Assessing the Generalizability of the National Lung Screening Trial: Comparison of Patients with Stage 1 Disease

Tackling Guideline Non-concordance: Primary Care Barriers to Incorporating Life Expectancy into Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making-A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Primary care providers (PCPs) are often the first point of contact for discussing lung cancer screening (LCS) with patients. While guidelines recommend against screening people with limited life expectancy (LLE) who are less likely to benefit, these patients are regularly referred for LCS.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to understand barriers PCPs face to incorporating life expectancy into LCS decision-making for patients who otherwise meet eligibility criteria, and how a hypothetical point-of-care tool could support patient selection.

DESIGN

Qualitative study based on semi-structured telephone interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-one PCPs who refer patients for LCS, from six Veterans Health Administration facilities.

APPROACH

We thematically analyzed interviews to understand how PCPs incorporated life expectancy into LCS decision-making and PCPs' receptivity to a point-of-care tool to support patient selection. Final themes were organized according to the Cabana et al. framework Why Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines, capturing the influence of clinician knowledge, attitudes, and behavior on LCS appropriateness determinations.

KEY RESULTS

PCP referrals to LCS for patients with LLE were influenced by limited knowledge of the life expectancy threshold at which patients are less likely to benefit from LCS, discomfort estimating life expectancy, fear of missing cancer at the point of early detection, and prioritization of factors such as quality of life, patient values, clinician-patient relationship, and family support. PCPs were receptive to a decision support tool to inform and communicate LCS appropriateness decisions if easy to use and integrated into clinical workflows.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests knowledge gaps and attitudes may drive decisions to offer screening despite LLE, a behavior counter to guideline recommendations. Integrating a LCS decision support tool that incorporates life expectancy within the electronic medical record and existing clinical workflows may be one acceptable solution to improve guideline concordance and increase confidence in selecting high benefit patients for LCS.

Should we be screening for COPD? - looking through the lens of lung cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

In May 2022, the US Preventive Services Task Force published their recommendation against screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in asymptomatic adults. However, we argue the routine use of spirometry in both asymptomatic and symptomatic high-risk smokers has utility.

AREAS COVERED

We provide published and unpublished observations from a secondary analyses of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN), arm of the National Lung Screening Trial, including 18,463 high-risk current or former smokers who underwent pre-bronchodilator spirometry at baseline. According to history alone, 20% reported a prior diagnosis of 'COPD,' although only 11% (about one half), actually had airflow limitation (Diagnosed COPD) and 9% had Global Initiative for Obstructive Pulmonary Disease GOLD 0 Pre-COPD. Of the remaining 80% of 'asymptomatic' screening participants, 23% had airflow limitation (Screen-detected COPD) and 13% had preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm). This means 45% of this high-risk cohort were reclassified by spirometry, and together with comorbid disease, identified subgroups where lung cancer screening efficacy could be optimized by between 2-6 fold.

EXPERT OPINION

Our preliminary findings suggest lung cancer screening outcomes vary according to 'new' COPD-related spirometric-defined subgroups and that screening spirometry, together with comorbid disease, identifies those for whom lung cancer screening is mostly beneficial or potentially harmful.

Diagnostic Accuracy of a Convolutional Neural Network Assessment of Solitary Pulmonary Nodules Compared With PET With CT Imaging and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced CT Imaging Using Unenhanced and Contrast-Enhanced CT Imaging

BACKGROUND

Solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs) measuring 8 to 30 mm in diameter require further workup to determine the likelihood of malignancy.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the diagnostic performance of a lung cancer prediction convolutional neural network (LCP-CNN) in SPNs using unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT imaging compared with the current clinical workup?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of the Single Pulmonary Nodule Investigation: Accuracy and Cost-Effectiveness of Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Computed Tomography in the Characterisation of Solitary Pulmonary Nodules trial, a prospective multicenter study comparing the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) CT imaging with PET imaging in SPNs. The LCP-CNN was designed and validated in an external cohort. LCP-CNN-generated risk scores were created from the noncontrast and contrast-enhanced CT scan images from the DCE CT imaging. The gold standard was histologic analysis or 2 years of follow-up. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were calculated using LCP-CNN score, maximum standardized uptake value, and DCE CT scan maximum enhancement and were compared using the DeLong test.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy participants (mean ± SD age, 68.3 ± 8.8 years; 49% women) underwent PET with CT scan imaging and DCE CT imaging with CT scan data available centrally for LCP-CNN analysis. The accuracy of the LCP-CNN on the noncontrast images (AUC, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.88) was superior to that of DCE CT imaging (AUC, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.82; P = .03) and equal to that of PET with CT scan imaging (AUC, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.90; P = .35). The presence of contrast resulted in a small reduction in diagnostic accuracy, with the AUC falling from 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79-0.88) on the noncontrast images to 0.80 to 0.83 after contrast (P < .05 for 240 s after contrast only).

INTERPRETATION

An LCP-CNN algorithm provides an AUC equivalent to PET with CT scan imaging in the diagnosis of solitary pulmonary nodules.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier; No.: NCT02013063.

Airflow limitation and mortality during cancer screening in the National Lung Screening Trial: why quantifying airflow limitation matters

Importance

Current eligibility criteria for lung cancer (LC) screening are derived from randomised controlled trials and primarily based on age and smoking history. However, the individual benefits of screening are highly variable and potentially attenuated by co-morbidities such as advanced airflow limitation (AL).

Objective

To examine the relationship between the presence and severity of AL and screening outcomes.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of 18 463 high-risk smokers, a substudy from the National Lung Screening Trial, who underwent pre-bronchodilator spirometry at baseline and median follow-up of 6.1 years. We used descriptive statistics and a competing risk proportional hazards model to examine differences in screening outcomes by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease severity group.

Results

The risk of developing LC increased with worsening AL (effect size=0.34, p<0.0001), as did the risk of dying of LC (effect size=0.35, p<0.0001). While those with severe AL (Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease, GOLD grade 3–4) had the highest risk of LC and the highest LC mortality, they also had fewer adenocarcinomas (effect size=−0.20, p=0.008) and a lower surgery rate (effect size=−0.16, p=0.014) despite comparable staging, and greater non-LC mortality relative to LC mortality (effect size=0.30, p<0.0001). In participants with no AL, screening with CT was associated with a significant reduction in LC deaths relative to chest X-ray (30.3%, 95% CI 4.5% to 49.2%, p<0.05). The clinically relevant but attenuated reduction in those with AL (18.5%, 95% CI −8.4% to 38.7%, p>0.05) could be attributed to GOLD 3–4, where no appreciable mortality reduction was observed.

Conclusion

Despite a greater risk of LC, severe AL was not associated with any apparent reduction in LC mortality following screening.

Characteristics of Persons Screened for Lung Cancer in the United States : A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2013, making approximately 8 million Americans eligible for screening. The demographic characteristics and adherence of persons screened in the United States have not been reported at the population level.

OBJECTIVE

To define sociodemographic characteristics and adherence among persons screened and entered into the American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry (LCSR).

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

United States, 2015 to 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Persons receiving a baseline LDCT for LCS from 3625 facilities reporting to the LCSR.

MEASUREMENTS

Age, sex, and smoking status distributions (percentages) were computed among persons who were screened and among respondents in the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) who were eligible for screening. The prevalence between the LCSR and the NHIS was compared with prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% CIs. Adherence to annual screening was defined as having a follow-up test within 11 to 15 months of an initial LDCT.

RESULTS

Among 1 159 092 persons who were screened, 90.8% (n = 1 052 591) met the USPSTF eligibility criteria. Compared with adults from the NHIS who met the criteria (n = 1257), screening recipients in the LCSR were older (34.7% vs. 44.8% were aged 65 to 74 years; PR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.20 to 1.39]), more likely to be female (41.8% vs. 48.1%; PR, 1.15 [CI, 1.08 to 1.23]), and more likely to currently smoke (52.3% vs. 61.4%; PR, 1.17 [CI, 1.11 to 1.23]). Only 22.3% had a repeated annual LDCT. If follow-up was extended to 24 months and more than 24 months, 34.3% and 40.3% were adherent, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Underreporting of LCS and missing data may skew demographic characteristics of persons reported to be screened. Underreporting of adherence may result in underestimates of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 91% of persons who had LCS met USPSTF eligibility criteria. In addition to continuing to target all eligible adults, men, those who formerly smoked, and younger eligible patients may be less likely to be screened. Adherence to annual follow-up screening was poor, potentially limiting screening effectiveness.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

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

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

Impact of Comorbidities on Lung Cancer Screening Evaluation

OBJECTIVES

We used data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial to examine the impact of self-reported chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus on diagnostic complications in lung cancer screening evaluation.

METHODS

In our analysis, we included individuals from the usual care and intervention (annual chest x-ray) of the lung cancer screening trial with equal or greater than 55 years of age with a 20 pack-year smoking history who had undergone an invasive procedure. We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to estimate the association of comorbidity on procedure complication. Our primary outcome was the incidence of major or moderate complications.

RESULTS

Features associated with high-risk complication included older age (OR = 1.03 per year, P = .001), history of coronary artery disease (OR = 1.40, P = .03), history of diabetes mellitus (OR = 0.41, P < .001, current smoking status (OR = 1.46, P ≤ .001), surgical biopsy (OR = 7.39, P < .001), needle biopsy (OR = 1.94, P < .001), and other invasive procedure (OR = 1.58, P < .001). We did not find an associated with complication and history of stroke (OR = 0.84, P = .53) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 1.27, P = .06).

CONCLUSION

Patient and procedure-level factors may alter the benefits of lung cancer screening. Data concerning individual risk factors and high-risk complications should therefore be incorporated into diagnostic algorithms to optimize clinical benefit and minimize harm. Further study and validation of the risk factors identified herein are warranted.

Performance of a rule-based semi-automated method to optimize chart abstraction for surveillance imaging among patients treated for non-small cell lung cancer

Background

We aim to develop and test performance of a semi-automated method (computerized query combined with manual review) for chart abstraction in the identification and characterization of surveillance radiology imaging for post-treatment non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Methods

A gold standard dataset consisting of 3011 radiology reports from 361 lung cancer patients treated at the Veterans Health Administration from 2008 to 2016 was manually created by an abstractor coding image type, image indication, and image findings. Computerized queries using a text search tool were performed to code reports. The primary endpoint of query performance was evaluated by sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and F1 score. The secondary endpoint of efficiency compared semi-automated abstraction time to manual abstraction time using a separate dataset and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

Results

Query for image type demonstrated the highest sensitivity of 85%, PPV 95%, and F1 score 0.90. Query for image indication demonstrated sensitivity 72%, PPV 70%, and F1 score 0.71. The image findings queries ranged from sensitivity 75–85%, PPV 23–25%, and F1 score 0.36–0.37. Semi-automated abstraction with our best performing query (image type) improved abstraction times by 68% per patient compared to manual abstraction alone (from median 21.5 min (interquartile range 16.0) to 6.9 min (interquartile range 9.5), p < 0.005).

Conclusions

Semi-automated abstraction using the best performing query of image type improved abstraction efficiency while preserving data accuracy. The computerized query acts as a pre-processing tool for manual abstraction by restricting effort to relevant images. Determining image indication and findings requires the addition of manual review for a semi-automatic abstraction approach in order to ensure data accuracy.

Nurse practitioner-led lung cancer screening clinic: An evidence-based quality improvement evaluation

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Screening for lung cancer using low-dose computed tomography of the chest (LDCT) can reduce mortality associated with lung cancer. LDCT is an under-ordered screening study.

AIMS

To evaluate the use of a nurse practitioner-led lung cancer screening clinic (LCSC).

METHODS

The absolute number of LDCT for lung cancer screenings obtained 12 months before implementing the nurse practitioner-led LCSC was compared to the 12 months after clinic implementation using a casual comparison design. An electronic survey was conducted to assess the LCSC key stakeholders' perceptions of the clinic.

RESULTS

An increase of 60% in the total number of LDCT for lung cancer screenings was observed. Qualitative data obtained through stakeholder evaluation of the clinic revealed that 85% of participants (n = 13) expressed that the LCSC was addressing barriers to lung cancer screening.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

A dedicated nurse practitioner-led LCSC is a practical way to increase lung cancer screening by addressing established barriers to screening in the community setting.

Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT compared with positron emission tomography CT to characterise solitary pulmonary nodules: the SPUtNIk diagnostic accuracy study and economic modelling

BACKGROUND

Current pathways recommend positron emission tomography-computerised tomography for the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules. Dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography may be a more cost-effective approach.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic performances of dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography and positron emission tomography-computerised tomography in the NHS for solitary pulmonary nodules. Systematic reviews and a health economic evaluation contributed to the decision-analytic modelling to assess the likely costs and health outcomes resulting from incorporation of dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography into management strategies.

DESIGN

Multicentre comparative accuracy trial.

SETTING

Secondary or tertiary outpatient settings at 16 hospitals in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants with solitary pulmonary nodules of ≥ 8 mm and of ≤ 30 mm in size with no malignancy in the previous 2 years were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Baseline positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced computer tomography with 2 years' follow-up.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy for positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared management strategies that used dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography with management strategies that did not use dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography.

RESULTS

A total of 380 patients were recruited (median age 69 years). Of 312 patients with matched dynamic contrast-enhanced computer tomography and positron emission tomography-computerised tomography examinations, 191 (61%) were cancer patients. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy for positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced computer tomography were 72.8% (95% confidence interval 66.1% to 78.6%), 81.8% (95% confidence interval 74.0% to 87.7%), 76.3% (95% confidence interval 71.3% to 80.7%) and 95.3% (95% confidence interval 91.3% to 97.5%), 29.8% (95% confidence interval 22.3% to 38.4%) and 69.9% (95% confidence interval 64.6% to 74.7%), respectively. Exploratory modelling showed that maximum standardised uptake values had the best diagnostic accuracy, with an area under the curve of 0.87, which increased to 0.90 if combined with dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography peak enhancement. The economic analysis showed that, over 24 months, dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography was less costly (£3305, 95% confidence interval £2952 to £3746) than positron emission tomography-computerised tomography (£4013, 95% confidence interval £3673 to £4498) or a strategy combining the two tests (£4058, 95% confidence interval £3702 to £4547). Positron emission tomography-computerised tomography led to more patients with malignant nodules being correctly managed, 0.44 on average (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.49), compared with 0.40 (95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.45); using both tests further increased this (0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.51).

LIMITATIONS

The high prevalence of malignancy in nodules observed in this trial, compared with that observed in nodules identified within screening programmes, limits the generalisation of the current results to nodules identified by screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this research indicate that positron emission tomography-computerised tomography is more accurate than dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography for the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules. A combination of maximum standardised uptake value and peak enhancement had the highest accuracy with a small increase in costs. Findings from this research also indicate that a combined positron emission tomography-dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography approach with a slightly higher willingness to pay to avoid missing small cancers or to avoid a 'watch and wait' policy may be an approach to consider.

FUTURE WORK

Integration of the dynamic contrast-enhanced component into the positron emission tomography-computerised tomography examination and the feasibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography at lung screening for the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules should be explored, together with a lower radiation dose protocol.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018112215 and CRD42019124299, and the trial is registered as ISRCTN30784948 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02013063.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Likelihood of Lung Cancer Screening by Poor Health Status and Race and Ethnicity in US Adults, 2017 to 2020

IMPORTANCE

Lung cancer screening (LCS) via low-dose chest computed tomography can prevent mortality through surgical resection of early-stage cancers, but it is unknown whether poor health is associated with screening. Though LCS may be associated with better outcomes for non-Hispanic Black individuals, it is unknown whether racial or ethnic disparities exist in LCS use.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether health status is associated with LCS and whether racial or ethnic disparities are associated with LCS independently of health status.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional, population-based study of community-dwelling US adults used data from Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System annual surveys, 2017 to 2020. Participants were aged 55 to 79 years, with a less than 30 pack-year smoking history, and were current smokers or those who quit within 15 years. Data were analyzed from August to November 2021.

EXPOSURES

Self-reported health status and race and ethnicity.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Self-reported LCS in the last 12 months.

RESULTS

Of 14 550 individuals (7802 men [55.5%]; 7527 [55.0%] aged 65-79 years [percentages are weighted]), representing 3.68 million US residents, 17.0% (95% CI, 15.1%-18.9%) reported undergoing LCS. The prevalence of LCS was lower among non-Hispanic Black than non-Hispanic White individuals but not to a significant degree (12.0% [95% CI, 4.3%-19.7%] vs 17.5% [95% CI, 15.6%-19.5%]; P = .57). Health status was associated with LCS: 468 individuals in poor health vs 96 individuals in excellent health reported LCS (25.2% [95% CI, 20.6%-29.9%] vs 7.6% [95% CI, 5.0%-10.3%]; P < .001), and those with difficulty climbing stairs were more likely to report LCS than those without this functional limitation. Adjusting for sociodemographic factors, functional status, and comorbidities, self-rated health status remained associated with LCS (adjusted odds ratio, 1.19 per each 1-step decline in health; 95% CI, 1.03-1.38), and non-Hispanic Black individuals were 53% less likely to report LCS than non-Hispanic White individuals (adjusted odds ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90). Results were robust in sensitivity analyses in which health was alternatively quantified as number of comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

LCS in the US is more common among those who may be less likely to benefit from screening because of poor underlying health. Furthermore, racial or ethnic disparities were evident after accounting for health status, with non-Hispanic Black individuals nearly half as likely as non-Hispanic White individuals to report LCS despite the potential for greater benefit of screening this population.

Comparative accuracy and cost-effectiveness of dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and positron emission tomography in the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules

INTRODUCTION

Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT (DCE-CT) and positron emission tomography/CT (PET/CT) have a high reported accuracy for the diagnosis of malignancy in solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs). The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of these.

METHODS

In this prospective multicentre trial, 380 participants with an SPN (8-30 mm) and no recent history of malignancy underwent DCE-CT and PET/CT. All patients underwent either biopsy with histological diagnosis or completed CT follow-up. Primary outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity and overall diagnostic accuracy for PET/CT and DCE-CT. Costs and cost-effectiveness were estimated from a healthcare provider perspective using a decision-model.

RESULTS

312 participants (47% female, 68.1±9.0 years) completed the study, with 61% rate of malignancy at 2 years. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values for DCE-CT were 95.3% (95% CI 91.3 to 97.5), 29.8% (95% CI 22.3 to 38.4), 68.2% (95% CI 62.4% to 73.5%) and 80.0% (95% CI 66.2 to 89.1), respectively, and for PET/CT were 79.1% (95% CI 72.7 to 84.2), 81.8% (95% CI 74.0 to 87.7), 87.3% (95% CI 81.5 to 91.5) and 71.2% (95% CI 63.2 to 78.1). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) for DCE-CT and PET/CT was 0.62 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.67) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.85), respectively (p<0.001). Combined results significantly increased diagnostic accuracy over PET/CT alone (AUROC=0.90 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.93), p<0.001). DCE-CT was preferred when the willingness to pay per incremental cost per correctly treated malignancy was below £9000. Above £15 500 a combined approach was preferred.

CONCLUSIONS

PET/CT has a superior diagnostic accuracy to DCE-CT for the diagnosis of SPNs. Combining both techniques improves the diagnostic accuracy over either test alone and could be cost-effective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02013063.

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.

Total and Out-of-Pocket Costs of Procedures After Lung Cancer Screening in a National Commercially Insured Population: Estimating an Episode of Care

OBJECTIVE

Consequences of lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest CT in clinical settings, including procedures, costs, and complications, are incompletely understood. We evaluated downstream invasive procedures after LCS, total and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs of these procedures, and correlates of procedural rates and costs.

METHODS

Using the Clinformatics Data Mart, we retrospectively included patients between ages 55 and 79 years receiving LCS between 2015 and 2017. The types and frequency of downstream invasive procedures (including needle biopsy, bronchoscopy, surgery, and cytology) were described. Treating the LCS examination and downstream procedures as a single LCS episode, we described the per-episode total costs (insurance reimbursement + OOP costs of LCS and downstream procedures) and OOP costs. Correlates of costs were determined using linear and logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 6,268 patients received at least one low-dose chest CT; 462 patients (7.4%) received at least one procedure within 12 months after LCS (needle biopsy 69.0%, cytology 23.6%, bronchoscopy 18.6%, surgery 23.8%). Women and patients ≥65 years were more likely to receive a downstream procedure. Ninety-three patients (20.1%) were diagnosed with lung cancer after LCS. The total cost of managing this population of lung screeners was $5,060,511.04, with an average per-episode total cost of $740.06. The aggregate OOP costs to this population of lung screeners was $427,069.74, with an average per-episode OOP cost of $62.46.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of invasive procedures after LCS in a commercially insured population exceeded those of clinical trials. Considering LCS and associated downstream procedures as an episode of care results in modest OOP cost.

Guideline-Recommended Lung Cancer Screening Adherence Is Superior With a Centralized Approach

BACKGROUND

To recognize fully the benefit of lung cancer screening (LCS), annual adherence must approach the high levels seen in the National Lung Screening Trial. Emerging data suggest that annual adherence is poor and that a centralized approach to screening improves adherence.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Do differences in adherence exist between a centralized and decentralized approach to LCS within a hybrid program and what are predictors of adherence?

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective evaluation of a single-center hybrid LCS program was conducted to compare outcomes including patient eligibility and adherence between the centralized and decentralized approaches.

METHODS

Patient demographics and outcomes were compared between those screened with a centralized and decentralized approach and between adherent and nonadherent patients using two-sample t tests, χ ² tests, or analyses of variance, as appropriate. Annual adherence analysis was conducted using data from patients who remained eligible for screening with a baseline Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) score of 1 or 2. Logistic regression was used to estimate the association between adherence and the primary exposure, adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

A cohort of 1,117 patients underwent baseline low-dose CT imaging. Two hundred eleven patients (19%) were ineligible by United States Preventative Services Task Force criteria and most (90%) were screened with the decentralized approach. After exclusions, 765 patients with Lung-RADS score of 1 or 2 remained eligible for annual screening. Overall adherence was 56%; however, adherence in the centralized program was 70%, compared with 41% with the decentralized approach (P < .001). Individuals screened in a decentralized approach were 73% less likely to be adherent (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.19-0.37). A greater proportion of patients with three or more comorbidities were screened outside the centralized program.

INTERPRETATION

Those screened using a centralized approach were more likely to meet eligibility criteria for LCS and more likely to return for annual screening than those screened using a decentralized approach.

Self-reported exercise capacity among current smokers eligible for lung cancer screening: Distribution and association with key comorbidities

ONE CONCERN: as lung cancer screening (LCS) is implemented is that patients will be screened who are too ill to benefit. Poor exercise capacity (EC) predicts adverse outcomes following lung resection.

OBJECTIVE

Describe the distribution of EC among smokers eligible for LCS and examine associations with comorbidities.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a randomized controlled trial of tobacco treatment in the context of LCS. Participants responded regarding limitations in moderate activities, ability to climb stairs, and frequency of dyspnea on a scale from never/almost never to all or most of the time. Responses were assigned a numeric score and summed to categorize exercise limitation. Associations between poor EC and key comorbidities were examined using adjusted logistic regression.

RESULTS

660 participants completed a survey with the following characteristics: 64.4% male, 89.5% white, mean age 64.5. Overall EC categories were: good 39.0%, intermediate 41.6%, and poor 19.4%.  Prevalence of poor EC was higher among patients with COPD (OR 4.62 95%CI 3.05-7.02), heart failure (OR 3.07 95%CI 1.62-5.82) and cardiovascular disease (OR 2.24, 95%CI 1.45-3.47), and was highest among patients with multimorbidity. Among patients with COPD and heart failure, 57% had poor and 0% had good EC. In adjusted logistic regression, only COPD and Charlson comorbidity index remained significantly associated with poor EC.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients eligible for LCS reported poor EC, with increased odds of poor EC among patients with comorbidities. More research is needed to determine how to best integrate EC and comorbidity into eligibility and shared decision-making conversations.

Comorbidity Profiles and Lung Cancer Screening among Older Adults: U.S. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2017 to 2019

RATIONALE

Although lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is now recommended for those meeting standard risk factor-based eligibility criteria, the role of comorbidity in the uptake of LCS with LDCT in an older real-world U.S. population is not well established.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationships between comorbidity, functional status and LCS utilization in the United States.

METHODS

Using population-based data from the 2017-2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), we examined the association of comorbid conditions and functional limitations regarding activities of daily living with LCS utilization among participants that met the LCS criteria based on the US Preventive Service Taskforce guidelines. We employed multivariable weighted logistic regression models to evaluate these associations, both overall and within subgroups defined by age (<65 vs. ≥65 years), gender, and smoking history.

RESULTS

Of 11,214 participants that met the eligibility criteria for LCS, 1731 (16%) underwent LCS with LDCT. The majority were white (90%), male (55%), former smokers (52%) and living with at least one chronic comorbid condition (77%). Over 28% had 3 or more comorbid conditions and approximately 40% of participants reported having some form of functional limitations. In the multivariable models, the likelihood of undergoing LCS with LDCT within the past year was positively associated with higher levels of comorbidity (≥5 vs. 0: aOR=2.34, 95% CI=1.22,4.48) but not with functional limitations (≥3 vs. 0: aOR=1.00, 95% CI=0.66, 1.50).

CONCLUSION

The presence of comorbid conditions is associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing LCS with LDCT. Because poor health status may diminish the benefits of screening, future research is needed to precisely characterize the health status of LCS-eligible individuals.

Impact of solitary pulmonary nodule size on qualitative and quantitative assessment using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT: the SPUTNIK trial

PURPOSE

To compare qualitative and semi-quantitative PET/CT criteria, and the impact of nodule size on the diagnosis of solitary pulmonary nodules in a prospective multicentre trial.

METHODS

Patients with an SPN on CT ≥ 8 and ≤ 30 mm were recruited to the SPUTNIK trial at 16 sites accredited by the UK PET Core Lab. Qualitative assessment used a five-point ordinal PET-grade compared to the mediastinal blood pool, and a combined PET/CT grade using the CT features. Semi-quantitative measures included SUVmax of the nodule, and as an uptake ratio to the mediastinal blood pool (SURBLOOD) or liver (SURLIVER). The endpoints were diagnosis of lung cancer via biopsy/histology or completion of 2-year follow-up. Impact of nodule size was analysed by comparison between nodule size tertiles.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-five participants completed PET/CT and 2-year follow-up, with 59% (209/355) malignant nodules. The AUCs of the three techniques were SUVmax 0.87 (95% CI 0.83;0.91); SURBLOOD 0.87 (95% CI 0.83; 0.91, p = 0.30 versus SUVmax); and SURLIVER 0.87 (95% CI 0.83; 0.91, p = 0.09 vs. SUVmax). The AUCs for all techniques remained stable across size tertiles (p > 0.1 for difference), although the optimal diagnostic threshold varied by size. For nodules < 12 mm, an SUVmax of 1.75 or visual uptake equal to the mediastinum yielded the highest accuracy. For nodules > 16 mm, an SUVmax ≥ 3.6 or visual PET uptake greater than the mediastinum was the most accurate.

CONCLUSION

In this multicentre trial, SUVmax was the most accurate technique for the diagnosis of solitary pulmonary nodules. Diagnostic thresholds should be altered according to nodule size.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN - ISRCTN30784948. ClinicalTrials.gov - NCT02013063.

Preserving NLST mortality benefits and acceptable morbidity for lung cancer surgery in a community hospital

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to demonstrate whether academic thoracic surgeons could achieve morbidity and mortality rates in community hospitals equivalent to those seen in National Lung Screening Trial (NLST).

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of community hospital lung cancer procedures for clinical Stage I-III non-small-cell lung cancers from 2007 through 2014. Variables include age, comorbidities, computed tomography (CT) characterization, and operative techniques.

RESULTS

There were 177 patients who had lung cancers removed by a minimally invasive approach (79%), including lobectomy in 127 (72%), segmentectomy in 4 (2%), and wedge-resections in 46 (26%). The median patient age was 71 years (interquartile range [IQR], 63-76). The cohort was primarily female (58%), clinical Stage I (82%), with a median tumor size of 2.3 cm (IQR, 1.5-3.3). The median length of stay was 6 days (range: 1-35). Complications were experienced by 78 (44.1%) patients, most commonly atrial fibrillation in 20 (11.3%) followed by air-leak in 19 (10.7%). There were no in-hospital deaths. Tumor location and extent of resection were associated with complications, while larger tumor size, margin contour, and resection method were associated with air-leak (all p < 0.05). Higher clinical stage and larger tumor size were associated with occult Stage III disease (both p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The low morbidity and mortality rates from the NLST were achievable in a community setting for early-stage lung cancer. Characterization of cancers using CT imaging identified factors most commonly associated with postoperative complications and the presence of occult Stage III disease.

Conditional Survival of Surgically Treated Patients with Lung Cancer: A Comprehensive Analyses of Overall, Recurrence-free, and Relative Survival

Purpose

Survival probability changes over time in cancer survivors. This study examined conditional survival in patients undergoing curative resection for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Materials and Methods

Five-year conditional recurrence-free survival (CRFS), conditional overall survival (COS), and conditional relative survival (CRS) up to 10 years after surgery were calculated in patients who underwent NSCLC resection from 1994 to 2016. These rates were stratified according to age, sex, year of diagnosis, pathological stage, tumor histology, smoking status, comorbidity, and lung function.

Results

Five-year CRFS increased from 65.6% at baseline to 90.9% at 10 years after surgery. Early differences in 5-year CRFS according to stratified patient characteristics disappeared, except for age: older patients exhibited persistently lower 5-year CRFS. Five-year COS increased from 72.7% to 78.3% at 8 years and then decreased to 75.4% at 10 years. Five-year CRS increased from 79.0% at baseline to 86.8% at 10 years. Older age and higher pathologic stage were associated with lower 5-year COS and CRS up to 10 years after surgery. Female patients, those with adenocarcinoma histology, non-smokers, patient without comorbidities and had good lung function showed higher COS and CRS.

Conclusion

CRFS improved over time, but significant risk remained after 5 years. CRS slightly improved over time but did not reach 90%, suggesting significant excess mortality compared to the general population. Age and stage remained significant predictors of conditional survival several years after surgery. Our conditional survival estimates should help clinicians and patients make informed treatment and personal life decisions based on survivorship status.

Lower lobe origin is related to unfavorable outcomes in patients with stage I-III lung cancer treated with radical chemoradiotherapy

PURPOSE

The influence of tumor location on survival was investigated in patients with lung cancer who received radical chemoradiotherapy.

METHODS

We examined the relationships between radiation site and survival outcome in patients with lung cancer. A total of 14,640 patients with lung cancer who received radical chemoradiotherapy for stage I-III disease were reviewed from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) datasets. We further retrospectively collected cases from a cohort of 148 eligible patients diagnosed between December 2013 and December 2019.

RESULTS

Female sex, adenocarcinoma, and stage III disease were significantly correlated with right lung lobe tumor. Advanced age at diagnosis was associated with lower lung tumor origin. For the patients who received radical chemoradiotherapy, 1- and 3-year survival rates were 56.5% and 22.9%. Lower lobe origin was closely related to a shorter overall survival compared to non-right lower lobe tumors (p < 0.001). We also validated the difference in our cohort (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that lower lobe tumor increases mortality risk in patients with lung cancer treated with radical chemoradiotherapy.

Lung Cancer Screening: Patient Selection and Implementation

Robust evidence exists in support of lung cancer (LC) screening with low-dose computed tomography in patients at high risk of developing LC; however, judicious patient selection is necessary to obtain optimal benefit while minimizing harm. Several professional societies have published recommendations regarding patient selection criteria for screening. Multiple risk prediction models that include additional patient-specific risk factors have since been developed to more accurately predict risk of developing LC. Implementation of a new screening program requires thorough multidisciplinary planning and maintenance. Multisociety guidelines highlight 9 principal components to implement and maintain a successful program.

Updated Overview of the SEER-Medicare Data: Enhanced Content and Applications

BACKGROUND

The National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare-linked database was first created almost 30 years ago. Over time, additional data have been added to the SEER-Medicare database, allowing for expanded insights into the delivery of health care across the cancer continuum from screening to end of life.

METHODS

This article includes an overview of the current SEER-Medicare database, presenting potential users with an introduction to how the data can facilitate innovative epidemiologic and health services research studies. With a focus on the population 65 years and older, this article presents descriptive data on beneficiary demographics, cancer characteristics, service settings, Medicare coverage (eg, Parts A, B, C, and D), and use (number of services or bills) from 2011 to 2015.

RESULTS

From 2011 to 2015, 857 056 cancer patients and 601 470 population-based noncancer controls were added to the database. The database includes detailed tumor characteristics and clinical assessments for cancer cases, and demographics and health-care use (eg, hospitals, outpatient facilities, individual providers, hospice, home health-care providers, and pharmacies) for both cases and controls. Although characteristics varied overall between cases and controls, sufficient cancer-specific matched controls are available. Roughly 60% of cases were enrolled in fee for service at cancer diagnosis. The annual average number of claims per case was 60.7 and 92.3 during the year before and after cancer diagnosis, respectively, and 127.5 during the year before death.

CONCLUSIONS

The large sample size and diverse array of data on cancer patients and noncancer controls in the SEER-Medicare database make it a unique resource for conducting cancer health services research.

Real-world Clinical Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening-Evaluating Processes to Improve Screening Guidelines-Concordance

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) requires complex processes to identify eligible patients, provide appropriate follow-up, and manage findings. It is unclear whether LCS in real-world clinical settings will realize the same benefits as the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of process modifications on compliance with LCS guidelines during LCS program implementation, and to compare patient characteristics and outcomes with those in NLST.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Kaiser Permanente Colorado (KPCO), a non-profit integrated healthcare system.

PATIENTS

A total of 3375 patients who underwent a baseline lung cancer screening low-dose computed tomography (S-LDCT) scan between May 2014 and June 2017.

MEASUREMENTS

Among those receiving an S-LDCT, proportion who met guidelines-based LCS eligibility criteria before and after LCS process modifications, differences in patient characteristics and outcomes between KPCO LCS patients and the NLST cohort, and factors associated with a positive screen.

RESULTS

After modifying LCS eligibility confirmation processes, patients receiving S-LDCT who met guidelines-based LCS eligibility criteria increased from 45.6 to 92.7% (P < 0.001). Prior to changes, patients were older (68 vs. 67 years; P = 0.001), less likely to be current smokers (51.3% vs. 52.5%; P < 0.001), and less likely to have a ≥ 30-pack-year smoking history (50.0% vs. 95.3%; P < 0.001). Compared with NLST participants, KPCO LCS patients were older (67 vs. 60 years; P < 0.001), more likely to currently smoke (52.3% vs. 48.1%; P < 0.001), and more likely to have pulmonary disease. Among those with a positive baseline S-LDCT, the lung cancer detection rate was higher at KPCO (9.4% vs. 3.8%; P < 0.001) and was positively associated with prior pulmonary disease.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to LCS guidelines requires eligibility confirmation procedures. Among those with a positive baseline S-LDCT, comorbidity burden and lung cancer detection rates were notably higher than in NLST, suggesting that the study of long-term outcomes in patients undergoing LCS in real-world clinical settings is warranted.

Evaluating Lung Cancer Screening Uptake, Outcomes, and Costs in the United States: Challenges With Existing Data and Recommendations for Improvement

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) reported substantial reduction in lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals screened annually with low-dose helical computed tomography (LDCT). As a result, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued a B recommendation for annual LDCT in high-risk individuals, which requires private insurers to cover it without cost-sharing. The Medicare program also covers LDCT for high-risk beneficiaries without cost-sharing. However, the NLST findings may not be generalizable to the community setting because of differences in patients, providers, and practices participating in the NLST. Thus, examining uptake of LDCT screening in community practice is critical, as is evaluating the immediate and downstream outcomes of screening, including false-positive scans, follow-up examinations and adverse events, costs, stage of disease at diagnosis, and survival. This commentary presents an overview of the landscape of the data resources currently available to evaluate the uptake, outcomes, and costs of LDCT screening in the United States. We describe the strengths and limitations of existing data sources, including administrative databases, surveys, and registries. Thereafter, we provide recommendations for improving the data infrastructure pertaining to three overarching research areas: receipt of guideline-consistent screening and follow-up, weighing benefits and harms of screening, and costs of screening.

Dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography for the diagnosis of solitary pulmonary nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the diagnostic performance of dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography (DCE-CT) for the differentiation between malignant and benign pulmonary nodules.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for studies published up to October 2018 on the diagnostic accuracy of DCE-CT for the characterisation of pulmonary nodules. For the index test, studies with a minimum of a pre- and post-contrast computed tomography scan were evaluated. Studies with a reference standard of biopsy for malignancy, and biopsy or 2-year follow-up for benign disease were included. Study bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies). The sensitivities, specificities, and diagnostic odds ratios were determined along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a bivariate random effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included, including 2397 study participants with 2514 nodules of which 55.3% were malignant (1389/2514). The pooled accuracy results were sensitivity 94.8% (95% CI 91.5; 96.9), specificity 75.5% (69.4; 80.6), and diagnostic odds ratio 56.6 (24.2-88.9). QUADAS 2 assessment showed intermediate/high risk of bias in a large proportion of the studies (52-78% across the domains). No difference was present in sensitivity or specificity between subgroups when studies were split based on CT technique, sample size, nodule size, or publication date.

CONCLUSION

DCE-CT has a high diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of pulmonary nodules although study quality was indeterminate in a large number of cases.

KEY POINTS

• The pooled accuracy results were sensitivity 95.1% and specificity 73.8% although individual studies showed wide ranges of values. • This is comparable to the results of previous meta-analyses of PET/CT (positron emission tomography/computed tomography) diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of solitary pulmonary nodules. • Robust direct comparative accuracy and cost-effectiveness studies are warranted to determine the optimal use of DCE-CT and PET/CT in the diagnosis of SPNs.

Life-Gained-Based Versus Risk-Based Selection of Smokers for Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Although risk-based selection of ever-smokers for screening could prevent more lung cancer deaths than screening according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines, it preferentially selects older ever-smokers with shorter life expectancies due to comorbidities.

OBJECTIVE

To compare selection of ever-smokers for screening based on gains in life expectancy versus lung cancer risk.

DESIGN

Cohort analyses and model-based projections.

SETTING

U.S. population of ever-smokers aged 40 to 84 years.

PARTICIPANTS

130 964 National Health Interview Survey participants, representing about 60 million U.S. ever-smokers during 1997 to 2015.

INTERVENTION

Annual computed tomography (CT) screening for 3 years versus no screening.

MEASUREMENTS

Estimated number of lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained after development of a mortality model.

RESULTS

Using the calibrated and validated mortality model in U.S. ever-smokers aged 40 to 84 years and selecting 8.3 million ever-smokers to match the number selected by the USPSTF criteria in 2013 to 2015, the analysis estimated that life-gained-based selection would increase the total life expectancy from CT screening (633 400 vs. 607 800 years) but prevent fewer lung cancer deaths (52 600 vs. 55 000) compared with risk-based selection. The 1.56 million persons selected by the life-gained-based strategy but not the risk-based strategy were younger (mean age, 59 vs. 75 years) and had fewer comorbidities (mean, 0.75 vs. 3.7).

LIMITATION

Estimates are model-based and assume implementation of lung cancer screening with short-term effectiveness similar to that from trials.

CONCLUSION

Life-gained-based selection could maximize the benefits of lung cancer screening in the U.S. population by including ever-smokers who have both high lung cancer risk and long life expectancy.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health.

The potential impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in lung cancer screening: implications for the screening clinic

Introduction: Following the findings of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), lung cancer screening is now recommended in the United States. However, post-hoc analyses of the NLST suggest that reducing lung cancer mortality through screening is highly dependent on the underlying characteristics of the screening participants, in particular, the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Areas covered: In this review, we outline how outcomes in lung cancer screening are significantly affected by the presence of airflow limitation, as caused by COPD, and how this might impact the assessment of eligible smokers in a lung cancer screening clinic. Expert opinion: There is growing evidence showing that CT-based screening for lung cancer reduces lung cancer mortality. The benefits of screening exceed those seen in the NLST when screening is carried out in lower risk populations, for a longer duration, and when outcomes are compared with usual care control cohorts. In this article, we review data from a post-hoc analysis of the NLST. We suggest that whilst worsened airflow limitation is associated with greater lung cancer risk, there is also more aggressive lung cancer, reduced lung cancer operability, and for advanced COPD, reduced benefits from screening. We advocate an 'outcomes-based' approach to screening over a 'risk-based' approach.

Complication Rates and Downstream Medical Costs Associated With Invasive Diagnostic Procedures for Lung Abnormalities in the Community Setting

IMPORTANCE

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services added lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) as a Medicare preventive service benefit in 2015 following findings from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) that showed a 16% reduction in lung cancer mortality associated with LDCT. A challenge in developing and promoting a national lung cancer screening program is the high false-positive rate of LDCT because abnormal findings from thoracic imaging often trigger subsequent invasive diagnostic procedures and could lead to postprocedural complications.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the complication rates and downstream medical costs associated with invasive diagnostic procedures performed for identification of lung abnormalities in the community setting.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cohort study of non-protocol-driven community practices captured in MarketScan Commercial Claims & Encounters and Medicare supplemental databases was conducted. A nationally representative sample of 344 510 patients aged 55 to 77 years who underwent invasive diagnostic procedures between 2008 and 2013 was included.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

One-year complication rates were calculated for 4 groups of invasive diagnostic procedures. The complication rates and costs were further stratified by age group.

RESULTS

Of the 344 510 individuals aged 55 to 77 years included in the study, 174 702 comprised the study group (109 363 [62.6%] women) and 169 808 served as the control group (106 007 [62.4%] women). The estimated complication rate was 22.2% (95% CI, 21.7%-22.7%) for individuals in the young age group and 23.8% (95% CI, 23.0%-24.6%) for those in the Medicare group; the rates were approximately twice as high as those reported in the NLST (9.8% and 8.5%, respectively). The mean incremental complication costs were $6320 (95% CI, $5863-$6777) for minor complications to $56 845 (95% CI, $47 953-$65 737) for major complications.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The rates of complications after invasive diagnostic procedures were higher than the rates reported in clinical trials. Physicians and patients should be aware of the potential risks of subsequent adverse events and their high downstream costs in the shared decision-making process.

Do the surgical results in the National Lung Screening Trial reflect modern thoracic surgical practice?

INTRODUCTION

Surgical data from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has yet to be closely examined. We sought to analyze surgical procedures and complications from the NLST to determine their relevance to modern surgical practice.

METHODS

The NLST database was queried for patients who underwent surgical resection for confirmed lung cancer, specifically evaluating postoperative complications. Numerical variables were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical variables were compared using the χ² test. Logistic regression uni- and multivariable analysis of independent risk factors of postoperative complications was performed.

RESULTS

At operation, 80% of patients (n = 821) had lobectomy, 4.1% (n = 42) had pneumonectomy, and 16.1% (n = 166) had sublobar resection, among whom 69% (n = 114) had wedge resection. Only 29.6% (n = 305) of the cohort had a thoracoscopic resection. Although the overall rate of surgical patients with any complication was 31% (n = 318), only 15.5% of patients (n = 160) had major complications, most commonly prolonged air leaks (n = 67, 6.5%). Respiratory failure (n = 28, 2.7%), prolonged ventilation (n = 9, 0.9%), myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest (n = 7, 0.7%), and stroke (n = 2, 0.2%) were rare events. Overall 30-day mortality in patients undergoing resection was 1.7% (n = 18). On multivariable analysis, greater smoking pack history (odds ratio [OR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001-1.01) and pulmonary comorbidities (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.98-1.82) were significant or approached significance for an association with complications/death, whereas sublobar resection (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.94) and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery approach (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56-1.04) were significant or approached significance for an association with decreased rates of complications/death.

CONCLUSIONS

Operative mortality and postoperative morbidity were very low in patients undergoing resection for screen-detected lung cancer. Increased use of sublobar resection and minimally invasive surgical approaches may be associated with fewer complications.

Biomarkers in Lung Cancer Screening: Achievements, Promises, and Challenges

The present review is an update of the research and development efforts regarding the use of molecular biomarkers in the lung cancer screening setting. The two main unmet clinical needs, namely, the refinement of risk to improve the selection of individuals undergoing screening and the characterization of undetermined nodules found during the computed tomography-based screening process are the object of the biomarkers described in the present review. We first propose some principles to optimize lung cancer biomarker discovery projects. Then, we summarize the discovery and developmental status of currently promising molecular candidates, such as autoantibodies, complement fragments, microRNAs, circulating tumor DNA, DNA methylation, blood protein profiling, or RNA airway or nasal signatures. We also mention other emerging biomarkers or new technologies to follow, such as exhaled breath biomarkers, metabolomics, sputum cell imaging, genetic predisposition studies, and the integration of next-generation sequencing into study of circulating DNA. We also underline the importance of integrating different molecular technologies together with imaging, radiomics, and artificial intelligence. We list a number of completed, ongoing, or planned trials to show the clinical utility of molecular biomarkers. Finally, we comment on future research challenges in the field of biomarkers in the context of lung cancer screening and propose a design of a trial to test the clinical utility of one or several candidate biomarkers.

Benefits and Challenges of Lung Cancer Screening in Older Adults

PURPOSE

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography has been shown to significantly reduce lung cancer-related mortality in high-risk patients. However, patients diagnosed with lung cancer are typically older and often have multiple age- and smoking-related comorbidities. As a result, cancer screening in older adults remains a complex decision, requiring careful consideration of patients' risk characteristics and life expectancy to ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks of screening. In this review, we evaluate the evidence regarding lung cancer screening, with a focus on older patients.

METHODS

PubMed was searched to identify relevant studies evaluating the clinical outcomes of lung cancer screening. The key words used in our search included non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), screening, older, comorbidities, computed tomography, and survival. While we primarily looked for articles specific to older patients, we also focused on subgroup analysis in older patients in larger studies. Finally, we reviewed all relevant guidelines regarding lung cancer screening.

FINDINGS

Guidelines recommend that lung cancer screening be considered in adults aged 55 to 80 years who are at high risk based on smoking history (ie, 30-pack-year smoking history; having smoked within the past 15 years). Patients who fit these criteria have been shown to have a 20% reduction in lung cancer-related mortality with the use of low-dose computed tomography versus chest radiography. High rates of false-positive results and potential overdiagnoses were also observed. Therefore, screening is generally not recommended in adults with severe comorbidities or short life expectancy, who may experience limited benefit and higher risks with screening. However, several studies have shown a benefit with continued lung cancer screening with appropriate selection of older individuals at the highest risk and with the lowest comorbidities.

IMPLICATIONS

Older patients experience the highest risk for lung cancer incidence and mortality, and stand to be the most likely to benefit from lung cancer screening. However, careful consideration must be given to higher rates of false-positives and overdiagnosis in this population, as well as tolerability of surgery and competing risks for death from other causes. The appropriate selection of older individuals for lung cancer screening can be greatly optimized by using validated risk-based targeting.

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.

Features of COPD as Predictors of Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is a leading cause of death and hospitalization for patients with COPD. A detailed understanding of which clinical features of COPD increase risk is needed.

METHODS

We performed a nested case-control study of Genetic Epidemiology of COPD (COPDGene) Study subjects with and without lung cancer, age 45 to 80 years, who smoked at least 10-pack years to identify clinical and imaging features of smokers, with and without COPD, that are associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. The baseline evaluation included spirometry, high-resolution chest CT scanning, and respiratory questionnaires. New lung cancer diagnoses were identified over 8 years of longitudinal follow-up. Cases of lung cancer were matched 1:4 with control subjects for age, race, sex, and smoking history. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to determine features predictive of lung cancer.

RESULTS

Features associated with a future risk of lung cancer included decreased FEV₁/FVC (OR, 1.28 per 10% decrease [95% CI, 1.12-1.46]), visual severity of emphysema (OR, 2.31, none-trace vs mild-advanced [95% CI, 1.41-3.86]), and respiratory exacerbations prior to study entry (OR, 1.39 per increased events [0, 1, and ≥ 2] [95% CI, 1.04-1.85]). Respiratory exacerbations were also associated with small-cell lung cancer histology (OR, 3.57 [95% CI, 1.47-10]).

CONCLUSIONS

The degree of COPD severity, including airflow obstruction, visual emphysema, and respiratory exacerbations, was independently predictive of lung cancer. These risk factors should be further studied as inclusion and exclusion criteria for the survival benefit of lung cancer screening. Studies are needed to determine if reduction in respiratory exacerbations among smokers can reduce the risk of lung cancer.

Post-Treatment Mortality After Surgery and Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Purpose In early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), post-treatment mortality may influence the comparative effectiveness of surgery and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), with implications for shared decision making among high-risk surgical candidates. We analyzed early mortality after these interventions using the National Cancer Database. Patients and Methods We abstracted patients with cT1-T2a, N0, M0 NSCLC diagnosed between 2004 and 2013 undergoing either surgery or SBRT. Thirty-day and 90-day post-treatment mortality rates were calculated and compared using Cox regression and propensity score-matched analyses. Results We identified 76,623 patients who underwent surgery (78% lobectomy, 20% sublobar resection, 2% pneumonectomy) and 8,216 patients who received SBRT. In the unmatched cohort, mortality rates were moderately increased with surgery versus SBRT (30 days, 2.07% v 0.73% [absolute difference (Δ), 1.34%]; P < .001; 90 days, 3.59% v 2.93% [Δ, 0.66%]; P < .001). Among the 27,200 propensity score-matched patients, these differences increased (30 days, 2.41% v 0.79% [Δ, 1.62%]; P < .001; 90 days, 4.23% v 2.82% [Δ, 1.41%]; P < .001). Differences in mortality between surgery and SBRT increased with age, with interaction P < .001 at both 30 days and 90 days (71 to 75 years old: 30-day Δ, 1.87%; 90-day Δ, 2.02%; 76 to 80 years old: 30-day Δ, 2.80%; 90-day Δ, 2.59%; > 80 years old: 30-day Δ, 3.03%; 90-day Δ, 3.67%; all P ≤ .001). Compared with SBRT, surgical mortality rates were higher with increased extent of resection (30-day and 90-day multivariate hazard ratio for mortality: sublobar resection, 2.85 and 1.37; lobectomy, 3.65 and 1.60; pneumonectomy, 14.5 and 5.66; all P < 0.001). Conclusion Differences in 30- and 90-day post-treatment mortality between surgery and SBRT increased as a function of age, with the largest differences in favor of SBRT observed among patients older than 70 years. These representative mortality data may inform shared decision making among patients with early-stage NSCLC who are eligible for both interventions.