chest CT screening to identify early, curable disease. However, current data to guide clinicians in the choice of smoking cessation interventions in this specific context are limited due to the small number of randomized studies that have been carried out. The optimal approach to smoking cessation during lung cancer screening needs to be clarified by new studies comparing different motivation strategies, establishing the ideal moment to propose stopping smoking and the most effective therapies to use.

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

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

Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking (YESS) study: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect of adding a personalised smoking cessation intervention to a lung cancer screening programme

INTRODUCTION

Integration of smoking cessation (SC) into lung cancer screening is essential to optimise clinical and cost effectiveness. The most effective way to use this 'teachable moment' is unclear. The Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking study will measure the effectiveness of an SC service integrated within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST) and will test the efficacy of a personalised SC intervention, incorporating incidental findings detected on the low-dose CT scan performed as part of YLST.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Unless explicitly declined, all smokers enrolled in YLST will see an SC practitioner at baseline and receive SC support over 4 weeks comprising behavioural support, pharmacotherapy and/or a commercially available e-cigarette. Eligible smokers will be randomised (1:1 in permuted blocks of random size up to size 6) to receive either an enhanced, personalised SC support package, including CT scan images, or continued standard best practice. Anticipated recruitment is 1040 smokers (January 2019-December 2020). The primary objective is to measure 7-day point prevalent carbon monoxide (CO) validated SC after 3 months. Secondary outcomes include CO validated cessation at 4 weeks and 12 months, self-reported continuous cessation at 4 weeks, 3 months and 12 months, attempts to quit smoking and changes in psychological variables, including perceived risk of lung cancer, motivation to quit smoking tobacco, confidence and efficacy beliefs (self and response) at all follow-up points. A process evaluation will explore under which circumstances and on which groups the intervention works best, test intervention fidelity and theory test the mechanisms of intervention impact.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee (18/EM/0199) and the Health Research Authority/Health and Care Research Wales. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals, presentation at conferences and via the YLST website.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

ISRCTN63825779, NCT03750110.

Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST): protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate invitation to community-based low-dose CT screening for lung cancer versus usual care in a targeted population at risk

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the world's leading cause of cancer death. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening reduced lung cancer mortality by 20% in the US National Lung Screening Trial. Here, we present the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST), which will address key questions of relevance for screening implementation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Using a single-consent Zelen's design, ever-smokers aged 55-80 years registered with a general practice in Leeds will be randomised (1:1) to invitation to a telephone-based risk-assessment for a Lung Health Check or to usual care. The anticipated number randomised by household is 62 980 individuals. Responders at high risk will be invited for LDCT scanning for lung cancer on a mobile van in the community. There will be two rounds of screening at an interval of 2 years. Primary objectives are (1) measure participation rates, (2) compare the performance of PLCOM2012 (threshold ≥1.51%), Liverpool Lung Project (V.2) (threshold ≥5%) and US Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria for screening population selection and (3) assess lung cancer outcomes in the intervention and usual care arms. Secondary evaluations include health economics, quality of life, smoking rates according to intervention arm, screening programme performance with ancillary biomarker and smoking cessation studies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the Greater Manchester West research ethics committee (18-NW-0012) and the Health Research Authority following review by the Confidentiality Advisory Group. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals, presentation at conferences and on the YLST website.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

ISRCTN42704678 and NCT03750110.

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

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

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

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

Association of invitation to lung cancer screening and tobacco use outcomes in a VA demonstration project

A potential unintended consequence of lung cancer screening (LCS) is an adverse effect on smoking behaviors. This has been difficult to assess in previous randomized clinical trials. Our goal was to determine whether cessation and relapse behaviors differ between Veterans directly invited (DI) to participate in LCS compared to usual care (UC). We conducted a longitudinal survey of tobacco use outcomes among Veterans (Minneapolis VA) from 2014 to 2015, randomized (2:1) to DI versus UC and stratified by baseline smoking status (current/former). Within the DI group, we explored differences between those who did and did not choose to undergo LCS. A total of 979 patients (n = 660 DI, n = 319 UC) returned the survey at a median of 484 days. Among current smokers (n = 488), smoking abstinence rates and cessation attempts did not differ between DI and UC groups. More baseline smokers in DI were non-daily smokers at follow-up compared to those in UC (25.3% vs 15.6%, OR 1.97 95%CI 1.15–3.36). A significant proportion of former smokers at baseline relapsed, with 17% overall indicating past 30-day smoking. This did not differ between arms. Of those invited to LCS, smoking outcomes did not significantly differ between those who chose to be screened (161/660) versus not. This randomized program evaluation of smoking behaviors in the context of invitation to LCS observed no adverse or beneficial effects on tobacco cessation or relapse among participants invited to LCS, or among those who completed screening. As LCS programs scale and spread nationally, effective cessation programs will be essential.

A Randomized Controlled Study of Integrated Smoking Cessation in a Lung Cancer Screening Program

INTRODUCTION

Smoking cessation activities incorporated into lung cancer screening programs have been broadly recommended, but studies to date have not shown increased quit rates associated with cessation programs in this setting. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of smoking cessation counseling in smokers presenting for lung cancer screening.

METHODS

This study is a randomized control trial of an intensive telephone-based smoking cessation counseling intervention incorporating lung cancer screening results versus usual care (information pamphlet). All active smokers enrolled in the Alberta Lung Cancer Screening Study cohort were randomized on a 1:1 ratio with a primary endpoint of self-reported 30-day abstinence at 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 345 active smokers participating in the screening study were randomized to active smoking cessation counseling (n = 171) or control arm (n = 174). Thirty-day smoking abstinence at 12 months post-randomization was noted in 22 of 174 (12.6%) and 24 of 171 (14.0%) of participants in the control and intervention arms, respectively, a 1.4% difference (95% confidence interval: -5.9 to 8.7, p = 0.7). No statistically significant differences in 7-day or point abstinence were noted, nor were differences at 6 months or 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

A telephone-based smoking cessation counseling intervention incorporating lung cancer screening results did not result in increased 12-month cessation rates versus written information alone in unselected smokers undergoing lung cancer screening. Routine referral of all current smokers to counseling-based cessation programs may not improve long-term cessation in this patient cohort. Future studies should specifically focus on this subgroup of older long-term smokers to determine the optimal method of integrating smoking cessation with lung cancer screening (clinicaltrials.govNCT02431962).

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.

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.

A Brief Report of Smoking Behaviors in Patients with Incidental Pulmonary Nodules: Associations with Communication and Risk Perception

Introduction:

Incidental pulmonary nodules (IPNs) are commonly found on routine chest imaging. Little is known about smoking behaviors among patients with IPNs or characteristics of patient-clinician communication that may contribute to these behaviors. We assessed the association of patient characteristics and communication quality with smoking behaviors and stage of change for tobacco cessation among patients with IPNs.

Materials and methods:

Prospective, repeated-measures, cohort study of current smokers and past-year quitters with IPNs treated within the Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System. Eligible patients had newly reported, incidental nodules <3 cm planned for non-urgent computed tomography (CT) follow-up. Our primary outcomes were changes in amount smoked and stage of change for tobacco cessation throughout the follow-up period. We used multivariable-adjusted generalized estimating equations for analyses.

Results:

We identified 37 current smokers and 9 recent quitters. By the final visit, 8 of 36 (22%) baseline smokers had quit and 2 of 7 (29%) recent quitters had resumed smoking. Of 40 respondents, 23 (58%) reported receiving any tobacco treatment (recommendation to quit, medication, and/or behavioral treatment) at least once during follow-up. We found no significant associations of high-quality communication, patient distress, self-perceived risk of lung cancer, and self-reported clinician-recommended smoking cessation interventions with decrease in amount smoked or positive stage of change.

Conclusions:

Many smokers and recent quitters with IPNs quit during follow-up, though nearly half reported no quit support. We found no association between communication quality or quit support and decreased smoking. The intensity of tobacco treatment offered may have been insufficient to affect behavior.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers with feedback on the current or potential future biomedical effects of smoking using, for example, measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer or other diseases.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was to determine the efficacy of providing smokers with feedback on their exhaled CO measurement, spirometry results, atherosclerotic plaque imaging, and genetic susceptibility to smoking-related diseases in helping them to quit smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in March 2018 and ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP in September 2018 for studies added since the last update in 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria for the review were: a randomised controlled trial design; participants being current smokers; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase smoking cessation rates; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; and an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed results as a risk ratio (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials using a variety of biomedical tests interventions; one trial included two interventions, for a total of 21 interventions. We included a total of 9262 participants, all of whom were adult smokers. All studies included both men and women adult smokers at different stages of change and motivation for smoking cessation. We judged all but three studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. We pooled trials in three categories according to the type of biofeedback provided: feedback on risk exposure (five studies); feedback on smoking-related disease risk (five studies); and feedback on smoking-related harm (11 studies). There was no evidence of increased cessation rates from feedback on risk exposure, consisting mainly of feedback on CO measurement, in five pooled trials (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.21; I2 = 0%; n = 2368). Feedback on smoking-related disease risk, including four studies testing feedback on genetic markers for cancer risk and one study with feedback on genetic markers for risk of Crohn's disease, did not show a benefit in smoking cessation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; I2 = 0%; n = 2064). Feedback on smoking-related harm, including nine studies testing spirometry with or without feedback on lung age and two studies on feedback on carotid ultrasound, also did not show a benefit (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.61; I2 = 34%; n = 3314). Only one study directly compared multiple forms of measurement with a single form of measurement, and did not detect a significant difference in effect between measurement of CO plus genetic susceptibility to lung cancer and measurement of CO only (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.56; n = 189).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the effects of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. The most promising results relate to spirometry and carotid ultrasound, where moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision and risk of bias, did not detect a statistically significant benefit, but confidence intervals very narrowly missed one, and the point estimate favoured the intervention. A sensitivity analysis removing those studies at high risk of bias did detect a benefit. Moderate-certainty evidence limited by risk of bias did not detect an effect of feedback on smoking exposure by CO monitoring. Low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, did not detect a benefit from feedback on smoking-related risk by genetic marker testing. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

Estimation of the adult population at high risk of developing lung cancer in the European Union

Background Lung cancer mortality accounts for over 266,000 deaths in the European Union (EU) every year, most of them attributed to smoking. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of the adult population at high risk of developing lung cancer in the EU in 2014. Methods This is a cross-sectional study. We used data from the Special Eurobarometer 429 (n = 27,801). The fieldwork was conducted between November-December 2014. High risk of lung cancer was defined using the criteria of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and the Dutch-Belgian Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NELSON). Results One out of ten smokers (11.6% of men and 9.6% of women) according to NLST criteria and one out of four smokers (24.6% of men and 22.4% of women) according to NELSON criteria are currently at high risk of lung cancer in the EU. According to both criteria, the prevalence of former smokers at high risk of lung cancer is under 10%. Conclusion Around 17 million citizens in the EU according to NLST criteria and 34 million according to NELSON criteria (around 4% and 8% of the adult population, respectively) are at high risk of developing lung cancer. Since the implementation of lung cancer screening programs still remains controversial, primary prevention activities should be encouraged.

Determinants of motivation to quit in smokers screened for the early detection of lung cancer: a qualitative study

Background

The promotion of smoking cessation within lung cancer screening could lead to benefits for smoking-related disease and improve cost-effectiveness of screening. Little is known about how smokers respond to lung cancer screening and how this impacts smoking behaviour. We aimed to understand how lung cancer screening influences individual motivations about smoking, including in those who have stopped smoking since screening.

Methods

Thirty one long-term smokers aged 51–74 took part in semi-structured interviews about smoking. They had been screened with the EarlyCDT-Lung Test (13 positive result; 18 negative) as part of the Early Cancer Detection Test Lung Cancer Scotland Study. They were purposively sampled for interview based on their self-reported post-screening smoking behaviour. Eleven participants had stopped smoking since screening. Verbatim interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

Two key overarching themes were interpretations of screening test results and emotional responses to those interpretations. Participants’ understanding of the risk implied by their test result was often inaccurate, for example a negative result interpreted as an ‘all-clear’ from lung cancer and a positive result as meaning lung cancer would definitely develop. Those interpretations led to emotional responses (fear, shock, worry, relief, indifference) influencing motivations about smoking. Other themes included a wake-up call causing changes in perceived risk of smoking-related disease, a feeling that now is the time to stop smoking and family influences. There was no clear pattern in smoking motivations in those who received positive or negative test results. Of those who had stopped smoking, some cited screening experiences as the sole motivation, some cited screening along with other coinciding factors, and others cited non-screening reasons. Cues to change were experienced at different stages of the screening process. Some participants indicated they underwent screening to try and stop smoking, while others expressed little or no desire to stop.

Conclusions

We observed complex and individualised motivations about smoking following lung cancer screening. To be most effective, smoking cessation support in this context should explore understanding of screening test results and may need to be highly tailored to individual emotional responses to screening.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-6211-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

The importance of incorporating smoking cessation into lung cancer screening

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States (U.S.) and is the second most common non-skin cancer among men and women, accounting for about 30% of cancer-related deaths. There is clear and accumulating evidence that continued tobacco use has multiple adverse effects on cancer treatment outcomes, including greater probability of recurrence, second primary malignancies, reduced survival, greater symptom burden, and poorer quality of life (QOL). Recent findings suggest an avenue to significantly mitigate the impact of smoking on lung cancer mortality rates through the use of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening. Based on the reviewed evidence (type B), the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines of 2015 recommend screening combined with smoking cessation interventions for high-risk heavy smokers and recent quitters. These practice changes offer opportunities to develop novel smoking cessation strategies tailored to highly specific settings that aim to amplify the survivorship gains expected from screening alone. However, there is a paucity of research and data that speaks to the feasibility and efficacy of providing smoking cessation treatment specifically within the context of the LDCT lung cancer screening environment. While some studies have attempted to characterize the parameters within which smoking cessation interventions should be implemented in this context, further research is needed to explore relevant factors such as the format, components, and timing of interventions, as well as the influence of risk perceptions and results of the screening itself on motivation and ability to quit smoking.

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 the past few years, in large part due to the results of the National Lung Screening Trial. The benefit and harms of low-dose chest CT screening differ in both frequency and magnitude. The translation of a favorable balance of benefit and harms into practice can be difficult. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low radiation 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 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 by using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. 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 59 studies that informed the response to the 12 PICO questions that were developed. Key clinical questions were addressed resulting in six graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus based statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer results in a favorable but tenuous balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible patients, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can affect this balance. Additional research is needed to optimize the approach to low-dose CT screening.

Lung cancer screening: latest developments and unanswered questions

The US National Lung Screening Trial showed that individuals randomly assigned to screening with low-dose CT scans had 20% lower lung cancer mortality than did those screened with conventional chest radiography. On the basis of a review of the literature and a modelling study, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends annual screening for lung cancer for individuals aged 55-80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and either currently smoke or quit smoking within the past 15 years. However, the balance between benefits and harms of lung cancer screening is still greatly debated. The large number of false-positive results and the potential for overdiagnosis are causes for concern. Some investigators suggest the ratio between benefits and harms could be improved through various means. Nevertheless, many questions remain with regard to the implementation of lung cancer screening. This paper highlights the latest developments in CT lung cancer screening and provides an overview of the main unanswered questions.

Stakeholder Research Priorities for Smoking Cessation Interventions within Lung Cancer Screening Programs. An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

RATIONALE

Smoking cessation counseling in conjunction with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening is recommended in multiple clinical practice guidelines. The best approach for integrating effective smoking cessation interventions within this setting is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize evidence, identify research gaps, prioritize topics for future research, and propose standardized tools for use in conducting research on smoking cessation interventions within the LDCT lung cancer screening setting.

METHODS

The American Thoracic Society convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in tobacco dependence treatment and/or LDCT screening. During an in-person meeting, evidence was reviewed, research gaps were identified, and key questions were generated for each of three research domains: (1) target population to study; (2) adaptation, development, and testing of interventions; and (3) implementation of interventions with demonstrated efficacy. We also identified standardized measures for use in conducting this research. A larger stakeholder panel then ranked research questions by perceived importance in an online survey. Final prioritization was generated hierarchically on the basis of average rank assigned.

RESULTS

There was little consensus on which questions within the population domain were of highest priority. Within the intervention domain, research to evaluate the effectiveness in the lung cancer screening setting of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions shown to be effective in other contexts was ranked highest. In the implementation domain, stakeholders prioritized understanding strategies to identify and overcome barriers to integrating smoking cessation in lung cancer screening settings.

CONCLUSIONS

This statement offers an agenda to stimulate research surrounding the integration and implementation of smoking cessation interventions with LDCT lung cancer screening.