1
|
O'Dowd E, Berovic M, Callister M, Chalitsios CV, Chopra D, Das I, Draper A, Garner JL, Gleeson F, Janes S, Kennedy M, Lee R, Mauri F, McKeever TM, McNulty W, Murray J, Nair A, Park J, Rawlinson J, Sagoo GS, Scarsbrook A, Shah P, Sudhir R, Talwar A, Thakrar R, Watkins J, Baldwin DR. Determining the impact of an artificial intelligence tool on the management of pulmonary nodules detected incidentally on CT (DOLCE) study protocol: a prospective, non-interventional multicentre UK study. BMJ Open 2024; 14:e077747. [PMID: 38176863 PMCID: PMC10773382 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077747] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2023] [Accepted: 11/28/2023] [Indexed: 01/06/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In a small percentage of patients, pulmonary nodules found on CT scans are early lung cancers. Lung cancer detected at an early stage has a much better prognosis. The British Thoracic Society guideline on managing pulmonary nodules recommends using multivariable malignancy risk prediction models to assist in management. While these guidelines seem to be effective in clinical practice, recent data suggest that artificial intelligence (AI)-based malignant-nodule prediction solutions might outperform existing models. METHODS AND ANALYSIS This study is a prospective, observational multicentre study to assess the clinical utility of an AI-assisted CT-based lung cancer prediction tool (LCP) for managing incidental solid and part solid pulmonary nodule patients vs standard care. Two thousand patients will be recruited from 12 different UK hospitals. The primary outcome is the difference between standard care and LCP-guided care in terms of the rate of benign nodules and patients with cancer discharged straight after the assessment of the baseline CT scan. Secondary outcomes investigate adherence to clinical guidelines, other measures of changes to clinical management, patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This study has been reviewed and given a favourable opinion by the South Central-Oxford C Research Ethics Committee in UK (REC reference number: 22/SC/0142).Study results will be available publicly following peer-reviewed publication in open-access journals. A patient and public involvement group workshop is planned before the study results are available to discuss best methods to disseminate the results. Study results will also be fed back to participating organisations to inform training and procurement activities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT05389774.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma O'Dowd
- Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK emma.o'
| | - Marko Berovic
- King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | | | | | - Indrajeet Das
- University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK
| | - Adrian Draper
- Respiratory Medicine, St George's Hospital, London, UK
| | | | - Fergus Gleeson
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Sam Janes
- University College London, London, UK
| | | | - Richard Lee
- Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK
| | | | | | | | - James Murray
- Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | - John Park
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Janette Rawlinson
- Consumer Forum, NCRI CSG (lung) Subgroup, BTOG Steering Committee, NHSE CEG, National Cancer Research Institute, London, UK
| | - Gurdeep Singh Sagoo
- Population Health Sciences Institute, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | | | - Pallav Shah
- Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Rajini Sudhir
- University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK
| | - Ambika Talwar
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Ricky Thakrar
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lam S, Bai C, Baldwin DR, Chen Y, Connolly C, de Koning H, Heuvelmans MA, Hu P, Kazerooni EA, Lancaster HL, Langs G, McWilliams A, Osarogiagbon RU, Oudkerk M, Peters M, Robbins HA, Sahar L, Smith RA, Triphuridet N, Field J. Current and Future Perspectives on Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer: A Roadmap From 2023 to 2027 From the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2024; 19:36-51. [PMID: 37487906 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2023.07.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2023] [Revised: 06/13/2023] [Accepted: 07/18/2023] [Indexed: 07/26/2023]
Abstract
Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer substantially reduces mortality from lung cancer, as revealed in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. This review is based on the ninth CT screening symposium of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, which focuses on the major themes pertinent to the successful global implementation of LDCT screening and develops a strategy to further the implementation of lung cancer screening globally. These recommendations provide a 5-year roadmap to advance the implementation of LDCT screening globally, including the following: (1) establish universal screening program quality indicators; (2) establish evidence-based criteria to identify individuals who have never smoked but are at high-risk of developing lung cancer; (3) develop recommendations for incidentally detected lung nodule tracking and management protocols to complement programmatic lung cancer screening; (4) Integrate artificial intelligence and biomarkers to increase the prediction of malignancy in suspicious CT screen-detected lesions; and (5) standardize high-quality performance artificial intelligence protocols that lead to substantial reductions in costs, resource utilization and radiologist reporting time; (6) personalize CT screening intervals on the basis of an individual's lung cancer risk; (7) develop evidence to support clinical management and cost-effectiveness of other identified abnormalities on a lung cancer screening CT; (8) develop publicly accessible, easy-to-use geospatial tools to plan and monitor equitable access to screening services; and (9) establish a global shared education resource for lung cancer screening CT to ensure high-quality reading and reporting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen Lam
- Department of Integrative Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
| | - Chunxue Bai
- Shanghai Respiratory Research Institute and Chinese Alliance Against Cancer, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
| | - David R Baldwin
- Nottingham University Hospitals National Health Services (NHS) Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Yan Chen
- Digital Screening, Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Nottingham Medical School, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Casey Connolly
- International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, Denver, Colorado
| | - Harry de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marjolein A Heuvelmans
- University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; The Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Ping Hu
- Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Ella A Kazerooni
- Division of Cardiothoracic Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Harriet L Lancaster
- University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; The Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Georg Langs
- Computational Imaging Research Laboratory, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Annette McWilliams
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia; Australia University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western Australia
| | | | - Matthijs Oudkerk
- Center for Medical Imaging and The Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Matthew Peters
- Woolcock Institute of Respiratory Medicine, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Hilary A Robbins
- Genomic Epidemiology Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
| | - Liora Sahar
- Data Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Robert A Smith
- Early Cancer Detection Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia
| | | | - John Field
- Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Pan X, Dvortsin E, Baldwin DR, Groen HJM, Ramaker D, Ryan J, Berge HT, Velikanova R, Oudkerk M, Postma MJ. Cost-effectiveness of volume computed tomography in lung cancer screening: a cohort simulation based on Nelson study outcomes. J Med Econ 2024; 27:27-38. [PMID: 38050691 DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2023.2288739] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/13/2023] [Accepted: 11/24/2023] [Indexed: 12/06/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening (LCS) with volume-based low-dose computed tomography (CT) versus no screening for an asymptomatic high-risk population in the United Kingdom (UK), utilising the long-term insights provided by the NELSON study, the largest European randomized control trial investigating LCS. METHODS A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a decision tree and a state-transition Markov model to simulate the identification, diagnosis, and treatments for a lung cancer high-risk population, from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Eligible participants underwent annual volume CT screening and were compared to a cohort without the option of screening. Screen-detected lung cancers, costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were predicted. RESULTS Annual volume CT screening of 1.3 million eligible participants resulted in 96,474 more lung cancer cases detected in early stage, and 73,825 fewer cases in late stage, leading to 53,732 premature lung cancer deaths averted and 421,647 QALYs gained, compared to no screening. The ICER was £5,455 per QALY. These estimates were robust in sensitivity analyses. LIMITATIONS Lack of long-term survival data for lung cancer patients; deficiency in rigorous micro-costing studies to establish detailed treatment costs inputs for lung cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS Annual LCS with volume-based low-dose CT for a high-risk asymptomatic population is cost-effective in the UK, at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY, representing an efficient use of NHS resources with substantially improved outcomes for lung cancer patients, as well as additional societal and economic benefits for society as a whole. These findings advocate evidence-based decisions for the potential implementation of a nationwide LCS in the UK.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xuanqi Pan
- Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy, Groningen, The Netherlands
- Unit of Global Health, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Evgeni Dvortsin
- Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - David R Baldwin
- Nottingham University Hospitals National Health Service Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom
- Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Harry J M Groen
- Department of Pulmonary Diseases, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Dianne Ramaker
- Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - James Ryan
- Health Economics and Payer Evidence, AstraZeneca PLC, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Hilde Ten Berge
- Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Rimma Velikanova
- Unit of Global Health, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
- Health Economics and Outcome Research, Asc Academics B.V, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Matthijs Oudkerk
- Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy, Groningen, The Netherlands
- Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten J Postma
- Unit of Global Health, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
O'Dowd EL, Tietzova I, Bartlett E, Devaraj A, Biederer J, Brambilla M, Brunelli A, Chorostowska J, Decaluwe H, Deruysscher D, De Wever W, Donoghue M, Fabre A, Gaga M, van Geffen W, Hardavella G, Kauczor HU, Kerpel-Fronius A, van Meerbeeck J, Nagavci B, Nestle U, Novoa N, Prosch H, Prokop M, Putora PM, Rawlinson J, Revel MP, Snoeckx A, Veronesi G, Vliegenthart R, Weckbach S, Blum TG, Baldwin DR. ERS/ESTS/ESTRO/ESR/ESTI/EFOMP statement on management of incidental findings from low dose CT screening for lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2023; 64:ezad302. [PMID: 37804174 PMCID: PMC10876118 DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezad302] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2023] [Accepted: 06/06/2023] [Indexed: 10/09/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Screening for lung cancer with low radiation dose computed tomography has a strong evidence base, is being introduced in several European countries and is recommended as a new targeted cancer screening programme. The imperative now is to ensure that implementation follows an evidence-based process that will ensure clinical and cost effectiveness. This European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force was formed to provide an expert consensus for the management of incidental findings which can be adapted and followed during implementation. METHODS A multi-European society collaborative group was convened. 23 topics were identified, primarily from an ERS statement on lung cancer screening, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted according to ERS standards. Initial review of abstracts was completed and full text was provided to members of the group for each topic. Sections were edited and the final document approved by all members and the ERS Science Council. RESULTS Nine topics considered most important and frequent were reviewed as standalone topics (interstitial lung abnormalities, emphysema, bronchiectasis, consolidation, coronary calcification, aortic valve disease, mediastinal mass, mediastinal lymph nodes and thyroid abnormalities). Other topics considered of lower importance or infrequent were grouped into generic categories, suitable for general statements. CONCLUSIONS This European collaborative group has produced an incidental findings statement that can be followed during lung cancer screening. It will ensure that an evidence-based approach is used for reporting and managing incidental findings, which will mean that harms are minimised and any programme is as cost-effective as possible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma L O'Dowd
- Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
- University of Nottingham, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Nottingham, UK
| | - Ilona Tietzova
- Charles University, First Faculty of Medicine, Department of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Emily Bartlett
- Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, Radiology, London, UK
| | - Anand Devaraj
- Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, Radiology, London, UK
| | - Jürgen Biederer
- University of Heidelberg, Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Heidelberg, Germany
- German Center for Lung Research DZL, Translational Lung Research Center TLRC, Heidelberg, Germany
- University of Latvia, Faculty of Medicine, Riga, Latvia
- Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Faculty of Medicine, Kiel, Germany
| | - Marco Brambilla
- Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Maggiore della Carità di Novara, Novara, Italy
| | | | - Joanna Chorostowska
- Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases, Warsaw, Genetics and Clinical Immunology, Warsaw, Poland
| | | | - Dirk Deruysscher
- Maastricht University Medical Centre, Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO Clinic), GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Limburg, The Netherlands
| | - Walter De Wever
- Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven, Radiology, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | - Aurelie Fabre
- University College Dublin School of Medicine, Histopathology, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Mina Gaga
- Sotiria General Hospital of Chest Diseases of Athens, 7th Respiratory Medicine Department, Athens, Greece
| | - Wouter van Geffen
- Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Georgia Hardavella
- Sotiria General Hospital of Chest Diseases of Athens, Respiratory Medicine, Athens, Greece
| | - Hans-Ulrich Kauczor
- University of Heidelberg, Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Heidelberg, Germany
- German Center for Lung Research DZL, Translational Lung Research Center TLRC, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Anna Kerpel-Fronius
- National Koranyi Institute of Pulmonology, Department of Radiology, Budapest, Hungary
| | | | - Blin Nagavci
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany
| | - Ursula Nestle
- Kliniken Maria Hilf GmbH Monchengladbach, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
| | - Nuria Novoa
- University Hospital of Salamanca, Thoracic Surgery, Salamanca, Spain
| | - Helmut Prosch
- Medical University of Vienna, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Vienna, Austria
| | - Mathias Prokop
- Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Paul Martin Putora
- Kantonsspital Sankt Gallen, Radiation Oncology, Sankt Gallen, Switzerland
- Inselspital Universitatsspital Bern, Radiation Oncology, Bern, Switzerland
| | | | - Marie-Pierre Revel
- Cochin Hospital, APHP, Radiology Department, Paris, France
- Université de Paris, Paris, France
| | | | - Giulia Veronesi
- Humanitas Research Hospital, Division of Thoracic and General Surgery, Rozzano, Italy
| | | | - Sabine Weckbach
- UniversitatsKlinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
- Bayer AG, Research and Development, Pharmaceuticals, Radiology, Berlin, Germany
| | - Torsten G Blum
- HELIOS Klinikum Emil von Behring GmbH, Lungenklinik Heckeshorn, Berlin, Germany
| | - David R Baldwin
- University of Nottingham, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Nottingham, UK
- Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
O'Dowd EL, Tietzova I, Bartlett E, Devaraj A, Biederer J, Brambilla M, Brunelli A, Chorostowska-Wynimko J, Decaluwe H, Deruysscher D, De Wever W, Donoghue M, Fabre A, Gaga M, van Geffen W, Hardavella G, Kauczor HU, Kerpel-Fronius A, van Meerbeeck J, Nagavci B, Nestle U, Novoa N, Prosch H, Prokop M, Putora PM, Rawlinson J, Revel MP, Snoeckx A, Veronesi G, Vliegenthart R, Weckbach S, Blum TG, Baldwin DR. ERS/ESTS/ESTRO/ESR/ESTI/EFOMP statement on management of incidental findings from low dose CT screening for lung cancer. Eur Respir J 2023; 62:2300533. [PMID: 37802631 DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00533-2023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2023] [Accepted: 06/06/2023] [Indexed: 10/10/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Screening for lung cancer with low radiation dose computed tomography has a strong evidence base, is being introduced in several European countries and is recommended as a new targeted cancer screening programme. The imperative now is to ensure that implementation follows an evidence-based process that will ensure clinical and cost effectiveness. This European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force was formed to provide an expert consensus for the management of incidental findings which can be adapted and followed during implementation. METHODS A multi-European society collaborative group was convened. 23 topics were identified, primarily from an ERS statement on lung cancer screening, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted according to ERS standards. Initial review of abstracts was completed and full text was provided to members of the group for each topic. Sections were edited and the final document approved by all members and the ERS Science Council. RESULTS Nine topics considered most important and frequent were reviewed as standalone topics (interstitial lung abnormalities, emphysema, bronchiectasis, consolidation, coronary calcification, aortic valve disease, mediastinal mass, mediastinal lymph nodes and thyroid abnormalities). Other topics considered of lower importance or infrequent were grouped into generic categories, suitable for general statements. CONCLUSIONS This European collaborative group has produced an incidental findings statement that can be followed during lung cancer screening. It will ensure that an evidence-based approach is used for reporting and managing incidental findings, which will mean that harms are minimised and any programme is as cost-effective as possible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma L O'Dowd
- Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
- University of Nottingham, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Nottingham, UK
| | - Ilona Tietzova
- Charles University, First Faculty of Medicine, Department of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Emily Bartlett
- Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, Radiology, London, UK
| | - Anand Devaraj
- Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, Radiology, London, UK
| | - Jürgen Biederer
- University of Heidelberg, Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Heidelberg, Germany
- German Center for Lung Research DZL, Translational Lung Research Center TLRC, Heidelberg, Germany
- University of Latvia, Faculty of Medicine, Riga, Latvia
- Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Faculty of Medicine, Kiel, Germany
| | - Marco Brambilla
- Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Maggiore della Carità di Novara, Novara, Italy
| | | | | | | | - Dirk Deruysscher
- Maastricht University Medical Centre, Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO Clinic), GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Limburg, The Netherlands
| | - Walter De Wever
- Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven, Radiology, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | - Aurelie Fabre
- University College Dublin School of Medicine, Histopathology, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Mina Gaga
- Sotiria General Hospital of Chest Diseases of Athens, 7th Respiratory Medicine Department, Athens, Greece
| | - Wouter van Geffen
- Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Georgia Hardavella
- Sotiria General Hospital of Chest Diseases of Athens, Respiratory Medicine, Athens, Greece
| | - Hans-Ulrich Kauczor
- University of Heidelberg, Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Heidelberg, Germany
- German Center for Lung Research DZL, Translational Lung Research Center TLRC, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Anna Kerpel-Fronius
- National Koranyi Institute of Pulmonology, Department of Radiology, Budapest, Hungary
| | | | - Blin Nagavci
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany
| | - Ursula Nestle
- Kliniken Maria Hilf GmbH Monchengladbach, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
| | - Nuria Novoa
- University Hospital of Salamanca, Thoracic Surgery, Salamanca, Spain
| | - Helmut Prosch
- Medical University of Vienna, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Vienna, Austria
| | - Mathias Prokop
- Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Paul Martin Putora
- Kantonsspital Sankt Gallen, Radiation Oncology, Sankt Gallen, Switzerland
- Inselspital Universitatsspital Bern, Radiation Oncology, Bern, Switzerland
| | | | - Marie-Pierre Revel
- Cochin Hospital, APHP, Radiology Department, Paris, France
- Université de Paris, Paris, France
| | | | - Giulia Veronesi
- Humanitas Research Hospital, Division of Thoracic and General Surgery, Rozzano, Italy
| | | | - Sabine Weckbach
- UniversitatsKlinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
- Bayer AG, Research and Development, Pharmaceuticals, Radiology, Berlin, Germany
| | - Torsten G Blum
- HELIOS Klinikum Emil von Behring GmbH, Lungenklinik Heckeshorn, Berlin, Germany
| | - David R Baldwin
- Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
- University of Nottingham, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Nottingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
O'Dowd EL, Merriel SWD, Cheng VWT, Khan S, Howells LM, Gopal DP, Roundhill EA, Brennan PM, Crosbie PAJ, Neal RD, Brown K, Crosbie EJ, Baldwin DR. Clinical trials in cancer screening, prevention and early diagnosis (SPED): a systematic mapping review. BMC Cancer 2023; 23:820. [PMID: 37667231 PMCID: PMC10476302 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-11300-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2022] [Accepted: 08/14/2023] [Indexed: 09/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Global annual cancer incidence is forecast to rise to 27.5 M by 2040, a 62% increase from 2018. For most cancers, prevention and early detection are the most effective ways of reducing mortality. This study maps trials in cancer screening, prevention, and early diagnosis (SPED) to identify areas of unmet need and highlight research priorities. METHODS A systematic mapping review was conducted to evaluate all clinical trials focused on cancer SPED, irrespective of tumour type. The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) portfolio, EMBASE, PubMed and Medline were searched for relevant papers published between 01/01/2007 and 01/04/2020. References were exported into Covidence software and double-screened. Data were extracted and mapped according to tumour site, geographical location, and intervention type. RESULTS One hundred seventeen thousand seven hundred one abstracts were screened, 5157 full texts reviewed, and 2888 studies included. 1184 (52%) trials focussed on screening, 554 (24%) prevention, 442 (20%) early diagnosis, and 85 (4%) a combination. Colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer comprised 61% of all studies compared with 6.4% in lung and 1.8% in liver cancer. The latter two are responsible for 26.3% of global cancer deaths compared with 19.3% for the former three. Number of studies varied markedly according to geographical location; 88% were based in North America, Europe, or Asia. CONCLUSIONS This study shows clear disparities in the volume of research conducted across different tumour types and according to geographical location. These findings will help drive future research effort so that resources can be directed towards major challenges in cancer SPED.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma L O'Dowd
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK.
| | - Samuel W D Merriel
- Centre for Primary Care & Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Vinton W T Cheng
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Sam Khan
- Leicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK
| | - Lynne M Howells
- Leicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK
| | - Dipesh P Gopal
- Primary Care Unit, Centre for Primary Care, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University, London, UK
| | - Elizabeth A Roundhill
- Children's Cancer Research Group, Leeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Paul M Brennan
- Translational Neurosurgery, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Philip A J Crosbie
- Division of Infection, Immunity & Respiratory Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Thoracic Oncology Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Richard D Neal
- Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, University of Exeter, 1.12 College House, Magdalen Road, EX1 2LU, Exeter, UK
| | - Karen Brown
- Leicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK
| | - Emma J Crosbie
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK
| | - David R Baldwin
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Baldwin DR. Measuring Harms of Lung Cancer Screening: An Opportunity to Improve Outcomes. Chest 2023; 164:294-295. [PMID: 37558326 DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.05.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2023] [Accepted: 05/18/2023] [Indexed: 08/11/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- David R Baldwin
- Nottingham Univesity Hospitals NHS Trust and the University of Nottingham, Nottingham, England.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Bradley C, Alexandris P, Baldwin DR, Booton R, Darby M, Eckert CJ, Gabe R, Hancock N, Janes S, Kennedy M, Lindop J, Neal RD, Rogerson S, Shinkins B, Simmonds I, Upperton S, Vestbo J, Crosbie PA, Callister ME. Measuring spirometry in a lung cancer screening cohort highlights possible underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of COPD. ERJ Open Res 2023; 9:00203-2023. [PMID: 37609601 PMCID: PMC10440649 DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00203-2023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2023] [Accepted: 06/09/2023] [Indexed: 08/24/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction COPD is underdiagnosed, and measurement of spirometry alongside low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer is one strategy to increase earlier diagnosis of this disease. Methods Ever-smokers at high risk of lung cancer were invited to the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial for a lung health check (LHC) comprising LDCT screening, pre-bronchodilator spirometry and a smoking cessation service. In this cross-sectional study we present data on participant demographics, respiratory symptoms, lung function, emphysema on imaging and both self-reported and primary care diagnoses of COPD. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified factors associated with possible underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of COPD in this population, with airflow obstruction defined as forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity ratio <0.70. Results Out of 3920 LHC attendees undergoing spirometry, 17% had undiagnosed airflow obstruction with respiratory symptoms, representing potentially undiagnosed COPD. Compared to those with a primary care COPD code, this population had milder symptoms, better lung function and were more likely to be current smokers (p≤0.001 for all comparisons). Out of 836 attendees with a primary care COPD code who underwent spirometry, 19% did not have airflow obstruction, potentially representing misdiagnosed COPD, although symptom burden was high. Discussion Spirometry offered alongside LDCT screening can potentially identify cases of undiagnosed and misdiagnosed COPD. Future research should assess the downstream impact of these findings to determine whether any meaningful changes to treatment and outcomes occur, and to assess the impact on co-delivering spirometry on other parameters of LDCT screening performance such as participation and adherence. Additionally, work is needed to better understand the aetiology of respiratory symptoms in those with misdiagnosed COPD, to ensure that this highly symptomatic group receive evidence-based interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Bradley
- Department Respiratory Medicine, Belfast City Hospital, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK
| | - Panos Alexandris
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - David R. Baldwin
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, City Campus, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
| | - Richard Booton
- Lung Cancer and Thoracic Surgery Directorate, Heart and Lung Division, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Mike Darby
- Department of Radiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, UK
| | - Claire J. Eckert
- Leeds Diagnosis and Screening Unit, Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Rhian Gabe
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Neil Hancock
- Leeds Diagnosis and Screening Unit, Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Sam Janes
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK
| | - Martyn Kennedy
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, UK
| | - Jason Lindop
- Department of Research and Innovation, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, UK
| | - Richard D. Neal
- College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Suzanne Rogerson
- Department of Research and Innovation, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, UK
| | - Bethany Shinkins
- Leeds Diagnosis and Screening Unit, Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Irene Simmonds
- Leeds Diagnosis and Screening Unit, Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Sara Upperton
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, UK
| | - Jorgen Vestbo
- Division of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Philip A.J. Crosbie
- Division of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Gysling S, Morgan H, Ifesemen OS, West D, Conibear J, Navani N, O'Dowd EL, Baldwin DR, Humes D, Hubbard R. The Impact of COVID-19 on Lung Cancer Incidence in England: Analysis of the National Lung Cancer Audit 2019 and 2020 Rapid Cancer Registration Datasets. Chest 2023; 163:1599-1607. [PMID: 36640995 PMCID: PMC9833851 DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.01.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/21/2022] [Revised: 12/20/2022] [Accepted: 01/05/2023] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant disruption to health-care services and delivery worldwide. The impact of the pandemic and associated national lockdowns on lung cancer incidence in England have yet to be assessed. RESEARCH QUESTION What was the impact of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence and presentation of lung cancer in England? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS In this retrospective observational study, incidence rates for lung cancer were calculated from The National Lung Cancer Audit Rapid Cancer Registration Datasets for 2019 and 2020, using midyear population estimates from the Office of National Statistics as the denominators. Rates were compared using Poisson regression according to time points related to national lockdowns in 2020. RESULTS Sixty-four thousand four hundred fifty-seven patients received a diagnosis of lung cancer across 2019 (n = 33,088) and 2020 (n = 31,369). During the first national lockdown, a 26% reduction in lung cancer incidence was observed compared with the equivalent calendar period of 2019 (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.71-0.78). This included a 23% reduction in non-small cell lung cancer (adjusted IRR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.81) and a 45% reduction in small cell lung cancer (adjusted IRR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.46-0.65) incidence. Thereafter, incidence rates almost recovered to baseline, without overcompensation (adjusted IRR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98). INTERPRETATION The incidence rates of lung cancer in England fell significantly by 26% during the first national lockdown in 2020 and did not compensate later in the year.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Savannah Gysling
- Lifespan and Population Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, England.
| | - Helen Morgan
- Lifespan and Population Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, England
| | | | - Douglas West
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Trust, Bristol, England
| | - John Conibear
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, England
| | - Neal Navani
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, England; Department of Thoracic Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, England
| | - Emma Louise O'Dowd
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, City Hospital, Nottingham, England
| | - David R Baldwin
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, City Hospital, Nottingham, England
| | - David Humes
- Gastrointestinal Surgery, Gastrointestinal and Liver Theme, National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and the University of Nottingham School of Medicine, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, England
| | - Richard Hubbard
- Lifespan and Population Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, England; Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, City Hospital, Nottingham, England
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
O'Dowd EL, Lee RW, Akram AR, Bartlett EC, Bradley SH, Brain K, Callister MEJ, Chen Y, Devaraj A, Eccles SR, Field JK, Fox J, Grundy S, Janes SM, Ledson M, MacKean M, Mackie A, McManus KG, Murray RL, Nair A, Quaife SL, Rintoul R, Stevenson A, Summers Y, Wilkinson LS, Booton R, Baldwin DR, Crosbie P. Defining the road map to a UK national lung cancer screening programme. Lancet Oncol 2023; 24:e207-e218. [PMID: 37142382 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(23)00104-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2023] [Revised: 03/01/2023] [Accepted: 03/07/2023] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT was recommended by the UK National Screening Committee (UKNSC) in September, 2022, on the basis of data from trials showing a reduction in lung cancer mortality. These trials provide sufficient evidence to show clinical efficacy, but further work is needed to prove deliverability in preparation for a national roll-out of the first major targeted screening programme. The UK has been world leading in addressing logistical issues with lung cancer screening through clinical trials, implementation pilots, and the National Health Service (NHS) England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme. In this Policy Review, we describe the consensus reached by a multiprofessional group of experts in lung cancer screening on the key requirements and priorities for effective implementation of a programme. We summarise the output from a round-table meeting of clinicians, behavioural scientists, stakeholder organisations, and representatives from NHS England, the UKNSC, and the four UK nations. This Policy Review will be an important tool in the ongoing expansion and evolution of an already successful programme, and provides a summary of UK expert opinion for consideration by those organising and delivering lung cancer screenings in other countries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma L O'Dowd
- Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Richard W Lee
- Early Diagnosis and Detection Centre, National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre at the Royal Marsden and Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
| | - Ahsan R Akram
- Centre for Inflammation Research, Queen's Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Emily C Bartlett
- Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals London and National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | | | - Kate Brain
- Division of Population Medicine, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | | | - Yan Chen
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Anand Devaraj
- Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals London and National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Sinan R Eccles
- Royal Glamorgan Hospital, Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board, Llantrisant, UK
| | - John K Field
- Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Jesme Fox
- Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation, Liverpool, UK
| | - Seamus Grundy
- Salford Royal Hospital, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK
| | - Sam M Janes
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, Department of Respiratory Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Martin Ledson
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | | | | | - Kieran G McManus
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, UK
| | - Rachael L Murray
- Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Arjun Nair
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Samantha L Quaife
- Centre for Prevention, Detection and Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Robert Rintoul
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Anne Stevenson
- Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, Department of Health and Social Care, London, UK
| | - Yvonne Summers
- The Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Louise S Wilkinson
- Oxford Breast Imaging Centre, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Richard Booton
- North West Lung Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Philip Crosbie
- North West Lung Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Division of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Morgan H, Baldwin DR. Important parameters for cost-effective implementation of lung cancer screening. Br J Radiol 2023; 96:20220489. [PMID: 36607805 PMCID: PMC10161917 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20220489] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2022] [Revised: 12/09/2022] [Accepted: 12/13/2022] [Indexed: 01/07/2023] Open
Abstract
It is now widely accepted that lung cancer screening through low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) results in fewer diagnoses at a late stage, and decreased lung cancer mortality. Whilst reducing deaths from lung cancer is an essential prerequisite, this must be balanced against the considerable economic costs accumulated in screening. Multiple health economic models have shown substantial variation in cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY), partly driven by the healthcare costs in the country concerned and partly by other modifiable programme components. Recent modelling using UK costs and a targeted approach suggest that most scenarios are within the willingness to pay threshold for the UK. However, identifying the most clinically and cost-effective programme is a priority to minimise the total financial impact. Programme components that influence cost-effectiveness include the method of selection of the eligible population, the participation rate, the interval between rounds of screening, the method of pulmonary nodule management, and the approach to clinical work up. Future research will clarify if a personalised approach to screening, using baseline and subsequent risk to define screening intervals is more cost-effective. The burden of LDCT screening on the medical infrastructure and workforce has to be quantified and carefully managed during implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helen Morgan
- Roy Castle Clinical Research Fellow, Division of Lifespan and Population Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Liao W, Coupland CAC, Burchardt J, Baldwin DR, Gleeson FV, Hippisley-Cox J. Predicting the future risk of lung cancer: development, and internal and external validation of the CanPredict (lung) model in 19·67 million people and evaluation of model performance against seven other risk prediction models. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine 2023:S2213-2600(23)00050-4. [PMID: 37030308 DOI: 10.1016/s2213-2600(23)00050-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2022] [Revised: 02/02/2023] [Accepted: 02/03/2023] [Indexed: 04/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Lung cancer is the second most common cancer in incidence and the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Meanwhile, lung cancer screening with low-dose CT can reduce mortality. The UK National Screening Committee recommended targeted lung cancer screening on Sept 29, 2022, and asked for more modelling work to be done to help refine the recommendation. This study aims to develop and validate a risk prediction model-the CanPredict (lung) model-for lung cancer screening in the UK and compare the model performance against seven other risk prediction models. METHODS For this retrospective, population-based, cohort study, we used linked electronic health records from two English primary care databases: QResearch (Jan 1, 2005-March 31, 2020) and Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Gold (Jan 1, 2004-Jan 1, 2015). The primary study outcome was an incident diagnosis of lung cancer. We used a Cox proportional-hazards model in the derivation cohort (12·99 million individuals aged 25-84 years from the QResearch database) to develop the CanPredict (lung) model in men and women. We used discrimination measures (Harrell's C statistic, D statistic, and the explained variation in time to diagnosis of lung cancer [R2D]) and calibration plots to evaluate model performance by sex and ethnicity, using data from QResearch (4·14 million people for internal validation) and CPRD (2·54 million for external validation). Seven models for predicting lung cancer risk (Liverpool Lung Project [LLP]v2, LLPv3, Lung Cancer Risk Assessment Tool [LCRAT], Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian [PLCO]M2012, PLCOM2014, Pittsburgh, and Bach) were selected to compare their model performance with the CanPredict (lung) model using two approaches: (1) in ever-smokers aged 55-74 years (the population recommended for lung cancer screening in the UK), and (2) in the populations for each model determined by that model's eligibility criteria. FINDINGS There were 73 380 incident lung cancer cases in the QResearch derivation cohort, 22 838 cases in the QResearch internal validation cohort, and 16 145 cases in the CPRD external validation cohort during follow-up. The predictors in the final model included sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, ethnicity, Townsend score), lifestyle factors (BMI, smoking and alcohol status), comorbidities, family history of lung cancer, and personal history of other cancers. Some predictors were different between the models for women and men, but model performance was similar between sexes. The CanPredict (lung) model showed excellent discrimination and calibration in both internal and external validation of the full model, by sex and ethnicity. The model explained 65% of the variation in time to diagnosis of lung cancer R2D in both sexes in the QResearch validation cohort and 59% of the R2D in both sexes in the CPRD validation cohort. Harrell's C statistics were 0·90 in the QResearch (validation) cohort and 0·87 in the CPRD cohort, and the D statistics were 2·8 in the QResearch (validation) cohort and 2·4 in the CPRD cohort. Compared with seven other lung cancer prediction models, the CanPredict (lung) model had the best performance in discrimination, calibration, and net benefit across three prediction horizons (5, 6, and 10 years) in the two approaches. The CanPredict (lung) model also had higher sensitivity than the current UK recommended models (LLPv2 and PLCOM2012), as it identified more lung cancer cases than those models by screening the same amount of individuals at high risk. INTERPRETATION The CanPredict (lung) model was developed, and internally and externally validated, using data from 19·67 million people from two English primary care databases. Our model has potential utility for risk stratification of the UK primary care population and selection of individuals at high risk of lung cancer for targeted screening. If our model is recommended to be implemented in primary care, each individual's risk can be calculated using information in the primary care electronic health records, and people at high risk can be identified for the lung cancer screening programme. FUNDING Innovate UK (UK Research and Innovation). TRANSLATION For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Weiqi Liao
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Carol A C Coupland
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Judith Burchardt
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - David R Baldwin
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK; Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | | | - Julia Hippisley-Cox
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Landy R, Wang VL, Baldwin DR, Pinsky PF, Cheung LC, Castle PE, Skarzynski M, Robbins HA, Katki HA. Recalibration of a Deep Learning Model for Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Images to Inform Lung Cancer Screening Intervals. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6:e233273. [PMID: 36929398 PMCID: PMC10020880 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.3273] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2022] [Accepted: 01/31/2023] [Indexed: 03/18/2023] Open
Abstract
Importance Annual low-dose computed tomographic (LDCT) screening reduces lung cancer mortality, but harms could be reduced and cost-effectiveness improved by reusing the LDCT image in conjunction with deep learning or statistical models to identify low-risk individuals for biennial screening. Objective To identify low-risk individuals in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and estimate, had they been assigned a biennial screening, how many lung cancers would have been delayed 1 year in diagnosis. Design, Setting, and Participants This diagnostic study included participants with a presumed nonmalignant lung nodule in the NLST between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2004, with follow-up completed on December 31, 2009. Data were analyzed for this study from September 11, 2019, to March 15, 2022. Exposures An externally validated deep learning algorithm that predicts malignancy in current lung nodules using LDCT images (Lung Cancer Prediction Convolutional Neural Network [LCP-CNN]; Optellum Ltd) was recalibrated to predict 1-year lung cancer detection by LDCT for presumed nonmalignant nodules. Individuals with presumed nonmalignant lung nodules were hypothetically assigned annual vs biennial screening based on the recalibrated LCP-CNN model, Lung Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (LCRAT + CT [a statistical model combining individual risk factors and LDCT image features]), and the American College of Radiology recommendations for lung nodules, version 1.1 (Lung-RADS). Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcomes included model prediction performance, the absolute risk of a 1-year delay in cancer diagnosis, and the proportion of people without lung cancer assigned a biennial screening interval vs the proportion of cancer diagnoses delayed. Results The study included 10 831 LDCT images from patients with presumed nonmalignant lung nodules (58.7% men; mean [SD] age, 61.9 [5.0] years), of whom 195 were diagnosed with lung cancer from the subsequent screen. The recalibrated LCP-CNN had substantially higher area under the curve (0.87) than LCRAT + CT (0.79) or Lung-RADS (0.69) to predict 1-year lung cancer risk (P < .001). If 66% of screens with nodules were assigned to biennial screening, the absolute risk of a 1-year delay in cancer diagnosis would have been lower for recalibrated LCP-CNN (0.28%) than LCRAT + CT (0.60%; P = .001) or Lung-RADS (0.97%; P < .001). To delay only 10% of cancer diagnoses at 1 year, more people would have been safely assigned biennial screening under LCP-CNN than LCRAT + CT (66.4% vs 40.3%; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance In this diagnostic study evaluating models of lung cancer risk, a recalibrated deep learning algorithm was most predictive of 1-year lung cancer risk and had least risk of 1-year delay in cancer diagnosis among people assigned biennial screening. Deep learning algorithms could prioritize people for workup of suspicious nodules and decrease screening intensity for people with low-risk nodules, which may be vital for implementation in health care systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca Landy
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Vivian L. Wang
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - David R. Baldwin
- School of Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals and the University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Paul F. Pinsky
- Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Li C. Cheung
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Philip E. Castle
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland
- Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Martin Skarzynski
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Hilary A. Robbins
- Genomic Epidemiology Group, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
| | - Hormuzd A. Katki
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Abstract
Randomised controlled trials, including the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and the NELSON trial, have shown reduced mortality with lung cancer screening with low-dose CT compared with chest radiography or no screening. Although research has provided clarity on key issues of lung cancer screening, uncertainty remains about aspects that might be critical to optimise clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. This Review brings together current evidence on lung cancer screening, including an overview of clinical trials, considerations regarding the identification of individuals who benefit from lung cancer screening, management of screen-detected findings, smoking cessation interventions, cost-effectiveness, the role of artificial intelligence and biomarkers, and current challenges, solutions, and opportunities surrounding the implementation of lung cancer screening programmes from an international perspective. Further research into risk models for patient selection, personalised screening intervals, novel biomarkers, integrated cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessments, smoking cessation interventions, and artificial intelligence for lung nodule detection and risk stratification are key opportunities to increase the efficiency of lung cancer screening and ensure equity of access.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Scott J Adams
- Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
| | - Emily Stone
- Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales and Department of Lung Transplantation and Thoracic Medicine, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - David R Baldwin
- Respiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | | | - Pyng Lee
- Division of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, National University Hospital and National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Florian J Fintelmann
- Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Blum TG, Morgan RL, Durieux V, Chorostowska-Wynimko J, Baldwin DR, Boyd J, Faivre-Finn C, Galateau-Salle F, Gamarra F, Grigoriu B, Hardavella G, Hauptmann M, Jakobsen E, Jovanovic D, Knaut P, Massard G, McPhelim J, Meert AP, Milroy R, Muhr R, Mutti L, Paesmans M, Powell P, Putora PM, Rawlinson J, Rich AL, Rigau D, de Ruysscher D, Sculier JP, Schepereel A, Subotic D, Van Schil P, Tonia T, Williams C, Berghmans T. European Respiratory Society guideline on various aspects of quality in lung cancer care. Eur Respir J 2023; 61:13993003.03201-2021. [PMID: 36396145 DOI: 10.1183/13993003.03201-2021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2021] [Accepted: 09/23/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
This European Respiratory Society guideline is dedicated to the provision of good quality recommendations in lung cancer care. All the clinical recommendations contained were based on a comprehensive systematic review and evidence syntheses based on eight PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) questions. The evidence was appraised in compliance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Evidence profiles and the GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to summarise results and to make the decision-making process transparent. A multidisciplinary Task Force panel of lung cancer experts formulated and consented the clinical recommendations following thorough discussions of the systematic review results. In particular, we have made recommendations relating to the following quality improvement measures deemed applicable to routine lung cancer care: 1) avoidance of delay in the diagnostic and therapeutic period, 2) integration of multidisciplinary teams and multidisciplinary consultations, 3) implementation of and adherence to lung cancer guidelines, 4) benefit of higher institutional/individual volume and advanced specialisation in lung cancer surgery and other procedures, 5) need for pathological confirmation of lesions in patients with pulmonary lesions and suspected lung cancer, and histological subtyping and molecular characterisation for actionable targets or response to treatment of confirmed lung cancers, 6) added value of early integration of palliative care teams or specialists, 7) advantage of integrating specific quality improvement measures, and 8) benefit of using patient decision tools. These recommendations should be reconsidered and updated, as appropriate, as new evidence becomes available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Torsten Gerriet Blum
- Department of Pneumology, Lungenklinik Heckeshorn, HELIOS Klinikum Emil von Behring, Berlin, Germany
| | - Rebecca L Morgan
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Valérie Durieux
- Bibliothèque des Sciences de la Santé, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium
| | - Joanna Chorostowska-Wynimko
- Department of Genetics and Clinical Immunology, National Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases, Warsaw, Poland
| | - David R Baldwin
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
| | | | - Corinne Faivre-Finn
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester and The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | | | | | - Bogdan Grigoriu
- Intensive Care and Oncological Emergencies and Thoracic Oncology, Institut Jules Bordet, Centre des Tumeurs de l'Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium
| | - Georgia Hardavella
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, King's College Hospital London, London, UK
- Department of Respiratory Medicine and Allergy, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Michael Hauptmann
- Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane and Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - Erik Jakobsen
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | | | - Paul Knaut
- Department of Pneumology, Lungenklinik Heckeshorn, HELIOS Klinikum Emil von Behring, Berlin, Germany
| | - Gilbert Massard
- Faculty of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Luxembourg and Department of Thoracic Surgery, Hôpitaux Robert Schuman, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
| | - John McPhelim
- Lung Cancer Nurse Specialist, Hairmyres Hospital, NHS Lanarkshire, East Kilbride, UK
| | - Anne-Pascale Meert
- Intensive Care and Oncological Emergencies and Thoracic Oncology, Institut Jules Bordet, Centre des Tumeurs de l'Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium
| | - Robert Milroy
- Scottish Lung Cancer Forum, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK
| | - Riccardo Muhr
- Department of Pneumology, Lungenklinik Heckeshorn, HELIOS Klinikum Emil von Behring, Berlin, Germany
| | - Luciano Mutti
- Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy
- SHRO/Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Marianne Paesmans
- Data Centre, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium
| | | | - Paul Martin Putora
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, Kantonsspital St Gallen, St Gallen and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | | | - Anna L Rich
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
| | - David Rigau
- Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Dirk de Ruysscher
- Maastricht University Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro Clinic), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Erasmus Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jean-Paul Sculier
- Intensive Care and Oncological Emergencies and Thoracic Oncology, Institut Jules Bordet, Centre des Tumeurs de l'Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium
| | - Arnaud Schepereel
- Pulmonary and Thoracic Oncology, Université de Lille, Inserm, CHU Lille, Lille, France
| | - Dragan Subotic
- Clinic for Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Paul Van Schil
- Department of Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium
| | - Thomy Tonia
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | | | - Thierry Berghmans
- Thoracic Oncology, Institut Jules Bordet, Centre des Tumeurs de l'Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Abstract
Pulmonary nodules are a common finding on CT scans of the chest. In the United Kingdom, management should follow British Thoracic Society Guidelines, which were published in 2015. This review covers key aspects of nodule management also looks at new and emerging evidence since then.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma L O’Dowd
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, David Evans Building, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - David R Baldwin
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, David Evans Building, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Quinn-Scoggins HD, Murray RL, Quaife SL, Smith P, Brain KE, Callister MEJ, Baldwin DR, Britton J, Crosbie PAJ, Thorley R, McCutchan GM. Co-development of an evidence-based personalised smoking cessation intervention for use in a lung cancer screening context. BMC Pulm Med 2022; 22:478. [PMID: 36522781 PMCID: PMC9756588 DOI: 10.1186/s12890-022-02263-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2022] [Accepted: 11/24/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Optimising smoking cessation services within a low radiation-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening programme has the potential to improve cost-effectiveness and overall efficacy of the programme. However, evidence on the optimal design and integration of cessation services is limited. We co-developed a personalised cessation and relapse prevention intervention incorporating medical imaging collected during lung cancer screening. The intervention is designed to initiate and support quit attempts among smokers attending screening as part of the Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking study (YESS: ISRCTN63825779). Patients and public were involved in the development of an intervention designed to meet the needs of the target population. METHODS An iterative co-development approach was used. Eight members of the public with a history of smoking completed an online survey to inform the visual presentation of risk information in subsequent focus groups for acceptability testing. Three focus groups (n = 13) were conducted in deprived areas of Yorkshire and South Wales with members of the public who were current smokers or recent quitters (within the last year). Exemplar images of the heart and lungs acquired by LDCT, absolute and relative lung cancer risk, and lung age were shown. Data were analysed thematically, and discussed in stakeholder workshops. Draft versions of the intervention were developed, underpinned by the Extended Parallel Processing Model to increase self-efficacy and response-efficacy. The intervention was further refined in a second stakeholder workshop with a patient panel. RESULTS Individual LDCT scan images of the lungs and heart, in conjunction with artistic impressions to facilitate interpretation, were considered by public participants to be most impactful in prompting cessation. Public participants thought it important to have a trained practitioner guiding them through the intervention and emphasising the short-term benefits of quitting. Presentation of absolute and relative risk of lung cancer and lung age were considered highly demotivating due to reinforcement of fatalistic beliefs. CONCLUSION An acceptable personalised intervention booklet utilising LDCT scan images has been developed for delivery by a trained smoking cessation practitioner. Our findings highlight the benefit of co-development during intervention development and the need for further evaluation of effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Harriet D Quinn-Scoggins
- Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, 8th Floor Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4YS, UK.
| | - Rachael L Murray
- Academic Unit of Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Samantha L Quaife
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Pamela Smith
- Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, 8th Floor Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4YS, UK
| | - Kate E Brain
- Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, 8th Floor Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4YS, UK
| | - Matthew E J Callister
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK
| | - David R Baldwin
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospital, Nottingham, UK
| | - John Britton
- Academic Unit of Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Philip A J Crosbie
- Division of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Rebecca Thorley
- Academic Unit of Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Grace M McCutchan
- Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, 8th Floor Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4YS, UK
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Lynch C, Harrison S, Butler J, Baldwin DR, Dawkins P, van der Horst J, Jakobsen E, McAleese J, McWilliams A, Redmond K, Swaminath A, Finley CJ. An International Consensus on Actions to Improve Lung Cancer Survival: A Modified Delphi Method Among Clinical Experts in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership. Cancer Control 2022; 29:10732748221119354. [PMID: 36269109 PMCID: PMC9596933 DOI: 10.1177/10732748221119354] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Research from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) demonstrates that international variation in lung cancer survival persists, particularly within early stage disease. There is a lack of international consensus on the critical contributing components to variation in lung cancer outcomes and the steps needed to optimise lung cancer services. These are needed to improve the quality of options for and equitable access to treatment, and ultimately improve survival. METHODS Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 9 key informants from ICBP countries. An international clinical network representing 6 ICBP countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, Ireland, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales) was established to share local clinical insights and examples of best practice. Using a modified Delphi consensus model, network members suggested and rated recommendations to optimise the management of lung cancer. Calls to Action were developed via Delphi voting as the most crucial recommendations, with Good Practice Points included to support their implementation. RESULTS Five Calls to Action and thirteen Good Practice Points applicable to high income, comparable countries were developed and achieved 100% consensus. Calls to Action include (1) Implement cost-effective, clinically efficacious, and equitable lung cancer screening initiatives; (2) Ensure diagnosis of lung cancer within 30 days of referral; (3) Develop Thoracic Centres of Excellence; (4) Undertake an international audit of lung cancer care; and (5) Recognise improvements in lung cancer care and outcomes as a priority in cancer policy. CONCLUSION The recommendations presented are the voice of an expert international lung cancer clinical network, and signpost key considerations for policymakers in countries within the ICBP but also in other comparable high-income countries. These define a roadmap to help align and focus efforts in improving outcomes and management of lung cancer patients globally.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charlotte Lynch
- International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) and Strategic Evidence, Policy, Information & Communications, Cancer Research UK, London, UK,Charlotte Lynch, International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, Cancer Research UK 2 Redman Place, London, E20 1JQ, UK.
| | - Samantha Harrison
- International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) and Strategic Evidence, Policy, Information & Communications, Cancer Research UK, London, UK
| | - John Butler
- International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) and Strategic Evidence, Policy, Information & Communications, Cancer Research UK, London, UK,Gynaecology Department, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - David R. Baldwin
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
| | - Paul Dawkins
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | | - Erik Jakobsen
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - Jonathan McAleese
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Cancer Centre, Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
| | - Annette McWilliams
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Fiona Stanley Hospital and University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
| | - Karen Redmond
- Department of Thoracic Surgery and Transplantation, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital and School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Anand Swaminath
- Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Christian J. Finley
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Hall H, Ruparel M, Quaife SL, Dickson JL, Horst C, Tisi S, Batty J, Woznitza N, Ahmed A, Burke S, Shaw P, Soo MJ, Taylor M, Navani N, Bhowmik A, Baldwin DR, Duffy SW, Devaraj A, Nair A, Janes SM. The role of computer-assisted radiographer reporting in lung cancer screening programmes. Eur Radiol 2022; 32:6891-6899. [PMID: 35567604 PMCID: PMC9474336 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08824-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2022] [Revised: 03/11/2022] [Accepted: 04/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Successful lung cancer screening delivery requires sensitive, timely reporting of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans, placing a demand on radiology resources. Trained non-radiologist readers and computer-assisted detection (CADe) software may offer strategies to optimise the use of radiology resources without loss of sensitivity. This report examines the accuracy of trained reporting radiographers using CADe support to report LDCT scans performed as part of the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT). METHODS In this observational cohort study, two radiographers independently read all LDCT performed within LSUT and reported on the presence of clinically significant nodules and common incidental findings (IFs), including recommendations for management. Reports were compared against a 'reference standard' (RS) derived from nodules identified by study radiologists without CADe, plus consensus radiologist review of any additional nodules identified by the radiographers. RESULTS A total of 716 scans were included, 158 of which had one or more clinically significant pulmonary nodules as per our RS. Radiographer sensitivity against the RS was 68-73.7%, with specificity of 92.1-92.7%. Sensitivity for detection of proven cancers diagnosed from the baseline scan was 83.3-100%. The spectrum of IFs exceeded what could reasonably be covered in radiographer training. CONCLUSION Our findings highlight the complexity of LDCT reporting requirements, including the limitations of CADe and the breadth of IFs. We are unable to recommend CADe-supported radiographers as a sole reader of LDCT scans, but propose potential avenues for further research including initial triage of abnormal LDCT or reporting of follow-up surveillance scans. KEY POINTS • Successful roll-out of mass screening programmes for lung cancer depends on timely, accurate CT scan reporting, placing a demand on existing radiology resources. • This observational cohort study examines the accuracy of trained radiographers using computer-assisted detection (CADe) software to report lung cancer screening CT scans, as a potential means of supporting reporting workflows in LCS programmes. • CADe-supported radiographers were less sensitive than radiologists at identifying clinically significant pulmonary nodules, but had a low false-positive rate and good sensitivity for detection of confirmed cancers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helen Hall
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, Rayne Institute, University College London, 5 University Street, London, WC1E 6JF, UK
| | - Mamta Ruparel
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, Rayne Institute, University College London, 5 University Street, London, WC1E 6JF, UK
| | - Samantha L Quaife
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Jennifer L Dickson
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, Rayne Institute, University College London, 5 University Street, London, WC1E 6JF, UK
| | - Carolyn Horst
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, Rayne Institute, University College London, 5 University Street, London, WC1E 6JF, UK
| | - Sophie Tisi
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, Rayne Institute, University College London, 5 University Street, London, WC1E 6JF, UK
| | - James Batty
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | | | - Asia Ahmed
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | - Stephen Burke
- Department of Radiology, Homerton University Hospital, London, UK
| | - Penny Shaw
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | - May Jan Soo
- Department of Radiology, Homerton University Hospital, London, UK
| | - Magali Taylor
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | - Neal Navani
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, Rayne Institute, University College London, 5 University Street, London, WC1E 6JF, UK
- Department of Thoracic Medicine, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | - Angshu Bhowmik
- Department of Thoracic Medicine, Homerton University Hospital, London, UK
| | - David R Baldwin
- Respiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
| | - Stephen W Duffy
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Anand Devaraj
- Department of Radiology, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK
- National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Arjun Nair
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | - Sam M Janes
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, Rayne Institute, University College London, 5 University Street, London, WC1E 6JF, UK.
- Department of Thoracic Medicine, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Jallow M, Bonfield S, Kurtidu C, Baldwin DR, Black G, Brain KE, Donnelly M, Janes SM, McCutchan G, Robb KA, Ruparel M, Van Os S, Quaife SL. Decision Support Tools for Low-Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening: A Scoping Review of Information Content, Format, and Presentation Methods. Chest 2022; 162:930-941. [PMID: 34922933 PMCID: PMC9562440 DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.12.638] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2021] [Revised: 10/08/2021] [Accepted: 12/08/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Several countries mandate informed or shared decision-making for low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening, but knowledge is limited about the type of information and presentation techniques used to support decision-making in practice. This review aimed to characterize the content, format, mode, and presentation methods of decision support tools (DSTs) for LDCT lung cancer screening. DSTs reported within peer-reviewed articles (January 2000-April 2021) were identified systematically from PubMed, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus. Inclusion criteria revolved around the development or evaluation of a resource or tool intended to support individual or shared decision-making for LDCT lung cancer screening. The data-charting and extraction framework was based on the International Patient Decision Aids Standards instrument and Template for Intervention Description and Reporting. Extracted data were organized within two categories: (1) study characteristics and context, format, and mode of DST use and (2) DST content and presentation methods. This review identified 22 DSTs in paper, video, or electronic formats across 26 articles. Most DSTs (n = 13) focused on knowledge exchange, whereas seven used interactive techniques to support values clarification (eg, Likert scales) and nine DSTs guided deliberation (eg, suggested discussion topics). The DSTs addressed similar topics, but the detail, quantification of probability, and presentation methods varied considerably. None described all the potential screening harms and results. The heterogeneity in DST design may affect the quality of decision-making, particularly for participants with lower literacy and numeracy. Evidence-based consensus guidelines for DST content and presentation methods should be developed collaboratively with screening-eligible adults.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mbasan Jallow
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, England
| | - Stefanie Bonfield
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, England; Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, England
| | - Clara Kurtidu
- Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland
| | - David R Baldwin
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, City Hospital, Nottingham, England
| | - Georgia Black
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, England
| | - Kate E Brain
- Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales
| | - Michael Donnelly
- Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| | - Samuel M Janes
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, England
| | - Grace McCutchan
- Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales
| | - Kathryn A Robb
- Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland
| | - Mamta Ruparel
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, England
| | - Sandra Van Os
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, England
| | - Samantha L Quaife
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, England; Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, England.
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Jallow M, Black G, van Os S, Baldwin DR, Brain KE, Donnelly M, Janes SM, Kurtidu C, McCutchan G, Robb KA, Ruparel M, Quaife SL. Acceptability of a standalone written leaflet for the National Health Service for England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme: A concurrent, think-aloud study. Health Expect 2022; 25:1776-1788. [PMID: 35475542 PMCID: PMC9327842 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13520] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2021] [Revised: 04/25/2022] [Accepted: 04/26/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many countries are introducing low-dose computed tomography screening programmes for people at high risk of lung cancer. Effective communication strategies that convey risks and benefits, including unfamiliar concepts and outcome probabilities based on population risk, are critical to achieving informed choice and mitigating inequalities in uptake. METHODS This study investigated the acceptability of an aspect of NHS England's communication strategy in the form of a leaflet that was used to invite and inform eligible adults about the Targeted Lung Health Check (TLHC) programme. Acceptability was assessed in terms of how individuals engaged with, comprehended and responded to the leaflet. Semi-structured, 'think aloud' interviews were conducted remotely with 40 UK screening-naïve current and former smokers (aged 55-73). The verbatim transcripts were analysed thematically using a coding framework based on the Dual Process Theory of cognition. RESULTS The leaflet helped participants understand the principles and procedures of screening and fostered cautiously favourable intentions. Three themes captured the main results of the data analysis: (1) Response-participants experienced anxiety about screening results and further investigations, but the involvement of specialist healthcare professionals was reassuring; (2) Engagement-participants were rapidly drawn to information about lung cancer prevalence, and benefits of screening, but deliberated slowly about early diagnosis, risks of screening and less familiar symptoms of lung cancer; (3) Comprehension-participants understood the main principles of the TLHC programme, but some were confused by its rationale and eligibility criteria. Radiation risks, abnormal screening results and numerical probabilities of screening outcomes were hard to understand. CONCLUSION The TLHC information leaflet appeared to be acceptable to the target population. There is scope to improve aspects of comprehension and engagement in ways that would support informed choice as a distributed process in lung cancer screening. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION The insight and perspectives of patient representatives directly informed and improved the design and conduct of this study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mbasan Jallow
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and HealthUniversity College LondonLondonUK
| | - Georgia Black
- Department of Applied Health ResearchUniversity College LondonLondonUK
| | - Sandra van Os
- Department of Applied Health ResearchUniversity College LondonLondonUK
| | - David R. Baldwin
- Department of Respiratory MedicineNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, City HospitalNottinghamUK
| | - Kate E. Brain
- Division of Population MedicineCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
| | | | - Samuel M. Janes
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, Division of MedicineUniversity College LondonLondonUK
| | - Clara Kurtidu
- Institute of Health and WellbeingUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK
| | | | - Kathryn A. Robb
- Institute of Health and WellbeingUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK
| | - Mamta Ruparel
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, Division of MedicineUniversity College LondonLondonUK
| | - Samantha L. Quaife
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and DentistryQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Burzic A, O’Dowd EL, Baldwin DR. The Future of Lung Cancer Screening: Current Challenges and Research Priorities. Cancer Manag Res 2022; 14:637-645. [PMID: 35210860 PMCID: PMC8859535 DOI: 10.2147/cmar.s293877] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/04/2021] [Accepted: 01/30/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, primarily because most people present when the stage is too advanced to offer any reasonable chance of cure. Over the last two decades, evidence has accumulated to show that early detection of lung cancer, using low-radiation dose computed tomography, in people at higher risk of the condition reduces their mortality. Many countries are now making progress with implementing programmes, although some have concerns about cost-effectiveness. Lung cancer screening is complex, and many factors influence clinical and cost-effectiveness. It is important to develop strategies to optimise each element of the intervention from selection and participation through optimal scanning, management of findings and treatment. The overall aim is to maximise benefits and minimise harms. Additional integrated interventions must include at least smoking cessation. In this review, we summarize the evidence that has accumulated to guide optimisation of lung cancer screening, discuss the remaining open questions about the best approach and identify potential barriers to successful implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amna Burzic
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK
| | - Emma L O’Dowd
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK
- Division of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK
| | - David R Baldwin
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK
- Division of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK
- Correspondence: David R Baldwin, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK, Tel +44 115 9691169, Fax +44 115 9627723, Email
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Robbins HA, Cheung LC, Chaturvedi AK, Baldwin DR, Berg CD, Katki HA. Management of Lung Cancer Screening Results Based on Individual Prediction of Current and Future Lung Cancer Risks. J Thorac Oncol 2022; 17:252-263. [PMID: 34648946 PMCID: PMC10186153 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.10.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2021] [Revised: 09/03/2021] [Accepted: 10/04/2021] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES We propose a risk-tailored approach for management of lung cancer screening results. This approach incorporates individual risk factors and low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) image features into calculations of immediate and next-screen (1-y) risks of lung cancer detection, which in turn can recommend short-interval imaging or 1-year or 2-year screening intervals. METHODS We first extended the "LCRAT+CT" individualized risk calculator to predict lung cancer risk after either a negative or abnormal LDCT screen result. To develop the abnormal screen portion, we analyzed 18,129 abnormal LDCT results in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), including lung cancers detected immediately (n = 649) or at the next screen (n = 235). We estimated the potential impact of this approach among NLST participants with any screen result (negative or abnormal). RESULTS Applying the draft National Health Service (NHS) England protocol for lung screening to NLST participants referred 76% of participants to a 2-year interval, but delayed diagnosis for 40% of detectable cancers. The Lung Cancer Risk Assessment Tool+Computed Tomography (LCRAT+CT) risk model, with a threshold of less than 0.95% cumulative lung cancer risk, would also refer 76% of participants to a 2-year interval, but would delay diagnosis for only 30% of cancers, a 25% reduction versus the NHS protocol. Alternatively, LCRAT+CT, with a threshold of less than 1.7% cumulative lung cancer risk, would also delay diagnosis for 40% of cancers, but would refer 85% of participants for a 2-year interval, a 38% further reduction in the number of required 1-year screens beyond the NHS protocol. CONCLUSIONS Using individualized risk models to determine management in lung cancer screening could substantially reduce the number of screens or increase early detection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Li C. Cheung
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA
| | - Anil K. Chaturvedi
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA
| | | | - Christine D. Berg
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA
| | - Hormuzd A. Katki
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Navani N, Baldwin DR, Edwards JG, Evison M, McDonald F, Nicholson AG, Fenemore J, Sage EK, Popat S. Lung Cancer in the United Kingdom. J Thorac Oncol 2022; 17:186-193. [PMID: 35074225 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.11.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2021] [Revised: 10/31/2021] [Accepted: 11/01/2021] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Neal Navani
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Thoracic Medicine, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
| | - David R Baldwin
- Department of Thoracic Medicine, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom; Respiratory Medicine Unit, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - John G Edwards
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom
| | - Matthew Evison
- Lung Cancer & Thoracic Surgery Directorate, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Fiona McDonald
- Lung Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom; Division of Radiotherapy & Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew G Nicholson
- Department of Histopathology, Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, Guy's and St Thomas' National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Genomics and Environmental Medicine Section, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jackie Fenemore
- The Lung Cancer Team, The Christie Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom; Lung Cancer Nurses UK, Solihull, United Kingdom
| | - Elizabeth K Sage
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Raigmore Hospital, National Health Service (NHS) Highland and Centre for Rural Health, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| | - Sanjay Popat
- Lung Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom; Division of Clinical Studies, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Morgan H, Ellis L, O'Dowd EL, Murray RL, Hubbard R, Baldwin DR. What is the Definition of Cure in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer? Oncol Ther 2021; 9:365-371. [PMID: 34374957 PMCID: PMC8594226 DOI: 10.1007/s40487-021-00163-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2021] [Accepted: 07/09/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
The concept of cure from cancer is important to patients, but can be difficult to communicate in terms that are meaningful. This is because there are a number of definitions of cure that are applied by clinicians, patients and the public, and by policymakers that have a different meaning and significance. In this article, we provide a narrative review of the evidence concerning cure in lung cancer and show how the different definitions may apply in different settings. A better understanding of the various concepts of cure will improve communication with patients on this important topic. This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helen Morgan
- Division of Public Health and Epidemiology, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham City Campus, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK
| | - Libby Ellis
- Division of Public Health and Epidemiology, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham City Campus, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK
| | - Emma L O'Dowd
- Respiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals, City Campus, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK
| | - Rachael L Murray
- Division of Public Health and Epidemiology, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham City Campus, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK
| | - Richard Hubbard
- Division of Public Health and Epidemiology, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham City Campus, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK
| | - David R Baldwin
- Respiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals, City Campus, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Field JK, Vulkan D, Davies MP, Baldwin DR, Brain KE, Devaraj A, Eisen T, Gosney J, Green BA, Holemans JA, Kavanagh T, Kerr KM, Ledson M, Lifford KJ, McRonald FE, Nair A, Page RD, Parmar MK, Rassl DM, Rintoul RC, Screaton NJ, Wald NJ, Weller D, Whynes DK, Williamson PR, Yadegarfar G, Gabe R, Duffy SW. Lung cancer mortality reduction by LDCT screening: UKLS randomised trial results and international meta-analysis. Lancet Reg Health Eur 2021; 10:100179. [PMID: 34806061 PMCID: PMC8589726 DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100179] [Citation(s) in RCA: 66] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The NLST reported a significant 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality with three annual low-dose CT (LDCT) screens and the Dutch-Belgian NELSON trial indicates a similar reduction. We present the results of the UKLS trial. METHODS From October 2011 to February 2013, we randomly allocated 4 055 participants to either a single invitation to screening with LDCT or to no screening (usual care). Eligible participants (aged 50-75) had a risk score (LLPv2) ≥ 4.5% of developing lung cancer over five years. Data were collected on lung cancer cases to 31 December 2019 and deaths to 29 February 2020 through linkage to national registries. The primary outcome was mortality due to lung cancer. We included our results in a random-effects meta-analysis to provide a synthesis of the latest randomised trial evidence. FINDINGS 1 987 participants in the intervention and 1 981 in the usual care arms were followed for a median of 7.3 years (IQR 7.1-7.6), 86 cancers were diagnosed in the LDCT arm and 75 in the control arm. 30 lung cancer deaths were reported in the screening arm, 46 in the control arm, (relative rate 0.65 [95% CI 0.41-1.02]; p=0.062). The meta-analysis indicated a significant reduction in lung cancer mortality with a pooled overall relative rate of 0.84 (95% CI 0.76-0.92) from nine eligible trials. INTERPRETATION The UKLS trial of single LDCT indicates a reduction of lung cancer death of similar magnitude to the NELSON and NLST trials and was included in a meta-analysis of nine randomised trials which provides unequivocal support for lung cancer screening in identified risk groups. FUNDING NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme; NIHR Policy Research programme; Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John K. Field
- Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, 6 West Derby Street, Liverpool L7 8TX, UK
| | - Daniel Vulkan
- Centre for Prevention, Detection and Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Michael P.A. Davies
- Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, 6 West Derby Street, Liverpool L7 8TX, UK
| | - David R. Baldwin
- Respiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Research Centre, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
| | - Kate E. Brain
- Division of Population Medicine, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Anand Devaraj
- Department of Radiology, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, and National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, UK
| | - Tim Eisen
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - John Gosney
- Department of Pathology, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - Beverley A. Green
- Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, 6 West Derby Street, Liverpool L7 8TX, UK
| | - John A. Holemans
- Department of Radiology, Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Keith M. Kerr
- Department of Pathology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Martin Ledson
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | - Kate J. Lifford
- Division of Population Medicine, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Fiona E. McRonald
- Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, 6 West Derby Street, Liverpool L7 8TX, UK
| | - Arjun Nair
- Department of Radiology, University College, London Hospital, London, UK
| | - Richard D. Page
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Doris M. Rassl
- Department of Pathology, Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Robert C. Rintoul
- Department of Thoracic Oncology, Royal Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Nicholas J. Screaton
- Department of Thoracic Oncology, Royal Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Nicholas J. Wald
- Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - David Weller
- School of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - David K. Whynes
- School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | | | - Gasham Yadegarfar
- Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, 6 West Derby Street, Liverpool L7 8TX, UK
| | - Rhian Gabe
- Center for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health. Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Stephen W. Duffy
- Centre for Prevention, Detection and Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
O'Dowd EL, Ten Haaf K, Kaur J, Duffy SW, Hamilton W, Hubbard RB, Field JK, Callister ME, Janes SM, de Koning HJ, Rawlinson J, Baldwin DR. Selection of eligible participants for screening for lung cancer using primary care data. Thorax 2021; 77:882-890. [PMID: 34716280 DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-217142] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2021] [Accepted: 09/21/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
Lung cancer screening is effective if offered to people at increased risk of the disease. Currently, direct contact with potential participants is required for evaluating risk. A way to reduce the number of ineligible people contacted might be to apply risk-prediction models directly to digital primary care data, but model performance in this setting is unknown. METHOD The Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a computerised, longitudinal primary care database, was used to evaluate the Liverpool Lung Project V.2 (LLPv2) and Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian (modified 2012) (PLCOm2012) models. Lung cancer occurrence over 5-6 years was measured in ever-smokers aged 50-80 years and compared with 5-year (LLPv2) and 6-year (PLCOm2012) predicted risk. RESULTS Over 5 and 6 years, 7123 and 7876 lung cancers occurred, respectively, from a cohort of 842 109 ever-smokers. After recalibration, LLPV2 produced a c-statistic of 0.700 (0.694-0.710), but mean predicted risk was over-estimated (predicted: 4.61%, actual: 0.9%). PLCOm2012 showed similar performance (c-statistic: 0.679 (0.673-0.685), predicted risk: 3.76%. Applying risk-thresholds of 1% (LLPv2) and 0.15% (PLCOm2012), would avoid contacting 42.7% and 27.4% of ever-smokers who did not develop lung cancer for screening eligibility assessment, at the cost of missing 15.6% and 11.4% of lung cancers. CONCLUSION Risk-prediction models showed only moderate discrimination when applied to routinely collected primary care data, which may be explained by quality and completeness of data. However, they may substantially reduce the number of people for initial evaluation of screening eligibility, at the cost of missing some lung cancers. Further work is needed to establish whether newer models have improved performance in primary care data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma L O'Dowd
- Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Kevin Ten Haaf
- Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jaspreet Kaur
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Nottingham School of Medicine, Nottingham, UK
| | - Stephen W Duffy
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and London, London, UK
| | | | - Richard B Hubbard
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Nottingham School of Medicine, Nottingham, UK
| | - John K Field
- Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Institute of Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Sam M Janes
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK
| | | | | | - David R Baldwin
- City Campus, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Robbins HA, Alcala K, Swerdlow AJ, Schoemaker MJ, Wareham N, Travis RC, Crosbie PAJ, Callister M, Baldwin DR, Landy R, Johansson M. Correction: Comparative performance of lung cancer risk models to define lung screening eligibility in the United Kingdom. Br J Cancer 2021; 125:305. [PMID: 34002041 PMCID: PMC8292451 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01436-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | - Karine Alcala
- International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
| | | | | | | | - Ruth C Travis
- Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | | | - David R Baldwin
- Nottingham University Hospitals and University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Rebecca Landy
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
29
|
Robbins HA, Alcala K, Swerdlow AJ, Schoemaker MJ, Wareham N, Travis RC, Crosbie PAJ, Callister M, Baldwin DR, Landy R, Johansson M. Comparative performance of lung cancer risk models to define lung screening eligibility in the United Kingdom. Br J Cancer 2021; 124:2026-2034. [PMID: 33846525 PMCID: PMC8184952 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01278-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2020] [Revised: 01/04/2021] [Accepted: 01/13/2021] [Indexed: 01/31/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The National Health Service England (NHS) classifies individuals as eligible for lung cancer screening using two risk prediction models, PLCOm2012 and Liverpool Lung Project-v2 (LLPv2). However, no study has compared the performance of lung cancer risk models in the UK. METHODS We analysed current and former smokers aged 40-80 years in the UK Biobank (N = 217,199), EPIC-UK (N = 30,813), and Generations Study (N = 25,777). We quantified model calibration (ratio of expected to observed cases, E/O) and discrimination (AUC). RESULTS Risk discrimination in UK Biobank was best for the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool (LCDRAT, AUC = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.81-0.84), followed by the LCRAT (AUC = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.79-0.82) and the Bach model (AUC = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.79-0.81). Results were similar in EPIC-UK and the Generations Study. All models overestimated risk in all cohorts, with E/O in UK Biobank ranging from 1.20 for LLPv3 (95% CI = 1.14-1.27) to 2.16 for LLPv2 (95% CI = 2.05-2.28). Overestimation increased with area-level socioeconomic status. In the combined cohorts, USPSTF 2013 criteria classified 50.7% of future cases as screening eligible. The LCDRAT and LCRAT identified 60.9%, followed by PLCOm2012 (58.3%), Bach (58.0%), LLPv3 (56.6%), and LLPv2 (53.7%). CONCLUSION In UK cohorts, the ability of risk prediction models to classify future lung cancer cases as eligible for screening was best for LCDRAT/LCRAT, very good for PLCOm2012, and lowest for LLPv2. Our results highlight the importance of validating prediction tools in specific countries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Karine Alcala
- International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
| | | | | | | | - Ruth C Travis
- Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | | | - David R Baldwin
- Nottingham University Hospitals and University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Rebecca Landy
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Jones GS, Khakwani A, Pascoe A, Foweraker K, McKeever TM, Hubbard RB, Baldwin DR. Factors associated with survival in small cell lung cancer: an analysis of real-world national audit, chemotherapy and radiotherapy data. Ann Palliat Med 2021; 10:4055-4068. [PMID: 33894719 DOI: 10.21037/apm-20-1824] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2020] [Accepted: 01/08/2021] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The mainstay of treatment for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) involves platinum doublet chemotherapy but the optimal duration, 4 vs. 6 cycles, is not known. Concurrent thoracic radiotherapy followed by prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) is recommended for fit individuals with limited stage. However, outside of clinical trials, the efficacy of sequential thoracic radiotherapy and PCI for extensive stage is uncertain. METHODS This retrospective, observational, cohort study used English national lung cancer data to determine the factors associated with survival for all people diagnosed with SCLC. More precisely, for individuals who received chemotherapy, we examined survival by the chemotherapy duration, thoracic radiotherapy dose and the use of PCI. RESULTS In total 6,438 people were diagnosed with SCLC. We identified that male sex (OR 0.7; 95% CI: 0.62-0.80), increasing age (P=0.01) greater comorbidity (P≤0.01), extensive stage (OR 0.21; 95% CI: 0.19-0.25) and worse performance status (PS2 vs. PS0 adjusted OR 0.38 95% CI: 0.31-0.48) were associated with reduced 1-year survival. Receipt of chemotherapy augmented survival. We analysed data for 1,761 people who had received chemotherapy. Thoracic radiotherapy (≥30 Gy for extensive stage and ≥40 Gy for limited stage) and PCI were independently associated with better survival (P≤0.01 for each), but 6 cycles of chemotherapy instead of 4 was not (limited stage adjusted OR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.48-1.97) extensive stage adjusted OR 1.34; 95% CI: 0.81-2.21). CONCLUSIONS Extending chemotherapy beyond 4 cycles to 6 does not augment survival. Appropriately prescribed thoracic radiotherapy and PCI can prolong survival in both limited and extensive stage SCLC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gavin S Jones
- Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Aamir Khakwani
- Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Abigail Pascoe
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
| | - Karen Foweraker
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
| | - Tricia M McKeever
- Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Richard B Hubbard
- Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - David R Baldwin
- Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK; Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Abstract
Although there is now strong evidence for the efficacy of low-radiation dose computed tomography in reducing lung cancer mortality, the challenge is to establish screening programmes that have the maximum impact on the disease. In screening programmes, participation rates are a major determinant of the success of the programme. Informed uptake, participation, and adherence (to successive screening rounds) determine the overall impact of the intervention by ensuring the maximum number of people at risk of the disease are screened regularly and therefore have the most chance of benefiting. Existing cancer screening programmes have taught us a great deal about methods that improve participation. Although evidence is emerging for the efficacy of some of those methods in lung cancer screening, there is still much work to do in the specific demographic that is most at risk of lung cancer. This demographic, characterised by higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation, may be less willing to engage with healthcare interventions and present a particular challenge in the process of ensuring informed choice. In this article we review the evidence for improving participation and describe the challenges that need to be addressed to ensure the successful implementation of CT screening programmes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David R Baldwin
- Divison of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.,Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
| | - Kate Brain
- Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK
| | - Samantha Quaife
- Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Sands J, Tammemägi MC, Couraud S, Baldwin DR, Borondy-Kitts A, Yankelevitz D, Lewis J, Grannis F, Kauczor HU, von Stackelberg O, Sequist L, Pastorino U, McKee B. Lung Screening Benefits and Challenges: A Review of The Data and Outline for Implementation. J Thorac Oncol 2021; 16:37-53. [PMID: 33188913 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.10.127] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2020] [Revised: 09/18/2020] [Accepted: 10/04/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, accounting for almost a fifth of all cancer-related deaths. Annual computed tomographic lung cancer screening (CTLS) detects lung cancer at earlier stages and reduces lung cancer-related mortality among high-risk individuals. Many medical organizations, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recommend annual CTLS in high-risk populations. However, fewer than 5% of individuals worldwide at high risk for lung cancer have undergone screening. In large part, this is owing to delayed implementation of CTLS in many countries throughout the world. Factors contributing to low uptake in countries with longstanding CTLS endorsement, such as the United States, include lack of patient and clinician awareness of current recommendations in favor of CTLS and clinician concerns about CTLS-related radiation exposure, false-positive results, overdiagnosis, and cost. This review of the literature serves to address these concerns by evaluating the potential risks and benefits of CTLS. Review of key components of a lung screening program, along with an updated shared decision aid, provides guidance for program development and optimization. Review of studies evaluating the population considered "high-risk" is included as this may affect future guidelines within the United States and other countries considering lung screening implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacob Sands
- Department of Medical Oncology, Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
| | - Martin C Tammemägi
- Department of Health Sciences, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sebastien Couraud
- Acute Respiratory Disease and Thoracic Oncology Department, Lyon Sud Hospital, Hospices Civils de Lyon Cancer Institute; EMR-3738 Therapeutic Targeting in Oncology, Lyon Sud Medical Faculty, Lyon 1 University, Lyon, France
| | - David R Baldwin
- Respiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Andrea Borondy-Kitts
- Lung Cancer and Patient Advocate, Consultant Patient Outreach & Research Specialist, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts
| | - David Yankelevitz
- Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Jennifer Lewis
- VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), Nashville, Tennessee; Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Fred Grannis
- City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California
| | - Hans-Ulrich Kauczor
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Translational Lung Research Center, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Oyunbileg von Stackelberg
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Translational Lung Research Center, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Lecia Sequist
- Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Ugo Pastorino
- Thoracic Surgery Unit, Department of Research, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Brady McKee
- Division of Radiology, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Baldwin DR, Callister ME, Crosbie PA, O'Dowd EL, Rintoul RC, Robbins HA, Steele RJC. Biomarkers in lung cancer screening: the importance of study design. Eur Respir J 2021; 57:2004367. [PMID: 33446580 PMCID: PMC7968073 DOI: 10.1183/13993003.04367-2020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2020] [Accepted: 12/07/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- David R Baldwin
- Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
- University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Matthew E Callister
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, UK
- University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK
| | - Philip A Crosbie
- Division of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Manchester Thoracic Oncology Centre, North West Lung Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Emma L O'Dowd
- Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
- University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Robert C Rintoul
- Dept of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Dept of Thoracic Oncology, Royal Papworth Hospital, Cambridge, UK
| | - Hilary A Robbins
- Genetic Epidemiology Group, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
| | - Robert J C Steele
- UK National Screening Committee, Dept of Surgery, Ninewells Hospital, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Franks KN, McParland L, Webster J, Baldwin DR, Sebag-Montefiore D, Evison M, Booton R, Faivre-Finn C, Naidu B, Ferguson J, Peedell C, Callister MEJ, Kennedy M, Hewison J, Bestall J, Gregory WM, Hall P, Collinson F, Olivier C, Naylor R, Bell S, Allen P, Sloss A, Snee M. SABRTooth: a randomised controlled feasibility study of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with surgery in patients with peripheral stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer considered to be at higher risk of complications from surgical resection. Eur Respir J 2020; 56:2000118. [PMID: 32616595 DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00118-2020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2020] [Accepted: 05/28/2020] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a well-established treatment for medically inoperable peripheral stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Previous nonrandomised evidence supports SABR as an alternative to surgery, but high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence is lacking. The SABRTooth study aimed to establish whether a UK phase III RCT was feasible. DESIGN AND METHODS SABRTooth was a UK multicentre randomised controlled feasibility study targeting patients with peripheral stage I NSCLC considered to be at higher risk of surgical complications. 54 patients were planned to be randomised 1:1 to SABR or surgery. The primary outcome was monthly average recruitment rates. RESULTS Between July 2015 and January 2017, 318 patients were considered for the study and 205 (64.5%) were deemed ineligible. Out of 106 (33.3%) assessed as eligible, 24 (22.6%) patients were randomised to SABR (n=14) or surgery (n=10). A key theme for nonparticipation was treatment preference, with 43 (41%) preferring nonsurgical treatment and 19 (18%) preferring surgery. The average monthly recruitment rate was 1.7 patients against a target of three. 15 patients underwent their allocated treatment: SABR n=12, surgery n=3. CONCLUSIONS We conclude that a phase III RCT randomising higher risk patients between SABR and surgery is not feasible in the National Health Service. Patients have pre-existing treatment preferences, which was a barrier to recruitment. A significant proportion of patients randomised to the surgical group declined and chose SABR. SABR remains an alternative to surgery and novel study approaches are needed to define which patients benefit from a nonsurgical approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin N Franks
- Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
- Joint first authors
| | - Lucy McParland
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
- Joint first authors
| | - Joanne Webster
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | | | - David Sebag-Montefiore
- Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Matthew Evison
- Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Richard Booton
- Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Corinne Faivre-Finn
- University of Manchester and The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Babu Naidu
- Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Clive Peedell
- The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK
| | | | - Martyn Kennedy
- Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, UK
| | - Jenny Hewison
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Janine Bestall
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Walter M Gregory
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Peter Hall
- Western General Hospital, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Fiona Collinson
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Catherine Olivier
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Rachel Naylor
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Sue Bell
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Peter Allen
- Patient and Public Involvement Representative, Leeds, UK
| | - Andrew Sloss
- Patient and Public Involvement Representative, Leeds, UK
| | - Michael Snee
- Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Quaife SL, Ruparel M, Dickson JL, Beeken RJ, McEwen A, Baldwin DR, Bhowmik A, Navani N, Sennett K, Duffy SW, Waller J, Janes SM. Reply to Wilson: Improving Lung Cancer Screening Uptake. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 202:1193-1194. [PMID: 32525401 PMCID: PMC7560797 DOI: 10.1164/rccm.202005-1699le] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Samantha L. Quaife
- University College LondonLondon, United Kingdom
- Corresponding author (e-mail: )
| | | | | | - Rebecca J. Beeken
- University College LondonLondon, United Kingdom
- University of LeedsLeeds, United Kingdom
| | - Andy McEwen
- National Centre for Smoking Cessation and TrainingDorchester, United Kingdom
| | | | | | - Neal Navani
- University College London HospitalLondon, United Kingdom
| | | | | | - Jo Waller
- University College LondonLondon, United Kingdom
- King’s College LondonLondon, United Kingdom
| | | |
Collapse
|
36
|
Affiliation(s)
- I T H Au-Yong
- Department of Radiology, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
| | - W Hamilton
- University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK
| | - J Rawlinson
- British Thoracic Oncology Group (advocate steering committee member), NCRI Lung subGroup (consumer), and European Lung Foundation LC Patient advisory group, Sandwell, UK
| | - D R Baldwin
- Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Ruparel M, Quaife SL, Dickson JL, Horst C, Tisi S, Hall H, Taylor M, Ahmed A, Shaw P, Burke S, Soo MJ, Nair A, Devaraj A, Sennett K, Duffy SW, Navani N, Bhowmik A, Baldwin DR, Janes SM. Lung Screen Uptake Trial: results from a single lung cancer screening round. Thorax 2020; 75:908-912. [PMID: 32759387 PMCID: PMC7509385 DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-214703] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2020] [Revised: 05/22/2020] [Accepted: 06/03/2020] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
The Lung Screen Uptake Trial tested a novel invitation strategy to improve uptake and reduce socioeconomic and smoking-related inequalities in lung cancer screening (LCS) participation. It provides one of the first UK-based 'real-world' LCS cohorts. Of 2012 invited, 1058 (52.6%) attended a 'lung health check'. 768/996 (77.1%) in the present analysis underwent a low-dose CT scan. 92 (11.9%) and 33 (4.3%) participants had indeterminate pulmonary nodules requiring 3-month and 12-month surveillance, respectively; 36 lung cancers (4.7%) were diagnosed (median follow-up: 1044 days). 72.2% of lung cancers were stage I/II and 79.4% of non-small cell lung cancer had curative-intent treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mamta Ruparel
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, England, UK
| | - Samantha L Quaife
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Jennifer L Dickson
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, England, UK
| | - Carolyn Horst
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, England, UK
| | - Sophie Tisi
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, England, UK
| | - Helen Hall
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, England, UK
| | - Magali Taylor
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, London, UK
| | - Asia Ahmed
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, London, UK
| | - Penny Shaw
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, London, UK
| | - Stephen Burke
- Department of Radiology, Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, London, UK
| | - May-Jan Soo
- Department of Radiology, Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, London, UK
| | - Arjun Nair
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, London, UK
| | - Anand Devaraj
- Department of Radiology, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK
| | | | - Stephen W Duffy
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and London, London, UK
| | - Neal Navani
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, England, UK
- Thoracic Medicine Department, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, London, UK
| | - Angshu Bhowmik
- Respiratory Medicine, Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, London, UK
| | - David R Baldwin
- Respiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK
| | - Sam M Janes
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, England, UK
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Morgan H, O'Dowd EL, Nair A, Baldwin DR. New fissure-attached nodules in lung cancer screening: more practical implications from the NELSON study? Transl Lung Cancer Res 2020; 9:2161-2164. [PMID: 33209636 PMCID: PMC7653114 DOI: 10.21037/tlcr-20-586] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Helen Morgan
- Respiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals, City Campus, UK
| | - Emma L O'Dowd
- Respiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals, City Campus, UK
| | - Arjun Nair
- Department of Radiology, University College Hospital, London, UK
| | - David R Baldwin
- Respiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals, City Campus, UK
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Crosbie PA, Gabe R, Simmonds I, Kennedy M, Rogerson S, Ahmed N, Baldwin DR, Booton R, Cochrane A, Darby M, Franks K, Hinde S, Janes SM, Macleod U, Messenger M, Moller H, Murray RL, Neal RD, Quaife SL, Sculpher M, Tharmanathan P, Torgerson D, Callister ME. Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST): protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate invitation to community-based low-dose CT screening for lung cancer versus usual care in a targeted population at risk. BMJ Open 2020; 10:e037075. [PMID: 32912947 PMCID: PMC7485242 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037075] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2020] [Revised: 06/24/2020] [Accepted: 07/08/2020] [Indexed: 01/18/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Lung cancer is the world's leading cause of cancer death. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening reduced lung cancer mortality by 20% in the US National Lung Screening Trial. Here, we present the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST), which will address key questions of relevance for screening implementation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS Using a single-consent Zelen's design, ever-smokers aged 55-80 years registered with a general practice in Leeds will be randomised (1:1) to invitation to a telephone-based risk-assessment for a Lung Health Check or to usual care. The anticipated number randomised by household is 62 980 individuals. Responders at high risk will be invited for LDCT scanning for lung cancer on a mobile van in the community. There will be two rounds of screening at an interval of 2 years. Primary objectives are (1) measure participation rates, (2) compare the performance of PLCOM2012 (threshold ≥1.51%), Liverpool Lung Project (V.2) (threshold ≥5%) and US Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria for screening population selection and (3) assess lung cancer outcomes in the intervention and usual care arms. Secondary evaluations include health economics, quality of life, smoking rates according to intervention arm, screening programme performance with ancillary biomarker and smoking cessation studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The study has been approved by the Greater Manchester West research ethics committee (18-NW-0012) and the Health Research Authority following review by the Confidentiality Advisory Group. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals, presentation at conferences and on the YLST website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS ISRCTN42704678 and NCT03750110.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philip Aj Crosbie
- Division of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Rhian Gabe
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Irene Simmonds
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Martyn Kennedy
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Suzanne Rogerson
- Department of Research and Innovation, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Nazia Ahmed
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - David R Baldwin
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, City Campus, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
| | - Richard Booton
- Lung Cancer and Thoracic Surgery Directorate, Heart and Lung Division, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Ann Cochrane
- York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
| | - Michael Darby
- Department of Radiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Kevin Franks
- Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | | | - Sam M Janes
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Una Macleod
- Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK
| | - Mike Messenger
- Leeds Centre for Personalised Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Henrik Moller
- Thames Cancer Registry, Kings College London, London, UK
| | - Rachael L Murray
- Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Richard D Neal
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Samantha L Quaife
- Research Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Mark Sculpher
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
| | | | - David Torgerson
- York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
| | - Matthew Ej Callister
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Abstract
Screening for lung cancer with low radiation dose CT has been shown to be effective in reducing lung cancer mortality by two major randomised controlled trials. Lung cancer screening is set to become the largest targeted cancer screening programme globally, but the effectiveness of the programme is dependent on many different factors. This article describes the key evidence for lung cancer screening, the key factors important for optimisation and the progress towards implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David R Baldwin
- Nottingham University Hospitals and Honorary Professor, University of Nottingham, Respiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Centre, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | | |
Collapse
|
41
|
Ruparel M, Quaife SL, Dickson JL, Horst C, Tisi S, Hall H, Taylor MN, Ahmed A, Shaw PJ, Burke S, Soo MJ, Nair A, Devaraj A, Sennett K, Hurst JR, Duffy SW, Navani N, Bhowmik A, Baldwin DR, Janes SM. Prevalence, Symptom Burden, and Underdiagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in a Lung Cancer Screening Cohort. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2020; 17:869-878. [PMID: 32164439 PMCID: PMC7328177 DOI: 10.1513/annalsats.201911-857oc] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2019] [Accepted: 03/02/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Rationale: Individuals eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) are also at risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) due to age and smoking exposure. Whether the LCS episode is useful for early detection of COPD is not well established.Objectives: To explore associations between symptoms, comorbidities, spirometry, and emphysema in participants enrolled in the Lung Screen Uptake Trial.Methods: This cross-sectional study was a prespecified analysis nested within Lung Screen Uptake Trial, which was a randomized study testing the impact of differing invitation materials on attendance of 60- to 75-year-old smokers and ex-smokers to a "lung health check" between November 2015 and July 2017. Participants with a smoking history ≥30 pack-years and who quit ≤15 years ago, or meeting a lung cancer risk of ≥1.51% via the Prostate Lung Colorectal Ovarian model or ≥2.5% via the Liverpool Lung Project model, were offered LDCT. COPD was defined and classified according to the GOLD (Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease) criteria using prebronchodilator spirometry. Analyses included the use of descriptive statistics, chi-square tests to examine group differences, and univariable and multivariable logistic regression to explore associations between symptom prevalence, airflow limitation, and visually graded emphysema.Results: A total of 560 of 986 individuals included in the analysis (57%) had prebronchodilator spirometry consistent with COPD; 67% did not have a prior history of COPD and were termed "undiagnosed." Emphysema prevalence in those with known and "undiagnosed" COPD was 73% and 68%, respectively. A total of 32% of those with "undiagnosed COPD" had no emphysema on LDCT. Inhaler use and symptoms were more common in the "known" than the "undiagnosed" COPD group (63% vs. 33% with persistent cough [P < 0.001]; 73% vs. 33% with dyspnea [P < 0.001]). Comorbidities were common in all groups. Adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of respiratory symptoms were more significant for airflow obstruction (aOR GOLD 1 and 2, 1.57; confidence interval [CI], 1.14-2.17; aOR GOLD 3 and 4, 4.6; CI, 2.17-9.77) than emphysema (aOR mild, 1.12; CI, 0.81-1.55; aOR moderate, 1.33; CI, 0.85-2.09; aOR severe, 4.00; CI, 1.57-10.2).Conclusions: There is high burden of "undiagnosed COPD" and emphysema in LCS participants. Adding spirometry findings to the LDCT enhances identification of individuals with COPD.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mamta Ruparel
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, University College London (UCL) Respiratory
| | | | - Jennifer L. Dickson
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, University College London (UCL) Respiratory
| | - Carolyn Horst
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, University College London (UCL) Respiratory
| | - Sophie Tisi
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, University College London (UCL) Respiratory
| | - Helen Hall
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, University College London (UCL) Respiratory
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Anand Devaraj
- Department of Radiology, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Karen Sennett
- Killick Street Health Centre, London, United Kingdom
| | - John R. Hurst
- UCL Centre for Inflammation and Repair, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Stephen W. Duffy
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University, London, United Kingdom; and
| | - Neal Navani
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, University College London (UCL) Respiratory
- Department of Thoracic Medicine, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Angshu Bhowmik
- Department of Thoracic Medicine, Homerton University Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - David R. Baldwin
- Respiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Sam M. Janes
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, University College London (UCL) Respiratory
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Veronesi G, Baldwin DR, Henschke CI, Ghislandi S, Iavicoli S, Oudkerk M, De Koning HJ, Shemesh J, Field JK, Zulueta JJ, Horgan D, Fiestas Navarrete L, Infante MV, Novellis P, Murray RL, Peled N, Rampinelli C, Rocco G, Rzyman W, Scagliotti GV, Tammemagi MC, Bertolaccini L, Triphuridet N, Yip R, Rossi A, Senan S, Ferrante G, Brain K, van der Aalst C, Bonomo L, Consonni D, Van Meerbeeck JP, Maisonneuve P, Novello S, Devaraj A, Saghir Z, Pelosi G. Recommendations for Implementing Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose Computed Tomography in Europe. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12:E1672. [PMID: 32599792 PMCID: PMC7352874 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12061672] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2020] [Revised: 06/15/2020] [Accepted: 06/17/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was demonstrated in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) to reduce mortality from the disease. European mortality data has recently become available from the Nelson randomised controlled trial, which confirmed lung cancer mortality reductions by 26% in men and 39-61% in women. Recent studies in Europe and the USA also showed positive results in screening workers exposed to asbestos. All European experts attending the "Initiative for European Lung Screening (IELS)"-a large international group of physicians and other experts concerned with lung cancer-agreed that LDCT-LCS should be implemented in Europe. However, the economic impact of LDCT-LCS and guidelines for its effective and safe implementation still need to be formulated. To this purpose, the IELS was asked to prepare recommendations to implement LCS and examine outstanding issues. A subgroup carried out a comprehensive literature review on LDCT-LCS and presented findings at a meeting held in Milan in November 2018. The present recommendations reflect that consensus was reached.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giulia Veronesi
- Faculty of Medicine and Surgery—Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy;
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, 20132 Milan, Italy;
| | - David R. Baldwin
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, David Evans Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK;
| | - Claudia I. Henschke
- Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA; (C.I.H.); (N.T.); (R.Y.)
| | - Simone Ghislandi
- Department of Social and Political Sciences, Bocconi University, 20136 Milan, Italy; (S.G.); (L.F.N.)
| | - Sergio Iavicoli
- Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Epidemiology and Hygiene, Italian Workers’ Compensation Authority (INAIL), 00078 Rome, Italy;
| | - Matthijs Oudkerk
- Center for Medical Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9712 CP Groningen, The Netherlands;
| | - Harry J. De Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC—University Medical Centre Rotterdam, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands; (H.J.D.K.); (C.v.d.A.)
| | - Joseph Shemesh
- The Grace Ballas Cardiac Research Unit, Sheba Medical Center, Affiliated with the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, 52621 Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel;
| | - John K. Field
- Roy Castle Lung Cancer Research Programme, Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK;
| | - Javier J. Zulueta
- Department of Pulmonology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, 31008 Pamplona, Spain;
- Visiongate Inc., Phoenix, AZ 85044, USA
| | - Denis Horgan
- European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM), Avenue de l’Armée Legerlaan 10, 1040 Brussels, Belgium;
| | - Lucia Fiestas Navarrete
- Department of Social and Political Sciences, Bocconi University, 20136 Milan, Italy; (S.G.); (L.F.N.)
| | | | - Pierluigi Novellis
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, 20132 Milan, Italy;
| | - Rachael L. Murray
- Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, Clinical Sciences Building, City Hospital, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK;
| | - Nir Peled
- The Legacy Heritage Oncology Center & Dr. Larry Norton Institute, Soroka Medical Center & Ben-Gurion University, 84101 Beer-Sheva, Israel;
| | - Cristiano Rampinelli
- Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy;
| | - Gaetano Rocco
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA;
| | - Witold Rzyman
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Medical University of Gdańsk, 80-210 Gdańsk, Poland;
| | | | - Martin C. Tammemagi
- Department of Health Sciences, Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St Catharines, ON L2S 3A1, Canada;
| | - Luca Bertolaccini
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy;
| | - Natthaya Triphuridet
- Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA; (C.I.H.); (N.T.); (R.Y.)
- Faculty of Medicine and Public Health, Chulabhorn Royal Academy, HRH Princess Chulabhorn College of Medical Science, Bangkok 10210, Thailand
| | - Rowena Yip
- Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA; (C.I.H.); (N.T.); (R.Y.)
| | - Alexia Rossi
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20090 Pieve Emanuele (MI), Italy;
| | - Suresh Senan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU location, De Boelelaan 1117, Postbox 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
| | - Giuseppe Ferrante
- Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, 20089 Rozzano (MI), Italy;
| | - Kate Brain
- Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF14 4YS, UK;
| | - Carlijn van der Aalst
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC—University Medical Centre Rotterdam, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands; (H.J.D.K.); (C.v.d.A.)
| | - Lorenzo Bonomo
- Department of Bioimaging and Radiological Sciences, Catholic University, 00168 Rome, Italy;
| | - Dario Consonni
- Epidemiology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122 Milan, Italy;
| | - Jan P. Van Meerbeeck
- Thoracic Oncology, Antwerp University Hospital and Ghent University, 2650 Edegem, Belgium;
| | - Patrick Maisonneuve
- Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy;
| | - Silvia Novello
- Department of Oncology, University of Torino, 10124 Torino, Italy; (G.V.S.); (S.N.)
| | - Anand Devaraj
- Department of Radiology, Royal Brompton Hospital, London SW3 6NP, UK;
| | - Zaigham Saghir
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Herlev-Gentofte University Hospital, 2900 Hellerup, Denmark;
| | - Giuseppe Pelosi
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy
- Inter-Hospital Pathology Division, IRCCS MultiMedica, 20138 Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Quaife SL, Ruparel M, Dickson JL, Beeken RJ, McEwen A, Baldwin DR, Bhowmik A, Navani N, Sennett K, Duffy SW, Wardle J, Waller J, Janes SM. Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Testing Targeted Invitation Materials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 201:965-975. [PMID: 31825647 PMCID: PMC7159423 DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201905-0946oc] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2019] [Accepted: 12/10/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Rationale: Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, particularly by current smokers of a low socioeconomic position, compromises effectiveness and equity.Objectives: To compare the effect of a targeted, low-burden, and stepped invitation strategy versus control on uptake of hospital-based Lung Health Check appointments offering LDCT screening.Methods: In a two-arm, blinded, between-subjects, randomized controlled trial, 2,012 participants were selected from 16 primary care practices using these criteria: 1) aged 60 to 75 years, 2) recorded as a current smoker within the last 7 years, and 3) no prespecified exclusion criteria contraindicating LDCT screening. Both groups received a stepped sequence of preinvitation, invitation, and reminder letters from their primary care practitioner offering prescheduled appointments. The key manipulation was the accompanying leaflet. The intervention group's leaflet targeted psychological barriers and provided low-burden information, mimicking the concept of the U.K. Ministry of Transport's annual vehicle test ("M.O.T. For Your Lungs").Measurements and Main Results: Uptake was 52.6%, with no difference between intervention (52.3%) and control (52.9%) groups in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.16) or adjusted (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.17) analyses. Current smokers were less likely to attend (adjusted OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86) than former smokers. Socioeconomic deprivation was significantly associated with lower uptake for the control group only (P < 0.01).Conclusions: The intervention did not improve uptake. Regardless of trial arm, uptake was considerably higher than previous clinical and real-world studies, particularly given that the samples were predominantly lower socioeconomic position smokers. Strategies common to both groups, including a Lung Health Check approach, could represent a minimum standard.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101) and registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study (N21774741).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Mamta Ruparel
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jennifer L. Dickson
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Rebecca J. Beeken
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health and
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Andy McEwen
- National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training, Dorchester, United Kingdom
| | - David R. Baldwin
- Respiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Angshu Bhowmik
- Department of Thoracic Medicine, Homerton University Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Neal Navani
- Department of Thoracic Medicine, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Karen Sennett
- Killick Street Health Centre, London, United Kingdom
| | - Stephen W. Duffy
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; and
| | - Jane Wardle
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health and
| | - Jo Waller
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health and
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Samuel M. Janes
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Baldwin DR, Gustafson J, Pickup L, Arteta C, Novotny P, Declerck J, Kadir T, Figueiras C, Sterba A, Exell A, Potesil V, Holland P, Spence H, Clubley A, O'Dowd E, Clark M, Ashford-Turner V, Callister ME, Gleeson FV. External validation of a convolutional neural network artificial intelligence tool to predict malignancy in pulmonary nodules. Thorax 2020; 75:306-312. [PMID: 32139611 PMCID: PMC7231457 DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2019-214104] [Citation(s) in RCA: 92] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2019] [Revised: 01/23/2020] [Accepted: 01/23/2020] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Estimation of the risk of malignancy in pulmonary nodules detected by CT is central in clinical management. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) offers an opportunity to improve risk prediction. Here we compare the performance of an AI algorithm, the lung cancer prediction convolutional neural network (LCP-CNN), with that of the Brock University model, recommended in UK guidelines. METHODS A dataset of incidentally detected pulmonary nodules measuring 5-15 mm was collected retrospectively from three UK hospitals for use in a validation study. Ground truth diagnosis for each nodule was based on histology (required for any cancer), resolution, stability or (for pulmonary lymph nodes only) expert opinion. There were 1397 nodules in 1187 patients, of which 234 nodules in 229 (19.3%) patients were cancer. Model discrimination and performance statistics at predefined score thresholds were compared between the Brock model and the LCP-CNN. RESULTS The area under the curve for LCP-CNN was 89.6% (95% CI 87.6 to 91.5), compared with 86.8% (95% CI 84.3 to 89.1) for the Brock model (p≤0.005). Using the LCP-CNN, we found that 24.5% of nodules scored below the lowest cancer nodule score, compared with 10.9% using the Brock score. Using the predefined thresholds, we found that the LCP-CNN gave one false negative (0.4% of cancers), whereas the Brock model gave six (2.5%), while specificity statistics were similar between the two models. CONCLUSION The LCP-CNN score has better discrimination and allows a larger proportion of benign nodules to be identified without missing cancers than the Brock model. This has the potential to substantially reduce the proportion of surveillance CT scans required and thus save significant resources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David R Baldwin
- Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals, City Campus, Nottingham, UK
| | | | | | | | - Petr Novotny
- Respiratory Medicine, Glenfield General Hospital, Leicester, UK
| | | | | | | | | | - Alan Exell
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
| | | | - Paul Holland
- Radiology, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Hazel Spence
- Radiology, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Alison Clubley
- Radiology, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Emma O'Dowd
- Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals, City Campus, Nottingham, UK
| | - Matthew Clark
- Radiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
45
|
Ruparel M, Quaife SL, Dickson JL, Horst C, Burke S, Taylor M, Ahmed A, Shaw P, Soo MJ, Nair A, Devaraj A, O'Dowd EL, Bhowmik A, Navani N, Sennett K, Duffy SW, Baldwin DR, Sofat R, Patel RS, Hingorani A, Janes SM. Evaluation of cardiovascular risk in a lung cancer screening cohort. Thorax 2019; 74:1140-1146. [PMID: 31558626 PMCID: PMC6902068 DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2018-212812] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/08/2018] [Revised: 07/16/2019] [Accepted: 08/07/2019] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) offers an opportunity to impact both lung cancer and coronary heart disease mortality through detection of coronary artery calcification (CAC). Here, we explore the value of CAC and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment in LCS participants in the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT). METHODS In this cross-sectional study, current and ex-smokers aged 60-75 were invited to a 'lung health check'. Data collection included a CVD risk assessment enabling estimation of 10 year CVD risk using the QRISK2 score. Participants meeting the required lung cancer risk underwent an ungated, non-contrast LDCT. Descriptive data, bivariate associations and a multivariate analysis of predictors of statin use are presented. RESULTS Of 1005 individuals enrolled, 680 were included in the final analysis. 421 (61.9%) had CAC present and in 49 (7.2%), this was heavy. 668 (98%) of participants had a QRISK2≥10% and QRISK2 was positively associated with increasing CAC grade (OR 4.29 (CI 0.93 to 19.88) for QRISK2=10%-20% and 12.29 (CI 2.68 to 56.1) for QRISK2≥20% respectively). Of those who qualified for statin primary prevention (QRISK2≥10%), 56.8% did not report a history of statin use. In the multivariate analysis statin use was associated with age, body mass index and history of hypertension and diabetes. CONCLUSIONS LCS offers an important opportunity for instituting CVD risk assessment in all LCS participants irrespective of the presence of LDCT-detected CAC. Further studies are needed to determine whether CAC could enhance uptake and adherence to primary preventative strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mamta Ruparel
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK
| | - Samantha L Quaife
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Jennifer L Dickson
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK
| | - Carolyn Horst
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK
| | - Stephen Burke
- Department of Radiology, Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Magali Taylor
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Asia Ahmed
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Penny Shaw
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - May-Jan Soo
- Department of Radiology, Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Arjun Nair
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Anand Devaraj
- Department of Radiology, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK
| | - Emma Louise O'Dowd
- Respiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Angshu Bhowmik
- Respiratory Medicine, Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Neal Navani
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK
- Thoracic Department, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Stephen W Duffy
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and London, London, UK
| | - David R Baldwin
- Respiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Reecha Sofat
- Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Riyaz S Patel
- Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Aroon Hingorani
- Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sam M Janes
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Ruparel M, Quaife SL, Ghimire B, Dickson JL, Bhowmik A, Navani N, Baldwin DR, Duffy S, Waller J, Janes SM. Impact of a Lung Cancer Screening Information Film on Informed Decision-making: A Randomized Trial. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2019; 16:744-751. [PMID: 31082267 PMCID: PMC6543473 DOI: 10.1513/annalsats.201811-841oc] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2018] [Accepted: 04/01/2019] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Rationale: Lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives, but it also carries a risk of potential harms. Explaining the benefits and harms of screening in a way that is balanced and comprehensible to individuals with various levels of education is essential. Although a shared decision-making approach is mandated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, there have been no randomized studies to evaluate the impact of different forms of lung screening information. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of a novel information film on informed decision-making in individuals considering participating in lung cancer screening. Methods: A subset of participants from LSUT (Lung Screen Uptake Trial) were randomly allocated either to view the information film and receive a written information booklet or to receive the booklet alone. The primary outcome was the objective knowledge score after intervention. Secondary outcomes included subjective knowledge, decisional conflict, final screening participation, and acceptability of the materials. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine differences in pre- and postintervention knowledge scores in both groups and between groups for the primary and secondary outcomes. Results: In the final analysis of 229 participants, both groups showed significantly improved subjective and objective knowledge scores after intervention. This improvement was greatest in the film + booklet group, where mean objective knowledge improved by 2.16 points (standard deviation [SD] 1.8) compared with 1.84 points (SD 1.9) in the booklet-alone group (β coefficient 0.62; confidence interval, 0.17-1.08; P = 0.007 in the multivariable analysis). Mean subjective knowledge increased by 0.92 points (SD 1.0) in the film + booklet group and 0.55 points (SD 1.1) in the booklet-alone group (β coefficient 0.32; CI, 0.05-0.58; P = 0.02 in the multivariable analysis). Decisional certainty was higher in the film + booklet (mean 8.5/9 points [SD 1.3], group than in the booklet-alone group (mean 8.2/9 points [SD 1.5]). Both information materials were well accepted, and there were no differences in final screening participation rates between groups. Conclusions: The information film improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict without affecting lung-screening uptake. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mamta Ruparel
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, and
| | - Samantha L. Quaife
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Bhagabati Ghimire
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Angshu Bhowmik
- Department of Thoracic Medicine, Homerton University Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Neal Navani
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, and
- Department of Thoracic Medicine, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom; and
| | - David R. Baldwin
- Respiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Stephen Duffy
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jo Waller
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sam M. Janes
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, and
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Bayman N, Appel W, Ashcroft L, Baldwin DR, Bates A, Darlison L, Edwards JG, Ezhil V, Gilligan D, Hatton M, Jegannathen A, Mansy T, Peake MD, Pemberton L, Rintoul RC, Snee M, Ryder WD, Taylor P, Faivre-Finn C. Prophylactic Irradiation of Tracts in Patients With Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: An Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase III Randomized Trial. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37:1200-1208. [PMID: 30920878 DOI: 10.1200/jco.18.01678] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Prophylactic irradiation to the chest wall after diagnostic or therapeutic procedures in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has been a widespread practice across Europe, although the efficacy of this treatment is uncertain. In this study, we aimed to determine the efficacy of prophylactic radiotherapy in reducing the incidence of chest wall metastases (CWM) after a procedure in MPM. METHODS After undergoing a chest wall procedure, patients with MPM were randomly assigned to receive prophylactic radiotherapy (within 42 days of the procedure) or no radiotherapy. Open thoracotomies, needle biopsies, and indwelling pleural catheters were excluded. Prophylactic radiotherapy was delivered at a dose of 21 Gy in three fractions over three consecutive working days, using a single electron field adapted to maximize coverage of the tract from skin surface to pleura. The primary outcome was the incidence of CWM within 6 months from random assignment, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Stratification factors included epithelioid histology and intention to give chemotherapy. RESULTS Between July 30, 2012, and December 12, 2015, 375 patients were recruited from 54 centers and randomly assigned to receive prophylactic radiotherapy (n = 186) or no prophylactic radiotherapy (n = 189). Participants were well matched at baseline. No significant difference was seen in the incidence of CWM at 6 months between the prophylactic radiotherapy and no radiotherapy groups (no. [%]: 6 [3.2] v 10 [5.3], respectively; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.86; P = .44). Skin toxicity was the most common radiotherapy-related adverse event in the prophylactic radiotherapy group, with 96 patients (51.6%) receiving grade 1; 19 (10.2%), grade 2; and 1 (0.5%) grade 3 radiation dermatitis (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0). CONCLUSION There is no role for the routine use of prophylactic irradiation to chest wall procedure sites in patients with MPM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neil Bayman
- 1 The Christie National Health Service Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Wiebke Appel
- 2 Lancashire Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, Preston, United Kingdom
| | - Linda Ashcroft
- 1 The Christie National Health Service Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - David R Baldwin
- 3 Nottingham University Hospitals National Health Service Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew Bates
- 4 University Hospital Southampton National Health Service Foundation Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Liz Darlison
- 5 University Hospitals of Leicester National Health Service Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom
| | - John G Edwards
- 6 Sheffield Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom
| | - Veni Ezhil
- 7 Royal Surrey County Hospital, National Health Service Foundation Trust, Guildford, United Kingdom
| | - David Gilligan
- 8 Cambridge University Hospital National Health Service Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Matthew Hatton
- 6 Sheffield Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom
| | - Apurna Jegannathen
- 9 University Hospitals of North Midlands National Health Service Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom
| | - Talal Mansy
- 10 South Tees Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom
| | - Michael D Peake
- 5 University Hospitals of Leicester National Health Service Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom
| | - Laura Pemberton
- 1 The Christie National Health Service Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Robert C Rintoul
- 11 Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Michael Snee
- 12 Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - W David Ryder
- 1 The Christie National Health Service Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Paul Taylor
- 13 Manchester University National Health Service Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Corinne Faivre-Finn
- 1 The Christie National Health Service Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.,14 University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Rich AL, Baldwin DR, Beckett P, Berghmans T, Boyd J, Faivre-Finn C, Galateau-Salle F, Gamarra F, Grigoriu B, Hansen NCG, Hardavella G, Jakobsen E, Jovanovic D, Konsoulova A, Massard G, McPhelim J, Meert AP, Milroy R, Mutti L, Paesmans M, Peake MD, Putora PM, de Ruysscher DK, Sculier JP, Schepereel A, Subotic DR, Van Schil P, Blum T. ERS statement on harmonised standards for lung cancer registration and lung cancer services in Europe. Eur Respir J 2018; 52:13993003.00610-2018. [DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00610-2018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2018] [Accepted: 07/03/2018] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
The European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force for harmonised standards for lung cancer registration and lung cancer services in Europe recognised the need to create a single dataset for use in pan-European data collection and a manual of standards for European lung cancer services.The multidisciplinary task force considered evidence from two different sources, reviewing existing national and international datasets alongside the results of a survey of clinical data collection on lung cancer in 35 European countries. A similar process was followed for the manual of lung cancer services, with the task force using existing guidelines and national or international recommendations for lung cancer services to develop a manual of standards for services in Europe.The task force developed essential and minimum datasets for lung cancer registration to enable all countries to collect the same essential data and some to collect data with greater detail. The task force also developed a manual specifying standards for lung cancer services in Europe.Despite the wide variation in the sociopolitical landscape across Europe, the ERS is determined to encourage the delivery of high-quality lung cancer care. Both the manual of lung cancer services and the minimum dataset for lung cancer registration will support this aspiration.
Collapse
|
49
|
Field JK, Baldwin DR, Devaraj A, Oudkerk M. EUPS-argues that lung cancer screening should be implemented in 18 months. Br J Radiol 2018; 91:20180243. [PMID: 29722546 PMCID: PMC6350482 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20180243] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2018] [Revised: 04/19/2018] [Accepted: 04/30/2018] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
The European Position Statement (EUPS) expert group comprised of individuals who have been actively involved in the planning and execution of all the low dose CT (LDCT) randomised controlled European screening trials. They have argued that as lung cancer screening with LDCT saves lives, planning for implementation needs to be started by the national health organisations throughout Europe. The EUPS examined the current evidence which supports the planning for the implementation of lung cancer screening, as well as areas which require further work. One of the major areas the EUPS focused on was the management of prevalent lung nodules in CT-screening programmes, lung nodules at incident screening (newly detected) and CT-detected lung nodules in clinical practice should be managed with different protocols, due to different pre-test lung cancer probability. The EUPS provides nine recommendations and a "Call to Action" for implementation, which is naturally dependent on the outcome of the NELSON trial. Clearly, the issue is how Europe can take this forward as part of the political agenda of individual countries, as well as that of the EU Commission. An EU policy document has been developed, which focuses on the key steps in the implementation of cost effective lung cancer screening in Europe.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John K Field
- Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - David R Baldwin
- Respiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
| | - Anand Devaraj
- Department of Radiology, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK
| | - Matthijs Oudkerk
- University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Medical Imaging, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Jones GS, McKeever TM, Hubbard RB, Khakwani A, Baldwin DR. Factors influencing treatment selection and 30-day mortality after chemotherapy for people with small-cell lung cancer: An analysis of national audit data. Eur J Cancer 2018; 103:176-183. [PMID: 30261439 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.07.133] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2018] [Revised: 07/04/2018] [Accepted: 07/24/2018] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Thirty-day mortality after treatment for lung cancer is a measure of unsuccessful outcome and where treatment should have been avoided. Guidelines recommend offering chemotherapy to individuals with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) who have poorer performance status (PS) because of its high initial response rate. However, this comes with an increased risk of toxicity and early death. We quantified real-world 30-day mortality in SCLC after chemotherapy, established the factors associated with this and compared these with the factors that influence receipt of chemotherapy. METHODS We used linked national English data sets to define the factors associated with both receiving chemotherapy and 30-day mortality after chemotherapy. RESULTS We identified 3715 people diagnosed with SCLC, of which 2235 (60.2%) received chemotherapy. There were 174 (7.8%) deaths within 30 days of chemotherapy. The adjusted odds of receiving chemotherapy decreased with older age, worsening PS and increasing comorbidities. Thirty-day mortality was independently associated with poor PS [PS 2 vs PS 0, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.71-8.25] and stage (extensive vs limited adjusted OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.03-2.74) but in contrast was not associated with increasing age. Both chemotherapy administration and 30-day mortality varied by hospital network. CONCLUSIONS To reduce variation in chemotherapy administration, predictors of 30-day mortality could be used as an adjunct to improve suboptimal patient selection. We have quantified 30-day mortality risk by the two independently associated factors, PS and stage, so that patients and clinicians can make better informed decisions about the potential risk of early death after chemotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gavin S Jones
- Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK.
| | - Tricia M McKeever
- Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, UK
| | - Richard B Hubbard
- Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, UK
| | - Aamir Khakwani
- Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, UK
| | - David R Baldwin
- Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, UK; Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals, UK
| |
Collapse
|