An Audit of Opportunistic Lung Cancer Screening in a Canadian Province

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Survival Among Patients with Stage I-III, Non-Squamous, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Receiving Surgery as Primary Treatment

INTRODUCTION

Approximately half of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) present with early-stage disease at diagnosis. Real-world outcomes data are limited for this population but are of interest given recent and impending results from trials evaluating epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) and immunotherapies in neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and perioperative settings.

METHODS

A retrospective, longitudinal, population-level study was conducted in patients diagnosed with resected stage I-III non-squamous NSCLC in Ontario, Canada, between April 2010 and March 2019. Study outcomes included patient characteristics and median overall survival (mOS), with stratification by disease stage and treatment exposure. Patients receiving EGFR-TKIs (assumed EGFR mutation-positive by proxy) were a key population of interest.

RESULTS

Among 8255 cases, 4881 had stage I, 2124 had stage II, and 1250 had stage III NSCLC at diagnosis. The mean patient age was 68 years; 53.5% were female. In the overall cohort, 19.6% received adjuvant chemotherapy. Receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer mOS than not receiving such therapy: stage II (7.6 [95% confidence interval: 6.5-8.5] vs. 4.4 [4.0-4.9] years) or stage III (4.4 [3.6-5.1] vs. 2.7 [2.3-3.3] years), both p < 0.0001. Patients receiving treatment (EGFR-TKIs and chemotherapy) were assumed to have experienced disease recurrence/relapse; mOS was longer among those receiving an EGFR-TKI than among those receiving chemotherapy (2.3 [1.8-3.0] vs. 1.1 [1.0-1.3] years).

CONCLUSION

In Ontario, between 2010 and 2019, uptake of adjuvant therapy was low among patients with resected NSCLC, despite such therapy being associated with improved survival. Patients assumed to have recurred/relapsed had markedly reduced mOS, regardless of subsequent therapy, compared with those who did not relapse/recur. Novel peri-adjuvant treatment options are needed to enhance outcomes after lung resection.

Why is the screening rate in lung cancer still low? A seven-country analysis of the factors affecting adoption

Strong evidence of lung cancer screening's effectiveness in mortality reduction, as demonstrated in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in the US and the Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NELSON), has prompted countries to implement formal lung cancer screening programs. However, adoption rates remain largely low. This study aims to understand how lung cancer screening programs are currently performing. It also identifies the barriers and enablers contributing to adoption of lung cancer screening across 10 case study countries: Canada, China, Croatia, Japan, Poland, South Korea and the United States. Adoption rates vary significantly across studied countries. We find five main factors impacting adoption: (1) political prioritization of lung cancer (2) financial incentives/cost sharing and hidden ancillary costs (3) infrastructure to support provision of screening services (4) awareness around lung cancer screening and risk factors and (5) cultural views and stigma around lung cancer. Although these factors have application across the countries, the weighting of each factor on driving or hindering adoption varies by country. The five areas set out by this research should be factored into policy making and implementation to maximize effectiveness and outreach of lung cancer screening programs.

Real-World Patterns and Decision Drivers of Radiotherapy for Lung Cancer Patients in Romania: RADIO-NET Study Results

Radiotherapy (RT) plays a crucial role in all stages of lung cancer. Data on recent real-world RT patterns and main drivers of RT decisions in lung cancer in Romania is scarce; we aimed to address these knowledge gaps through this physician-led medical chart review in 16 RT centers across the country. Consecutive patients with lung cancer receiving RT as part of their disease management between May-October 2019 (pre-COVID-19 pandemic) were included. Descriptive statistics were generated for all variables. This cohort included 422 patients: median age 63 years, males 76%, stages I-II 6%, III 43%, IV 50%, mostly adeno- and squamous cell carcinoma (76%), ECOG 0-1 50% at the time of RT. Curative intent RT was used in 36% of cases, palliative RT in 64%. Delays were reported in 13% of patients, mostly due to machine breakdown (67%). Most acute reported RT toxicity was esophagitis (19%). Multiple disease-, patient-, physician- and context-related drivers counted in the decision-making process. This is the first detailed analysis of RT use in lung cancer in Romania. Palliative RT still dominates the landscape. Earlier diagnosis, coordinated multidisciplinary strategies, and the true impact of the multimodal treatments on survival are strongly needed to improve lung cancer outcomes.

Efficacy of Risk Prediction Models and Thresholds to Select Patients for Lung Cancer Screening

PurposeScreening for lung cancer is recommended to reduce lung cancer mortality, but there is no consensus on patient selection for screening in Canada. Risk prediction models are more efficacious than the screening recommendations of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC), but it remains to be determined which model and threshold are optimal. MethodsWe retrospectively applied the PLCO_m2012, PLCO_all2014 and LLPv2 risk prediction models to 120 lung cancer patients from a Canadian province, at risk thresholds of ≥ 1.51% and ≥ 2.00%, to determine screening eligibility at time of diagnosis. OncoSim modelling was used to compare these risk thresholds. ResultsSensitivities of the risk prediction models at a threshold of ≥ 1.51% were similar with 93 (77.5%), 96 (80.0%), and 97 (80.8%) patients selected for screening, respectively. The PLCO_m2012 and PLCO_all2014 models selected significantly more patients for screening at a ≥ 1.51% threshold. The OncoSim simulation model estimated that the ≥ 1.51% threshold would detect 4 more cancers per 100 000 people than the ≥ 2.00% threshold. All risk prediction models, at both thresholds, achieved greater sensitivity than CTFPHC recommendations, which selected 56 (46.7%) patients for screening. ConclusionCommonly considered lung cancer screening risk thresholds (≥1.51% and ≥2.00%) are more sensitive than the CTFPHC 30-pack-years criterion to detect lung cancer. A lower risk threshold would achieve a larger population impact of lung cancer screening but would require more resources. Patients with limited or no smoking history, young patients, and patients with no history of COPD may be missed regardless of the model chosen.