Randomized controlled trial with low-dose spiral CT for lung cancer screening: feasibility study and preliminary results

[Lung cancer screening: Update, news and perspectives]

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in France and worldwide (20 % of cancer deaths). This mortality is partly linked to an overrepresentation of metastatic stages at diagnosis (approximately 55 % of lung cancers at diagnosis). Low-dose chest CT in a target population to detect early forms accessible to radical treatment has been evaluated through multiple randomized trials (NLST, NELSON, MILD, DANTE…). These trials demonstrated a reduction in lung cancer specific mortality. The current problem is to integrate a CT screening policy CT at a national level, which should be both efficient and cost-effective, while presenting the least harms for the eligible population. Finally, it is necessary to optimize the participation of the eligible population and particularly in the most deprived areas and ensure the proper implementation of smoking cessation measures.

The 50-Year Journey of Lung Cancer Screening: A Narrative Review

Early diagnosis and treatment are associated with better outcomes in oncology. We reviewed the existing literature using the search terms “low dose computed tomography” and “lung cancer screening” for systematic reviews, metanalyses, and randomized as well as non-randomized clinical trials in PubMed from January 1, 1963 to April 30, 2022. The studies were heterogeneous and included people with different age groups, smoking histories, and other specific risk scores for lung cancer screening. Based on the available evidence, almost all the guidelines recommend screening for lung cancer by annual low dose CT (LDCT) in populations over 50 to 55 years of age, who are either current smokers or have left smoking less than 15 years back with more than 20 to 30 pack-years of smoking. “LDCT screening” can reduce lung cancer mortality if carried out judiciously in countries with adequate resources and infrastructure.

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.

How AI Can Help in the Diagnostic Dilemma of Pulmonary Nodules

Simple Summary

Pulmonary nodules are considered a sign of bronchogenic carcinoma, detecting them early will reduce their progression and can save lives. Lung cancer is the second most common type of cancer in both men and women. This manuscript discusses the current applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in lung segmentation as well as pulmonary nodule segmentation and classification using computed tomography (CT) scans, published in the last two decades, in addition to the limitations and future prospects in the field of AI.

Abstract

Pulmonary nodules are the precursors of bronchogenic carcinoma, its early detection facilitates early treatment which save a lot of lives. Unfortunately, pulmonary nodule detection and classification are liable to subjective variations with high rate of missing small cancerous lesions which opens the way for implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) and computer aided diagnosis (CAD) systems. The field of deep learning and neural networks is expanding every day with new models designed to overcome diagnostic problems and provide more applicable and simply used models. We aim in this review to briefly discuss the current applications of AI in lung segmentation, pulmonary nodule detection and classification.

[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.

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.

Low-dose CT screening can reduce cancer mortality: A meta-analysis

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death. To reduce lung cancer mortality and detect lung cancer in early stages, low dose CT screening is required. A meta-analysis was conducted to verify whether screening could reduce lung cancer mortality and to determine the optimal screening program. METHODS We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library, ScienceDirect, and relevant Chinese databases. Randomized controlled trial studies with participants that were smokers older than 49 years (smoking >15 years or quit smoking 10 or 15 years ago) were included. RESULTS Nine RCT studies met the criteria. LDCT screening could find more lung cancer cases (RR=1.58, 95%CI=1.25-1.99, P<0.001) and more stage I lung cancers (RR=3.45, 95%CI=2.08-5.72, P<0.001) compared to chest-X ray or the no screening group. This indicated a statistically significant reduction in lung-cancer-specific mortality (RR=0.84, 95%CI=0.75-0.95, P=0.004), but without a statistically reduction in mortality due to all causes (RR=1.26, 95%CI=0.89-1.78, P=0.193). Annually, LDCT screening was sensitive in finding more lung cancers. CONCLUSIONS Low-dose CT screening is effective in finding more lung cancer cases and decreasing the deaths from lung cancer. Annual low-dose CT screening may be better than a biennial screening to detect more early-stage lung cancer cases.

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.

Analysis of risk factors for stage I lung adenocarcinoma using low-dose high-resolution computed tomography

Risk factors for stage I lung adenocarcinoma were analyzed using low-dose high-resolution computed tomography (CT). The patients were divided into case group (stage I lung adenocarcinoma patients) and control group (benign pulmonary nodules patients). All patients were subjected to low-dose high-resolution CT. Multiple linear regression was performed to analyze the CT imaging features of the two groups. Stage I lung adenocarcinoma patients were significantly associated with nodular site (X3, upper left lobe) [95% CI (1.796, 54.695), p=0.008], nodule type (X4) (p<0.001), nodule size (X5) [95% CI (0.614, 0.803), p<0.001], spicule sign (X7) [95% CI (0.029, 0.580), p=0.008], lobulation sign (X8) [95% CI (0.048, 0.673), p=0.011]. The stepwise regression equation is: Logistic (p) =-12.009 + 2.294X3 - 0.327X4 - 0.354X5 - 2.042X7 - 1.713X8. Risk factors of low-dose and high-resolution CT imaging for patients with stage I lung adenocarcinoma are nodular site (upper left lobe), nodule type, nodule size, spicule sign, and lobulation sign.

Lung cancer: a brief review of epidemiology and screening

The global burden of lung cancer has been increasing over the past years, and is still a major threat to public health worldwide, leading to disabilities and premature mortality. Despite multifactorial cause, smoking remains as the major etiological factor, followed by occupational exposure to carcinogens, genetic predisposition and other concomitant diseases. In order to reduce the individual and social burden due to the direct and indirect costs related to the lung cancer treatment, accurate methods of screening are needed. Among those, x-ray with cytological analysis of sputum was first proposed. Nowadays, more sensitive methods such as low-dose computed tomography are being used to improve the early detection. In the future, molecular biomarkers may complement low-dose computed tomography and improve the robustness of early lung cancer detection.

Screen-detected multiple primary lung cancers in the ITALUNG trial

Occurrence of multiple primary lung cancers (MPLC) in individuals undergoing low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening has not been thoroughly addressed. We investigated MPLC in subjects recruited in the ITALUNG randomized clinical trial. Cases of cytologically/histologically proven MPLC detected at screening LDCT or follow-up CT were selected and pathologically re-evaluated according to the WHO 2015 classification. Overall 16 MPLC were diagnosed at screening LDCT (n=14, all present at baseline) or follow-up CT (n=2) in six subjects (4 in one subject, 3 in two and 2 in three subjects), representing 0.43% of the 1,406 screenees and 15.8% of the 38 subjects with at least one screen-detected primary lung cancer. MPLC included 9 adenocarcinomas in three subjects and a combination of 7 different tumour histotypes in three subjects. MPLC, mostly adenocarcinomas, are not uncommon in smokers and ex-smokers with at least one LDCT screen detected primary lung cancer.

[Lung Nodules Assessment--Analysis of Four Guidelines]

近20年来，随着计算机断层扫描（computed tomography, CT）技术的提高和肺癌高危人群筛查的普及，越来越多的肺部小结节被发现，然而肺结节的定性诊断仍有很多困难。肺结节是临床上一种常见的现象，恶性结节早期发病比较隐匿，如果不进行早期干预，其病程迅速、恶性程度强、预后差。如果能在早期阶段对病灶进行手术切除，将会明显改善肺癌患者的预后。目前针对肺结节的处理指南层出不穷，但各大指南均未达成统一的共识。本文拟对在国内影响最大的四个指南：美国国家综合癌症网络非小细胞肺癌（non-small cell lung cancer, NSCLC）临床实践指南、美国胸科医师协会肺癌诊疗指南、Fleischner-Society肺结节处理策略指南、肺结节的评估亚洲共识指南所推荐的肺结节诊断和处理策略进行介绍和分析。

Screening for lung cancer using low-dose computed tomography: concerns about the application in low-risk individuals

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been increasingly accepted as an efficient screening method for high-risk individuals to reduce lung cancer mortality. However, there remains a gap of knowledge in the practical implementation of screening on a larger scale, especially for low-risk individuals. The aim of this study is to initiate discussion through an evidence-based analysis and provide valuable suggestions on LDCT screening for lung cancer in clinical practice. Among previously published randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) is the only one demonstrating positive results in a high-risk population of old age and heavy smokers. It is also shown that the potential harms include false-positive findings, radiation exposure etc., but its magnitude is uncertain. In the meantime, the current risk stratification system is inadequate, and is difficult to define selection criteria. Thus, the efficacy of LDCT in lung cancer screening needs to be confirmed in future trials, and the procedure should not be proposed to individuals without comparable risk to those in the NLST. Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence to support the expansion of LDCT screening to low-risk individuals. Therefore, recommendation of LDCT screening for these patients could be premature in clinical practice although some of them might be missed based on current definition of risk factors. Further studies and advances in risk assessment tools are urgently needed to address the concerns about lung cancer screening in order to improve the outcomes of lung cancer.

Lung cancer screening

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in adults of age 55 to 80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and are currently smoking or have quit within the past 15 years. This recommendation is largely based on the findings of the National Lung Screening Trial. Both policy-level and clinical decision-making about LDCT screening must consider the potential benefits of screening (reduced mortality from lung cancer) and possible harms. Effective screening requires an appreciation that screening should be limited to individuals at high risk of death from lung cancer, and that the risk of harm related to false positive findings, overdiagnosis, and unnecessary invasive testing is real. A comprehensive understanding of these aspects of screening will inform appropriate implementation, with the objective that an evidence-based and systematic approach to screening will help to reduce the enormous mortality burden of lung cancer.

A meta-analysis: is low-dose computed tomography a superior method for risky lung cancers screening population?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been proposed to be a new screening method to discover lung cancers in an early stage, especially those patients who are in a high risk of lung cancer. The primary objective of this meta-analysis is to systematically review the effect of LDCT on screening for lung cancers among the risky population who are older than 49 years old and with smoking exposure.

METHODS

We searched randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) about comparing LDCT and chest X-ray or usual caring from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge and SpringerLink databases (January 1994 to September 2013).

RESULTS

Nine RCTs met criteria for inclusion. Screening for lung cancer using LDCT resulted in a significantly higher number of stage I lung cancers [odds ratio (OR) 2.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.88-2.47], higher number of total lung cancers (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.20-1.43) than the control. Four of the nine studies indicated that the screening method did not decrease all-cause mortality (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90-1.02), but decreased lung cancer-specific mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74-0.96). Five studies showed that LDCT had higher false-positive rates (OR 8.7, 95% CI 7.43-10.19) than the group of control.

CONCLUSION

Among the risky population, LDCT screening find out more stage I lung cancers and total lung cancers compared with chest X-ray or no screening, and also shows advantages in decreasing lung cancer-specific mortality, but the screening method does not decrease all-cause mortality and have a higher false-positive rates in diagnosis.

How to follow up patients after curative resection of lung cancer

Survivors of lung cancer surgery are among the highest-risk patients for developing another lung cancer, yet there is no clear consensus on the method of surveillance for patients after curative surgical resection. Surveillance is no longer futile because the emergence of computed tomography screening has allowed the detection of recurrences and new metachronous cancers at an early stage. In selected patients, lung cancer identified recently on routine computed tomography scan is amenable to curative treatment and is associated with longer survival.

CT lung cancer screening: where are we heading to?

SUMMARY 

Lung cancer screening has been the subject of controversies since the 1970s. After failure of chest x-ray and sputum cytology examination to decrease lung cancer mortality, there was a 15-year period of disillusion. Low-dose CT scan of the thorax provided a renewal of interest with prospective studies followed by randomized trials of which four have been published. Only one, the NLST trial involving 53,000 participants is positive with a 20% reduction in lung cancer specific mortality rate. The European studies are by far smaller, the largest being the Nelson study with 15,000 participants. There are some shortcomings and biases that must be known and well explained to the future participants to a lung cancer screening program. The cost/benefit ratio remains to be better analyzed.

Lung cancer screening guidelines: common ground and differences

Lung cancer accounts for almost one-third of all cancer related deaths. Lung cancer risk persists even after smoking cessation and so many lung cancers now are diagnosed in former smokers. Five-year survival of lung cancer has marginally improved over decades and significantly lags behind that of colon, breast and prostate cancer. Over the past one decade, lung cancer screening trials have shown promising results. Results from National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST), have shown a significant 20% reduction in mortality with annual low dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening. Based on these results, annual LDCT testing has been recommended for lung cancer screening in high risk population. However, development and acceptance of lung cancer screening as a public health policy is still in the nascent stages. Major concerns relate to risk of radiation, overdiagnosis bias, proportion of false positives and cost benefit analysis. This article reviews the literature pertaining to lung cancer screening guidelines and above mentioned concerns.

A systematic review of the characteristics associated with recall rates, detection rates and positive predictive values of computed tomography screening for lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening has been shown to reduce mortality from lung cancer but at a substantial cost in diagnostic activity. The objective of this study was to investigate the characteristics of screening programmes associated with recall rates, detection rates and positive predictive values (PPVs).

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review of randomised trials and observational studies on LDCT screening for lung cancer. A meta-regression using random-effect logistic regressions was carried out to assess factors influencing recall rates for further investigation, cancer detection rates and PPVs of recall.

RESULTS

We used data from 63 372 prevalent screens from 16 studies of LDCT screening for lung cancer and 79 302 incident screens from nine studies. In univariable analysis, the use of a cut-off size to define nodules warranting further investigation at prevalent screens reduced recall rates [odds ratio (OR) = 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.82 and OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.21-0.84 for cut-off sizes of 3-4 and 5-8 mm, respectively], without significant changes in detection rates and PPVs. The number of readers (1 or ≥2) was not associated with changes in recall rates, detection rates and PPVs at prevalent and incident screens. Using the volumetry software at incident screens significantly increased the PPV (OR = 5.02, 95% CI 1.65-15.28) as a result of a decrease in recall rates (OR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.12-0.51), without significant changes in detection rates.

CONCLUSION

These results highlight the value of using a cut-off size for nodules warranting further investigation with lower recall rates at prevalent screens, whereas the volumetric assessment software at incident screens results in lower recall rates and higher PPVs. The presence of positron emission tomography in the work-up protocol might be associated with lower rates of surgical procedures for benign findings, although this hypothesis deserves further investigation.

Would screening for lung cancer benefit 75- to 84-year-old residents of the United States?

Background: The National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated that screening for lung cancer improved overall survival (OS) and reduced lung cancer mortality in the 55- to 74-year-old age group by increasing the proportion of cancers detected at an early stage. Because of the increasing life expectancy of the American population, we investigated whether screening for lung cancer might benefit men and women aged 75–84 years.

Materials/Methods: Rates of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from 2000 to 2009 were calculated in both younger and older age groups using the surveillance epidemiology and end reporting database. OS and lung cancer-specific survival (LCSS) in patients with Stage I NSCLC diagnosed from 2004 to 2009 were analyzed to determine the effects of age and treatment.

Results: The per capita incidence of NSCLC decreased in the 55–74 cohort, but increased in the 75–84 cohort over the study period. Crude lung cancer death rates in the two age groups who had no specific treatment were 39.5 and 44.9%, respectively. These rates fell in both age groups when increasingly aggressive treatment was used. Rates of OS and LCSS improved significantly with increasingly aggressive treatment in the 75–84 age group. The survival benefits of increasingly aggressive treatment in 75- to 84-year-old females did not differ from their counterparts in the younger cohort.

Conclusion: Screening for lung cancer might be of benefit to individuals at increased risk of lung cancer in the 75–84 age group. The survival benefits of aggressive therapy are similar in females between 55–74 and 75–84 years old.

Screening for lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is by far the major cause of cancer deaths largely because in the majority of patients it is at an advanced stage at the time it is discovered, when curative treatment is no longer feasible. This article examines the data regarding the ability of screening to decrease the number of lung cancer deaths.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of controlled studies that address the effectiveness of methods of screening for lung cancer.

RESULTS

Several large randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including a recent one, have demonstrated that screening for lung cancer using a chest radiograph does not reduce the number of deaths from lung cancer. One large RCT involving low-dose CT (LDCT) screening demonstrated a significant reduction in lung cancer deaths, with few harms to individuals at elevated risk when done in the context of a structured program of selection, screening, evaluation, and management of the relatively high number of benign abnormalities. Whether other RCTs involving LDCT screening are consistent is unclear because data are limited or not yet mature.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening is a complex interplay of selection (a population with sufficient risk and few serious comorbidities), the value of the screening test, the interval between screening tests, the availability of effective treatment, the risk of complications or harms as a result of screening, and the degree with which the screened individuals comply with screening and treatment recommendations. Screening with LDCT of appropriate individuals in the context of a structured process is associated with a significant reduction in the number of lung cancer deaths in the screened population. Given the complex interplay of factors inherent in screening, many questions remain on how to effectively implement screening on a broader scale.

Screening for lung cancer

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original review published in The Cochrane Library in 1999 and updated in 2004 and 2010. Population-based screening for lung cancer has not been adopted in the majority of countries. However it is not clear whether sputum examinations, chest radiography or newer methods such as computed tomography (CT) are effective in reducing mortality from lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether screening for lung cancer, using regular sputum examinations, chest radiography or CT scanning of the chest, reduces lung cancer mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1966 to 2012), PREMEDLINE and EMBASE (to 2012) and bibliographies. We handsearched the journal Lung Cancer (to 2000) and contacted experts in the field to identify published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled trials of screening for lung cancer using sputum examinations, chest radiography or chest CT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed an intention-to-screen analysis. Where there was significant statistical heterogeneity, we reported risk ratios (RRs) using the random-effects model. For other outcomes we used the fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine trials in the review (eight randomised controlled studies and one controlled trial) with a total of 453,965 subjects. In one large study that included both smokers and non-smokers comparing annual chest x-ray screening with usual care there was no reduction in lung cancer mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.07). In a meta-analysis of studies comparing different frequencies of chest x-ray screening, frequent screening with chest x-rays was associated with an 11% relative increase in mortality from lung cancer compared with less frequent screening (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23); however several of the trials included in this meta-analysis had potential methodological weaknesses. We observed a non-statistically significant trend to reduced mortality from lung cancer when screening with chest x-ray and sputum cytology was compared with chest x-ray alone (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03). There was one large methodologically rigorous trial in high-risk smokers and ex-smokers (those aged 55 to 74 years with ≥ 30 pack-years of smoking and who quit ≤ 15 years prior to entry if ex-smokers) comparing annual low-dose CT screening with annual chest x-ray screening; in this study the relative risk of death from lung cancer was significantly reduced in the low-dose CT group (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.92).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence does not support screening for lung cancer with chest radiography or sputum cytology. Annual low-dose CT screening is associated with a reduction in lung cancer mortality in high-risk smokers but further data are required on the cost effectiveness of screening and the relative harms and benefits of screening across a range of different risk groups and settings.

Computer-aided diagnosis systems for lung cancer: challenges and methodologies

This paper overviews one of the most important, interesting, and challenging problems in oncology, the problem of lung cancer diagnosis. Developing an effective computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system for lung cancer is of great clinical importance and can increase the patient's chance of survival. For this reason, CAD systems for lung cancer have been investigated in a huge number of research studies. A typical CAD system for lung cancer diagnosis is composed of four main processing steps: segmentation of the lung fields, detection of nodules inside the lung fields, segmentation of the detected nodules, and diagnosis of the nodules as benign or malignant. This paper overviews the current state-of-the-art techniques that have been developed to implement each of these CAD processing steps. For each technique, various aspects of technical issues, implemented methodologies, training and testing databases, and validation methods, as well as achieved performances, are described. In addition, the paper addresses several challenges that researchers face in each implementation step and outlines the strengths and drawbacks of the existing approaches for lung cancer CAD systems.

Lung cancer screening: from imaging to biomarker

Despite several decades of intensive effort to improve the imaging techniques for lung cancer diagnosis and treatment, primary lung cancer is still the number one cause of cancer death in the United States and worldwide. The major causes of this high mortality rate are distant metastasis evident at diagnosis and ineffective treatment for locally advanced disease. Indeed, approximately forty percent of newly diagnosed lung cancer patients have distant metastasis. Currently, the only potential curative therapy is surgical resection of early stage lung cancer. Therefore, early detection of lung cancer could potentially increase the chance of cure by surgery and underlines the importance of screening and detection of lung cancer. In the past fifty years, screening of lung cancer by chest X-Ray (CXR), sputum cytology, computed tomography (CT), fluorescence endoscopy and low-dose spiral CT (LDCT) has not improved survival except for the recent report in 2010 by the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which showed a 20 percent mortality reduction in high risk participants screened with LDCT compared to those screened with CXRs. Furthermore, serum biomarkers for detection of lung cancer using free circulating DNA and RNA, exosomal microRNA, circulating tumor cells and various lung cancer specific antigens have been studied extensively and novel screening methods are being developed with encouraging results. The history of lung cancer screening trials using CXR, sputum cytology and LDCT, as well as results of trials involving various serum biomarkers, are reviewed herein.

AF and Venous Thromboembolism - Pathophysiology, Risk Assessment and CHADS-VASc score

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) are the two most common medical conditions managed with anti-coagulation therapy. Not all the patients with decreased mobility or AF have a similar risk for thromboembolism. The risk factors for venous thromboembolism and thromboembolism associated with AF are described in various studies. Considering that the two conditions have similar pathophysiologic basis of clot formation, one could imply that the risk factors for the occurrence of thrombosis could be similar. The present review focuses on the similarities and differences in the clinical risk factors of VTE and AF related thromboembolism. We will also be discussing the role of CHADS₂-VASc scoring system in the risk assessment of VTE.

Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review

CONTEXT

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease, resulting in a very low 5-year survival. Screening may reduce the risk of death from lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of the evidence regarding the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). A multisociety collaborative initiative (involving the American Cancer Society, American College of Chest Physicians, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network) was undertaken to create the foundation for development of an evidence-based clinical guideline.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (Ovid: January 1996 to April 2012), EMBASE (Ovid: January 1996 to April 2012), and the Cochrane Library (April 2012).

STUDY SELECTION

Of 591 citations identified and reviewed, 8 randomized trials and 13 cohort studies of LDCT screening met criteria for inclusion. Primary outcomes were lung cancer mortality and all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included nodule detection, invasive procedures, follow-up tests, and smoking cessation.

DATA EXTRACTION

Critical appraisal using predefined criteria was conducted on individual studies and the overall body of evidence. Differences in data extracted by reviewers were adjudicated by consensus.

RESULTS

Three randomized studies provided evidence on the effect of LDCT screening on lung cancer mortality, of which the National Lung Screening Trial was the most informative, demonstrating that among 53,454 participants enrolled, screening resulted in significantly fewer lung cancer deaths (356 vs 443 deaths; lung cancer−specific mortality, 274 vs 309 events per 100,000 person-years for LDCT and control groups, respectively; relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93; absolute risk reduction, 0.33%; P = .004). The other 2 smaller studies showed no such benefit. In terms of potential harms of LDCT screening, across all trials and cohorts, approximately 20% of individuals in each round of screening had positive results requiring some degree of follow-up, while approximately 1% had lung cancer. There was marked heterogeneity in this finding and in the frequency of follow-up investigations, biopsies, and percentage of surgical procedures performed in patients with benign lesions. Major complications in those with benign conditions were rare.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose computed tomography screening may benefit individuals at an increased risk for lung cancer, but uncertainty exists about the potential harms of screening and the generalizability of results.

Recruitment methods employed in the National Lung Screening Trial

OBJECTIVES

To report participant recruitment experiences in a large, US randomized controlled trial (RCT) of lung cancer screening, with the aim of providing information that may be of use to researchers who wish to conduct similar future studies.

SETTING

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), an RCT that demonstrated a 20% lung cancer mortality reduction with low dose helical computed tomography screening, relative to single-view chest radiograph screening. Thirty-three US medical centres recruited 53,454 participants from August 2002 through April 2004.

METHODS

After recruitment was completed, centre co-ordinators were asked to complete a questionnaire addressing the extent to which specific methods were used and, for each specific method, numbers enrolled and total cost of the effort. Cost per enrollee was calculated. Co-ordinators also were asked to report lessons learned.

RESULTS

Twenty-two centres returned questionnaires. Use of recruitment method varied by centre. Among centres reporting number enrolled by method, about 19,000 participants were enrolled with direct mail, about 4200 with mass media, and about 1000 with community outreach. Cost per enrollee varied across centres but medians were (US) $101 (direct mail), $79 (mass media), and $4 (community outreach). Co-ordinators reported that it was important to know where to find persons likely to be eligible and interested, and how best to approach them.

CONCLUSIONS

Most NLST participants were recruited through direct mail, although median cost per participant was highest for that method.

[COPD and lung cancer: epidemiological and biological links]

Lung cancer and chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) are two common fatal diseases. Apart from their common link to tobacco, these two diseases are usually considered to be the result of separate distinct mechanisms. In the past 15 years, numerous studies have produced arguments in favour of a relationship between these two pathologies that goes beyond a simple addition of risk factors. At the epidemiological level, there are data that demonstrate an increased incidence of bronchial carcinoma in patients with COPD. The links between these two pathologies are still unexplained but there are numerous arguments supporting a common physiopathology. Common genetic and epigenetic abnormalities, mechanical factors and signalisation pathways have been quoted. COPD and lung cancer appear to be two diseases possessing a genetic basis that creates a predisposition to environmental or toxic assaults, resulting in a different clinical manifestation in each disease. Consequently, improvements in the management of these two diseases will involve a more intensive investigation of their physiopathology, and require a closer collaboration between research centres and clinical units.

Screening for lung cancer: challenges for the thoracic surgeon

Lung cancer is a global health burden and is among the most common and deadly of all malignancies worldwide. Early detection of resectable and potentially curable disease may reduce the overall death rate from lung cancer. However, at the present time, screening for lung cancer is not recommended by most clinical societies and health care agencies in the United States. This article discusses the history of, and rationale for, lung cancer screening, addresses optimization of screening protocols, and describes our current approach for the evaluation of small pulmonary nodules referred for surgical management.

Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the baseline findings of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

Lung cancer is the leading cause of death among all cancers. An estimated 29% of the global population older than 15 years currently smokes tobacco. The presence of a high risk population, relatively asymptomatic nature of the disease in the early phase, and relatively good prognosis when discovered early makes screening for lung cancer an attractive proposition. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of the baseline results of randomized controlled trials so far published, which included more than 14,000 patients. Analysis was used to determine whether data was for or against the screening of lung cancers using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).

DESIGN

Random effect meta regression model of meta-analysis and systematic review.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of the current literature to determine whether screening for lung cancer in a high-risk population with computed tomography improves outcomes. A search strategy using Medline was employed, studies selected based on preset criteria and application of exclusion criteria, and data collected and analyzed for statistical significance.

RESULTS

Screening for lung cancer using LDCT resulted in a significantly higher number of stage I lung cancers (odds ratio 3.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0-7.4), higher number of total non-small cell lung cancers (odds ratio 5.5, 95% CI 3.1-9.6), and higher total lung cancers (odds ratio 4.1, 95% CI 2.4-7.1). Screening using LDCT also resulted in increased detection of false-positive nodules (odds ratio 3.1, 95% CI 2.6-3.7) and more unnecessary thoracotomies for benign lesions (event rate 3.7 per 1000, 95% CI 3.5-3.8). For every 1000 individuals screened with LDCT for lung cancer, 9 stage I non-small cell lung cancer and 235 false-positive nodules were detected, and 4 thoracotomies for benign lesions were performed.

CONCLUSIONS

The baseline data from six randomized controlled trials offer no compelling data in favor or against the use of LDCT screening for lung cancer. We await the final results of these randomized controlled trials to improve our understanding of the effectiveness of LDCT in the screening for lung cancer and its effect on mortality.

Smoking behavior 1 year after computed tomography screening for lung cancer: Effect of physician referral for abnormal CT findings

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening offers a unique clinical setting in which to promote smoking cessation. Focusing on outcomes related to the reporting of CT abnormality, we examined the natural history of smoking in the Pittsburgh Lung Screening Study.

METHODS

Pittsburgh Lung Screening Study recruited 50- to 79-year-old current and former cigarette smokers living in the Pittsburgh area. We examined self-reported smoking outcomes 1 year after study entry in a subgroup that contained 2,094 active cigarette smokers without interval lung cancer diagnosis (50.7% women; median age, 57 years; 40-year median duration of cigarette smoking; and 65.2% > or =20 cigarettes/d). Analyses compared efforts to quit in relation to physician referral for abnormal CT.

RESULTS

Since study entry, 58.5% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 56.3-60.6%] reported any quit attempt and 27.2% (95% CI, 25.3-29.1%) reported any quit interval >30 days. One year after study entry, 15.5% (95% CI, 14.0-17.1%) reported not smoking for >30 days. Comparing persons referred because of CT abnormalities creating moderate or high lung cancer suspicion (n = 156; 7.4%) to persons not referred for any reason (n = 1145; 54.7%), propensity score-adjusted fractions with any quit attempt and with any quit interval >30 days increased 18.8% (95% CI, 11.1-26.5%) and 17.7% (95% CI, 9.4-26.0%), respectively. The fraction quit >30 days at 1 year increased 12.2% (95% CI, 4.9-19.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Persons who experienced referral because of abnormal CT reported more smoking cessation.

Sniffing the unique "odor print" of non-small-cell lung cancer with gold nanoparticles

A highly sensitive and fast-response array of sensors based on gold nanoparticles, in combination with pattern recognition methods, can distinguish between the odor prints of non-small-cell lung cancer and negative controls with 100% accuracy, with no need for preconcentration techniques. Additionally, preliminary results indicate that the same array of sensors might serve as a better tool for understanding the biochemical source of volatile organic compounds that might occur in cancer cells and appear in the exhaled breath, as compared to traditional spectrometry techniques. The reported results provide a launching pad to initiate a bedside tool that might be able to screen for early stages of lung cancer and allow higher cure rates. In addition, such a tool might be used for the immediate diagnosis of fresh (frozen) tissues of lung cancer in operating rooms, where a dichotomic diagnosis is crucial to guide surgeons.

Lung cancer screening update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lung cancer is a health problem of global proportions. Despite intensive research over many years, the prognosis is still very poor. For the surgery to be effective, tumours need to be recognized early. Computed tomography (CT) is significantly more sensitive than chest radiograph for identifying small, asymptomatic lung cancers. Although low-dose CT screening observational trials have demonstrated that survival for all tumour types and sizes detected were extremely high, there is no clear evidence that low-dose CT screening reduces deaths from lung cancer. Only the results of ongoing randomized controlled trials can reveal a real benefit of screening in terms of mortality reduction.

RECENT FINDINGS

We summarize the protocols and the preliminary results of the lung cancer screening randomized controlled trial and the problems linked to the detection of suspected early cancer.

SUMMARY

Today, we cannot already prove the ultimate mortality benefit of lung cancer screening with low-dose CT nor we can confirm that this approach is not harmful. We are waiting the final analysis of randomized controlled trials for lung cancer mortality. Even if is widely accepted that pooling data of randomized controlled trials could be of help to get powerful results in terms of mortality reduction in shorter follow-up time, this opportunity is still under evaluation.

Mean sojourn time and effectiveness of mortality reduction for lung cancer screening with computed tomography

This study aimed to estimate the mean sojourn time (MST) and sensitivity of asymptomatic lung cancer (ALC) detected by computed tomography (CT) or chest X-ray (CXR). Translation of early diagnosis into mortality reduction by 2 detection modalities and inter-screening interval was projected using a Markov model. On the basis of systematic literature review, data from 6 prospective CT screening studies were retrieved. The MST in association with the natural history of lung cancer depicted by a 3-state Markov model was estimated with a Bayesian approach. To project mortality reduction attributed to screening, the model was further extended to 5 health states for the inclusion of prognostic part. The analysis was run with a 10-year time horizon of follow-up, mimicking the Dutch-Belgian randomized lung cancer screening trial (NELSON). Screening for lung cancer with CT had high sensitivity (median: 97%) and may advance 1 year earlier than CXR in detecting ALC. By simulating the scenario similar to NELSON study, CT screen may gain an extra of 0.019 year of life expectancy per person, yields 15% mortality reduction (relative risk (RR): 0.85, 95% confidence interval [95%CI: (0.58-1.01)]. Approximate 23% [RR: 0.77, 95%CI: (0.43-0.98)] mortality reduction would be achieved by annual CT screening program. The mortality findings in conjunction with higher sensitivity and shorter MST estimate given data on prevalent and incident (2nd) screen may provide a tentative evidence, suggesting that annual CT screening may be required in order to be effective in reducing mortality before the results of randomized controlled studies available.

Lung cancer screening with CT

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Non-small cell lung cancer accounts for 75% to 80% of all lung cancers. There is an impetus to find a screening test that can detect non-small cell lung cancer in its early preclinical stages, when surgical resection is most likely to reduce lung cancer mortality. Although earlier randomized controlled trials of lung cancer screening using chest radiography and sputum cytology failed to show reduced lung cancer mortality, CT is a much more sensitive test for detecting small lung nodules, and has generated considerable enthusiasm as a potential contemporary screening tool for lung cancer.

Radiation dose reduction in chest CT: a review

OBJECTIVE

This article aims to summarize the available data on reducing radiation dose exposure in routine chest CT protocols. First, the general aspects of radiation dose in CT and radiation risk are discussed, followed by the effect of changing parameters on image quality. Finally, the results of previous radiation dose reduction studies are reviewed, and important information contributing to radiation dose reduction will be shared.

CONCLUSION

A variety of methods and techniques for radiation dose reduction should be used to ensure that radiation exposure is kept as low as is reasonably achievable.

Systematic review of baseline low-dose CT lung cancer screening

The purpose of this systematic review was to provide physicians and patients with a synthesis of the available data and an assessment of the operating characteristics associated with baseline LDCT screening for lung cancer. Various databases, meeting abstracts, clinical trials in progress, and major textbooks for relevant data from 1966 to 2006 were searched for relevant studies. The median value of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 81%, 81%, 8% and 99%, respectively. Of the studies that compared LDCT with other lung cancer screening maneuvers, it was found that LDCT detected a greater number of cancerous nodules. On average, 80% of lung cancers detected by baseline LDCT screening were categorized as Stage I cancers. Current data demonstrate that both the operating characteristics of baseline LDCT screening and the relatively high proportion of Stage I cancers detected with LDCT may potentially lead to effective screening programs. However, evidence of reduced mortality and morbidity with the use of LDCT is not established. Therefore, LDCT for lung cancer screening should be considered as investigative and needs to be confirmed by well-designed randomized controlled trials prior to community and institutional implementation.

Population screening for lung cancer using computed tomography, is there evidence of clinical effectiveness? A systematic review of the literature

Lung cancer is the leading cause of death among all cancer types in the UK, killing approximately 34 000 people per year. By the time symptoms develop, the tumour is often at an advanced stage and the prognosis is bleak. Treatment at a less advanced stage of disease by surgical resection has been shown to substantially reduce mortality. Screening would be attractive if it could detect presymptomatic lung cancer at a stage when surgical intervention is feasible but has been the subject of scientific debate for the past three decades. The aim of this review was to examine the current evidence on the clinical effectiveness of screening for lung cancer using computed tomography. A systematic literature review searching 15 electronic databases and Internet resources from 1994 until December 2004/January 2005 was carried out. Information was summarised narratively. A total of 12 studies of computed tomography screening for lung cancer were identified including two RCTs and 10 studies of screening without comparator groups. The two RCTs were of short duration (1 year). None examined the effect of screening on mortality compared with no screening. The proportion of people with abnormal computed tomography findings varied widely between studies (5-51%). The prevalence of lung cancer detected was between 0.4% and 3.2% (number needed to screen to detect one lung cancer = 31 to 249). Incidence rates of lung cancer were lower (0.1-1%). Among the detected tumours, a high proportion were stage I or resectable tumours, 100% in some studies. Currently, there is insufficient evidence that computed tomography screening is clinically effective in reducing mortality from lung cancer.

Low-dose CT: a useful and accessible tool for the early diagnosis of lung cancer in selected populations

OBJECTIVE

An evaluation is made of the effectiveness of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in diagnosing early stage lung cancer in the Autonomous Community of Madrid (Spain).

METHODS

The study comprised subjects over 50 years of age who were active smokers (or who had stopped smoking up to 6 months previously) who smoked more than 30 cigarettes daily for at least 15 years, or 20 cigarettes daily for 20 years, or more than 10packs/year and in contact with asbestos at work. The study group was evaluated using LDCT. For all participants in whom LDCT showed no pathological findings, or in those cases classified as benign, a new LDCT scan was performed 2 years after the first. In case of doubt regarding the benign nature of the findings, an assessment algorithm was applied.

RESULTS

Among the initial 482 candidates in the study group, 466 LDCT scans were performed at baseline, revealing 9 extrapulmonary lesions and 114 pulmonary lesions in 98 subjects. The latter raised diagnostic doubts in 32 cases; of these, 15 were confirmed as benign by high resolution computed tomography (HRCT). In the remaining 17 cases, stage IAp adenocarcinoma was diagnosed at baseline (0.2%). With LDCT after 2 years, an additional four adenocarcinomas were diagnosed-all in stage IAp (0.98%). The complete study, including prevalence cut-off and incidence calculation after 2 years, resulted in the diagnosis of five cancers (1.1%) and two false positive cases (28%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of low-dose computed tomography in risk groups is valid for the early diagnosis of bronchogenic cancer. Nevertheless, significant problems remain, particularly those associated with false positive interpretations. The results of randomized studies on lung cancer mortality such as the US NLST trial and the Dutch-Belgian NELSON trial have to be awaited before any conclusion regarding the effectiveness of LDCT screening can be drawn.

Should we screen for occupational lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography?

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the potential value of screening for occupational lung cancer through the use of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).

METHODS

A literature review of Medline was conducted to assess: 1) screening studies of occupational lung cancer that used LDCT; 2) screening studies of nonoccupational lung cancer that used LDCT; and 3) position papers of medical professional societies and nongovernmental health organizations that have addressed the value of screening for lung cancer with LDCT.

RESULTS

No screening studies of occupational lung cancer with LDCT were uncovered; however, numerous observational and population-based studies have addressed the value of screening for lung cancer among cigarette smokers. Results of these studies are difficult to interpret in light of numerous biases associated with these types of studies. No randomized, controlled studies on screening for lung cancer have been published at this time. No professional, governmental, or nonprofit health organization recommends screening asymptomatic people at risk of lung cancer with LDCT at this time.

CONCLUSION

In the absence of randomized, controlled studies that can address biases commonly encountered in observational and population-based studies, it is unclear whether LDCT reduces mortality from lung cancer. The National Cancer Institute is sponsoring a randomized, controlled study of over 50,000 current and former smokers with the results expected in 2009.

Risk-Benefit Analysis of X-Ray Exposure Associated with Lung Cancer Screening in the Italung-CT Trial

OBJECTIVE

Prior analyses of X-ray exposures in lung cancer screening with CT considered the basic acquisition technique in single-detector scanners and the effects of a lifetime screening regimen, whereas the potential benefit in terms of lives saved was not addressed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We determined the total-body effective dose of different acquisition techniques for one single-detector and one MDCT scanner and made projections about the cumulative radiation exposure to smokers undergoing four annual CT examinations on the same scanners in the Italung-CT Trial. Combining these data with estimates of radiation-induced fatal cancer and of the benefit of screening, we calculated the risk-benefit ratio for participants in the trial, ex-smokers, and never-smokers.

RESULTS

The cumulative effective doses per 1,000 subjects were 3.3 Sv using an MDCT scanner and 5.8 or 7.1 Sv using a single-detector scanner. Potential fatal cancers associated with radiation exposure were 0.11 per 1,000 subjects for MDCT scanners and 0.20 or 0.24 for single-detector scanners, which is about 10-100 times lower than the number of expected lives saved by screening assuming a 20-30% lung cancer-specific mortality reduction in current smokers. They were, however, of similar magnitude to the lives saved by screening in never-smokers and former smokers assuming a 10% efficacy of screening.

CONCLUSION

MDCT is associated with lower radiation doses than single-detector CT technology. The risk of radiation dose in the Italung-CT Trial is compensated for by the expected benefit. CT screening for lung cancer should not be offered to never-smokers, whereas its recommendation in former smokers is debatable.

Total-body MR-imaging in oncology

Although MRI is an effective modality in oncology, state-of-the-art total-body MRI (TB-MRI) in the past was infeasible in the diagnostic work-up, due to the need for repeated examinations with repositioning and separate surface coils to cover all body parts. To overcome this limitation, either a moving table platform in combination with the body-coil or a special designed rolling table platform with one body phased-array coil have been implemented with promising results for both tumor staging and metastases screening. Since 2004, state-of-the-art TB-MR imaging with high spatial resolution has become feasible using a newly developed 1.5 Tesla TB-MRI system with multiple receiver channels. This review gives an overview based on the recent literature as well as our own experience concerning the possibilities, challenges, and limitations of TB-MRI in oncology, emphasizing both oncological staging and early tumor detection in asymptomatic subjects.

Computer-aided diagnostic scheme for distinction between benign and malignant nodules in thoracic low-dose CT by use of massive training artificial neural network

Low-dose helical computed tomography (LDCT) is being applied as a modality for lung cancer screening. It may be difficult, however, for radiologists to distinguish malignant from benign nodules in LDCT. Our purpose in this study was to develop a computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) scheme for distinction between benign and malignant nodules in LDCT scans by use of a massive training artificial neural network (MTANN). The MTANN is a trainable, highly nonlinear filter based on an artificial neural network. To distinguish malignant nodules from six different types of benign nodules, we developed multiple MTANNs (multi-MTANN) consisting of six expert MTANNs that are arranged in parallel. Each of the MTANNs was trained by use of input CT images and teaching images containing the estimate of the distribution for the "likelihood of being a malignant nodule," i.e., the teaching image for a malignant nodule contains a two-dimensional Gaussian distribution and that for a benign nodule contains zero. Each MTANN was trained independently with ten typical malignant nodules and ten benign nodules from each of the six types. The outputs of the six MTANNs were combined by use of an integration ANN such that the six types of benign nodules could be distinguished from malignant nodules. After training of the integration ANN, our scheme provided a value related to the "likelihood of malignancy" of a nodule, i.e., a higher value indicates a malignant nodule, and a lower value indicates a benign nodule. Our database consisted of 76 primary lung cancers in 73 patients and 413 benign nodules in 342 patients, which were obtained from a lung cancer screening program on 7847 screenees with LDCT for three years in Nagano, Japan. The performance of our scheme for distinction between benign and malignant nodules was evaluated by use of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Our scheme achieved an Az (area under the ROC curve) value of 0.882 in a round-robin test. Our scheme correctly identified 100% (76/76) of malignant nodules as malignant, whereas 48% (200/413) of benign nodules were identified correctly as benign. Therefore, our scheme may be useful in assisting radiologists in the diagnosis of lung nodules in LDCT.