Treatment capacity required for full-scale implementation of lung cancer screening in the United States

Natural history models for lung Cancer: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Natural history models (NHMs) of lung cancer (LC) simulate the disease's natural progression providing a baseline for assessing the impact of interventions. NHMs have been increasingly used to inform public health policies, highlighting their utility. The objective of this scoping review was to summarize existing LC NHMs, identify their limitations, and propose a framework for future NHM development.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore from their inception to October 5, 2023, for peer-reviewed, full-length articles with an LC NHM. Model characteristics, their applications, data sources used, and limitations were extracted and narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

From 238 publications, 69 publications were included in our review, corresponding to 22 original LC NHMs and 47 model applications. The majority of the models (n = 15, 68 %) used a microsimulation approach. NHM parameters were predominately informed by cancer registries, trial and institutional data, and literature. Model quality and performance were evaluated in 8 (36 %) models. Twenty (91 %) models included at least one carcinogenesis risk factor-primarily age, sex, and smoking history. Three (14 %) LC NHMs modeled progression in never-smokers; one (5 %) addressed recurrence. Non-tobacco smoking, nodule type, and biomarker expression were not considered in existing NHMs. Based on our findings, we proposed a framework for future LC NHM development which incorporates recurrence, nodule type differentiation, biomarker expression levels, biological factors, and non-smoking-related risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Regular updating and future research are warranted to address limitations in existing NHMs thereby ensuring relevance and accuracy of modeling approaches in the evolving LC landscape.

The accuracy of administrative data in identifying pulmonary metastases: a population-based study in Northern Italy

OBJECTIVE

Lung cancer remains a highly prevalent and lethal disease, with the majority of tumors identified at advanced stages. Screening with low-dose CT was shown to be effective in reducing mortality through early diagnosis. Administrative data are increasingly utilized in clinical settings and research for identifying metastatic lung cancer, yet their accuracy and limitations require thorough evaluation.

METHODS

This study evaluated the use of administrative data to identify lung cancer metastases within the population-based cancer registry (CR) of Reggio Emilia by cross-referencing registry data with administrative hospital discharge records (HDRs). Distant metastases were identified using specific International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision codes, with medical records reviewed to validate and refine the identification process. Standardized incidence and mortality rates were calculated and analyzed using joinpoint regression.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2021, 1391 lung cancers exhibiting at least one HDR were identified. Of these, 383 (27.5%) cases had distant metastases, 80 (6%) had a second tumor, and 12 (1.5%) had unknown tumor sites. After a manual review of cases with codes 196 (secondary and unspecified malignant neoplasm of lymph nodes) and code 199 (malignant neoplasm without specification of the site), the number of identified metastatic tumors increased to 30.5%. Lung cancer metastases identified by the CR showed an HDR sensitivity equal to 32.6%.

CONCLUSION

Administrative data, even with manual verification, achieved a positive predictive value of 30.5 for metastatic tumors. The scientific community and policymakers must be aware of these limitations and the need for additional resources to accurately screen to evaluate lung cancer.

Current Evidence for a Lung Cancer Screening Program

Background

Lung cancer screening is still in an early phase compared to other cancer screening programs, despite its high lethality particularly when diagnosed late. Achieving early diagnosis is crucial to obtain optimal outcomes.

Summary

In this review, we will address the current evidence on lung cancer screening through low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and its impact on mortality reduction, existing screening recommendations, patient eligibility criteria, screening frequency and duration, benefits and harms, cost-effectiveness and some insights on lung cancer screening implementation and adoption. Additionally, new non-imaging, noninvasive biomarkers with high diagnostic potential are also briefly highlighted.

Key Messages

LDCT screening in a prespecified population based on age and smoking history proved to reduce lung cancer mortality. Optimization of the target population and management of LDCT pitfalls can further improve lung cancer screening efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Novel screening technologies and biomarkers being studied can potentially be game-changers in lung cancer screening and diagnosis.

Video-Assisted vs Robotic-Assisted Lung Lobectomies for Operating Room Resource Utilization and Patient Outcomes

Importance

With increased use of robots, there is an inadequate understanding of minimally invasive modalities' time costs. This study evaluates the operative durations of robotic-assisted vs video-assisted lung lobectomies.

Objective

To compare resource utilization, specifically operative time, between video-assisted and robotic-assisted thoracoscopic lung lobectomies.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients aged 18 to 90 years who underwent minimally invasive (robotic-assisted or video-assisted) lung lobectomy from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022, with 90 days' follow-up after surgery. The study included multicenter electronic health record data from 21 hospitals within an integrated health care system in Northern California. Thoracic surgery was regionalized to 4 centers with 14 board-certified general thoracic surgeons.

Exposures

Robotic-assisted or video-assisted lung lobectomy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was operative duration (cut to close) in minutes. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, 30-day readmission, and 90-day mortality. Comparisons between video-assisted and robotic-assisted lobectomies were generated using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and the χ2 test for categorical variables. The average treatment effects were estimated with augmented inverse probability treatment weighting (AIPTW). Patient and surgeon covariates were adjusted for and included patient demographics, comorbidities, and case complexity (age, sex, race and ethnicity, neighborhood deprivation index, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, nonelective hospitalizations, emergency department visits, a validated laboratory derangement score, a validated institutional comorbidity score, a surgeon-designated complexity indicator, and a procedural code count), and a primary surgeon-specific indicator.

Results

The study included 1088 patients (median age, 70.1 years [IQR, 63.3-75.8 years]; 704 [64.7%] female), of whom 446 (41.0%) underwent robotic-assisted and 642 (59.0%) underwent video-assisted lobectomy. The median unadjusted operative duration was 172.0 minutes (IQR, 128.0-226.0 minutes). After AIPTW, there was less than a 10% difference in all covariates between groups, and operative duration was a median 20.6 minutes (95% CI, 12.9-28.2 minutes; P < .001) longer for robotic-assisted compared with video-assisted lobectomies. There was no difference in adjusted secondary patient outcomes, specifically for length of stay (0.3 days; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.8 days; P = .11) or risk of 30-day readmission (adjusted odds ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.84-1.98; P = .13). The unadjusted 90-day mortality rate (1.3% [n = 14]) was too low for the AIPTW modeling process.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, there was no difference in patient outcomes between modalities, but operative duration was longer in robotic-assisted compared with video-assisted lung lobectomy. Given that this elevated operative duration is additive when applied systematically, increased consideration of appropriate patient selection for robotic-assisted lung lobectomy is needed to improve resource utilization.

How will lung cancer screening and lung nodule management change the diagnostic and surgical lung cancer landscape?

INTRODUCTION

Implementation of lung cancer screening, with its subsequent findings, is anticipated to change the current diagnostic and surgical lung cancer landscape. This review aimed to identify and present the most updated expert opinion and discuss relevant evidence regarding the impact of lung cancer screening and lung nodule management on the diagnostic and surgical landscape of lung cancer, as well as summarise points for clinical practice.

METHODS

This article is based on relevant lectures and talks delivered during the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons-European Respiratory Society Collaborative Course on Thoracic Oncology (February 2023). Original lectures and talks and their relevant references were included. An additional literature search was conducted and peer-reviewed studies in English (December 2022 to June 2023) from the PubMed/Medline databases were evaluated with regards to immediate affinity of the published papers to the original talks presented at the course. An updated literature search was conducted (June 2023 to December 2023) to ensure that updated literature is included within this article.

RESULTS

Lung cancer screening suspicious findings are expected to increase the number of diagnostic investigations required therefore impacting on current capacity and resources. Healthcare systems already face a shortage of imaging and diagnostic slots and they are also challenged by the shortage of interventional radiologists. Thoracic surgery will be impacted by the wider lung cancer screening implementation with increased volume and earlier stages of lung cancer. Nonsuspicious findings reported at lung cancer screening will need attention and subsequent referrals where required to ensure participants are appropriately diagnosed and managed and that they are not lost within healthcare systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of lung cancer screening requires appropriate mapping of existing resources and infrastructure to ensure a tailored restructuring strategy to ensure that healthcare systems can meet the new needs.

Developing a pan-European technical standard for a comprehensive high-quality lung cancer computed tomography screening programme: an ERS technical standard

BACKGROUND

Screening for lung cancer with low radiation dose computed tomography (LDCT) has a strong evidence base. The European Council adopted a recommendation in November 2022 that lung cancer screening (LCS) be implemented using a stepwise approach. The imperative now is to ensure that implementation follows an evidence-based process that delivers clinical and cost-effectiveness. This European Respiratory Society (ERS) Task Force was formed to provide a technical standard for a high-quality LCS programme.

METHOD

A collaborative group was convened to include members of multiple European societies. Topics were identified during a scoping review and a systematic review of the literature was conducted. Full text was provided to members of the group for each topic. The final document was approved by all members and the ERS Scientific Advisory Committee.

RESULTS

Topics were identified representing key components of a screening programme. The actions on findings from the LDCT were not included as they are addressed by separate international guidelines (nodule management and clinical management of lung cancer) and by a linked ERS Task Force (incidental findings). Other than smoking cessation, other interventions that are not part of the core screening process were not included (e.g. pulmonary function measurement). 56 statements were produced and areas for further research identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This European collaborative group has produced a technical standard that is a timely contribution to implementation of LCS. It will serve as a standard that can be used, as recommended by the European Council, to ensure a high-quality and effective programme.

Surgical markup in lung cancer resection, 2015-2020

Objective

The objective of this study was to assess procedure markup (charge-to-cost ratio) across lung resection procedures and examine variability by geographic region.

Methods

Provider-level data for common lung resection operations was obtained from the 2015 to 2020 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data datasets using Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes. Procedures studied included wedge resection; video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery; and open lobectomy, segmentectomy, and mediastinal and regional lymphadenectomy. Procedure markup ratio and coefficient of variation (CoV) was assessed and compared across procedure, region, and provider. The CoV, a measure of dispersion defined as the ratio of the SD to the mean, was likewise compared across procedure and region.

Results

Median markup ratio across all procedures was 3.56 (interquartile range, 2.87-4.59) with right skew (mean, 4.13). Median markup ratio was 3.59 for lymphadenectomy (CoV, 0.51), 3.13 for open lobectomy (CoV, 0.45), 3.55 for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy (CoV, 0.59), 3.77 for segmentectomy (CoV, 0.74), and 3.80 for wedge resection (CoV, 0.67). Increased beneficiaries, services, and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System score (total) were associated with a decreased markup ratio (P < .0001). Markup ratio was highest in the Northeast at 4.14 (interquartile range, 3.09-5.56) and lowest in the South (Markup ratio 3.26; interquartile range, 2.68-4.02).

Conclusions

We observe geographic variation in surgical billing for thoracic surgery.

Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

In their 2021 lung cancer screening recommendation update, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) evaluated strategies that select people based on their personal lung cancer risk (risk model-based strategies), highlighting the need for further research on the benefits and harms of risk model-based screening.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of risk model-based lung cancer screening strategies versus the USPSTF recommendation and to explore optimal risk thresholds.

DESIGN

Comparative modeling analysis.

DATA SOURCES

National Lung Screening Trial; Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; U.S. Smoking History Generator.

TARGET POPULATION

1960 U.S. birth cohort.

TIME HORIZON

45 years.

PERSPECTIVE

U.S. health care sector.

INTERVENTION

Annual low-dose computed tomography in risk model-based strategies that start screening at age 50 or 55 years, stop screening at age 80 years, with 6-year risk thresholds between 0.5% and 2.2% using the PLCOm2012 model.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier connecting strategies with the highest health benefit at a given cost.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

Risk model-based screening strategies were more cost-effective than the USPSTF recommendation and exclusively comprised the cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier. Among the strategies on the efficiency frontier, those with a 6-year risk threshold of 1.2% or greater were cost-effective with an ICER less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Specifically, the strategy with a 1.2% risk threshold had an ICER of $94 659 (model range, $72 639 to $156 774), yielding more QALYs for less cost than the USPSTF recommendation, while having a similar level of screening coverage (person ever-screened 21.7% vs. USPSTF's 22.6%).

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

Risk model-based strategies were robustly more cost-effective than the 2021 USPSTF recommendation under varying modeling assumptions.

LIMITATION

Risk models were restricted to age, sex, and smoking-related risk predictors.

CONCLUSION

Risk model-based screening is more cost-effective than the USPSTF recommendation, thus warranting further consideration.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute (NCI).

Role of exosomes in non-small cell lung cancer and EGFR-mutated lung cancer

As an important mediator of information transfer between cells, exosomes play a unique role in regulating tumor growth, supporting vascular proliferation, tumor invasion, and metastasis. Exosomes are widely present in various body fluids, and therefore they can be used as a potential tool for non-invasive liquid biopsy. The present study reviews the role of exosomes in liquid biopsy, tumor microenvironment formation, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). By targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy as a first-line treatment for patients with NSCLC, this study also briefly describes the occurrence of EGRF+ exosomes and the role of exosomes and their contents in non-invasive detection and potential therapeutic targets in EGFR-mutated lung cancer.

Thoracic anaesthetic research: 90 years of sustained progress

Over the 90 years since the first description of one-lung ventilation, the practice of thoracic surgery and anaesthesia continues to develop. Minimally invasive surgical techniques are increasingly being used to minimise the surgical insult and facilitate improved outcomes. Challenging these outcomes, however, are parallel changes in patient characteristics with more older and sicker patients undergoing surgery. Thoracic anaesthesia as a speciality continues to respond to these challenges with evolution of practice and strong academic performance.

Identification of patient characteristics associated with survival benefit from metformin treatment in patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) continues to be a major cause of cancer deaths. Previous investigation has suggested that metformin use can contribute to improved outcomes in NSCLC patients. However, this association is not uniform in all analyzed cohorts, implying that patient characteristics might lead to disparate results. Identification of patient characteristics that affect the association of metformin use with clinical benefit might clarify the drug's effect on lung cancer outcomes and lead to more rational design of clinical trials of metformin's utility as an intervention. In this study, we examined the association of metformin use with long-term mortality benefit in patients with NSCLC and the possible modulation of this benefit by body mass index (BMI) and smoking status, controlling for other clinical covariates.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study in which we analyzed data from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Tumor Registry in the United States. Data from all patients with stage I NSCLC from 2000 to 2016 were extracted from a national database, the Corporate Data Warehouse that captures data from all patients, primarily male, who underwent treatment through the VA health system in the United States. Metformin use was measured according to metformin prescriptions dispensed to patients in the VA health system. The association of metformin use with overall survival (OS) after diagnosis of stage I NSCLC was examined. Patients were further stratified according to BMI and smoking status (previous vs current) to examine the association of metformin use with OS across these strata.

RESULTS

Metformin use was associated with improved survival in patients with stage I NSCLC (average hazard ratio, 0.82; P < .001). An interaction between the effect of metformin use and BMI on OS was observed (χ2 = 3268.42; P < .001) with a greater benefit of metformin use observed in patients as BMI increased. Similarly, an interaction between smoking status and metformin use on OS was also observed (χ2 = 2997.05; P < .001) with a greater benefit of metformin use observed in previous smokers compared with current smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large retrospective study, we showed that a survival benefit is enjoyed by users of metformin in a robust stage I NSCLC patient population treated in the VA health system. Metformin use was associated with an 18% improved OS. This association was stronger in patients with a higher BMI and in previous smokers. These observations deserve further mechanistic study and can help rational design of clinical trials with metformin in patients with lung cancer.

Lung Cancer Diagnosed Through Screening, Lung Nodule, and Neither Program: A Prospective Observational Study of the Detecting Early Lung Cancer (DELUGE) in the Mississippi Delta Cohort

PURPOSE

Lung cancer screening saves lives, but implementation is challenging. We evaluated two approaches to early lung cancer detection-low-dose computed tomography screening (LDCT) and program-based management of incidentally detected lung nodules.

METHODS

A prospective observational study enrolled patients in the early detection programs. For context, we compared them with patients managed in a Multidisciplinary Care Program. We compared clinical stage distribution, surgical resection rates, 3- and 5-year survival rates, and eligibility for LDCT screening of patients diagnosed with lung cancer.

RESULTS

From 2015 to May 2021, 22,886 patients were enrolled: 5,659 in LDCT, 15,461 in Lung Nodule, and 1,766 in Multidisciplinary Care. Of 150, 698, and 1,010 patients diagnosed with lung cancer in the respective programs, 61%, 60%, and 44% were diagnosed at clinical stage I or II, whereas 19%, 20%, and 29% were stage IV (P = .0005); 47%, 42%, and 32% had curative-intent surgery (P < .0001); aggregate 3-year overall survival rates were 80% (95% CI, 73 to 88) versus 64% (60 to 68) versus 49% (46 to 53); 5-year overall survival rates were 76% (67 to 87) versus 60% (56 to 65) versus 44% (40 to 48), respectively. Only 46% of 1,858 patients with lung cancer would have been deemed eligible for LDCT by US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2013 criteria, and 54% by 2021 criteria. Even if all eligible patients by USPSTF 2021 criteria had been enrolled into LDCT, the Nodule Program would have detected 20% of the stage I-II lung cancer in the entire cohort.

CONCLUSION

LDCT and Lung Nodule Programs are complementary, expanding access to early lung cancer detection and curative treatment to different-risk populations. Implementing Lung Nodule Programs may alleviate emerging disparities in access to early lung cancer detection.

The Future of Lung Cancer Screening: Current Challenges and Research Priorities

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.

Early Palliative Care in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Southwest China

PURPOSE

Effective interventions to improve prognosis in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are urgently needed. We assessed the effect of the early integration of interdisciplinary palliative care (based on WARM model) for patients with NSCLC on the quality of life (QoL), psychological state, cancer pain and nutritional status.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, 120 newly diagnosed NSCLC patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to the combined early palliative care (CEPC) group integrated with standard oncologic care or standard oncological care (SC) group. QoL and psychological state were assessed at baseline and at 24 weeks by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), respectively. Cancer nutritional and pain status were assessed with the use of the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), respectively. The primary outcome was the change in the quality of life, psychological state and nutritional status at 24 weeks. Analysis was by intention to treat.

RESULTS

120 patients were enrolled: 60 in CEPC group (38 completed) and 60 in the SC group (32 completed). CEPC group had a better QoL than SC group (P < .05). In addition, fewer patients in the CEPC group than in the SC group had depressive (P = .005) symptoms. Furthermore, patients in CEPC group had a better nutritional status than SC group (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, early palliative care led to significant improvements in quality of life, psychological state and nutritional status.

Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation for Lung Cancer Screening

IMPORTANCE

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued its 2021 recommendation on lung cancer screening, which lowered the starting age for screening from 55 to 50 years and the minimum cumulative smoking exposure from 30 to 20 pack-years relative to its 2013 recommendation. Although costs are expected to increase because of the expanded screening eligibility criteria, it is unknown whether the new guidelines for lung cancer screening are cost-effective.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the 2021 USPSTF recommendation for lung cancer screening compared with the 2013 recommendation and to explore the cost-effectiveness of 6 alternative screening strategies that maintained a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years and an ending age for screening of 80 years but varied the starting ages for screening (50 or 55 years) and the number of years since smoking cessation (≤15, ≤20, or ≤25).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis using 4 independently developed microsimulation models that shared common inputs to assess the population-level health benefits and costs of the 2021 recommended screening strategy and 6 alternative screening strategies compared with the 2013 recommended screening strategy. The models simulated a 1960 US birth cohort. Simulated individuals entered the study at age 45 years and were followed up until death or age 90 years, corresponding to a study period from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2050.

EXPOSURES

Low-dose computed tomography in lung cancer screening programs with a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of the 2021 vs 2013 USPSTF lung cancer screening recommendations as well as 6 alternative screening strategies vs the 2013 USPSTF screening strategy. Strategies with a mean ICER lower than $100 000 per QALY were deemed cost-effective.

RESULTS

The 2021 USPSTF recommendation was estimated to be cost-effective compared with the 2013 recommendation, with a mean ICER of $72 564 (range across 4 models, $59 493-$85 837) per QALY gained. The 2021 recommendation was not cost-effective compared with 6 alternative strategies that used the 20 pack-year criterion. Strategies associated with the most cost-effectiveness included those that expanded screening eligibility to include a greater number of former smokers who had not smoked for a longer duration (ie, ≤20 years and ≤25 years since smoking cessation vs ≤15 years since smoking cessation). In particular, the strategy that screened former smokers who quit within the past 25 years and began screening at age 55 years was associated with screening coverage closest to that of the 2021 USPSTF recommendation yet yielded greater cost-effectiveness, with a mean ICER of $66 533 (range across 4 models, $55 693-$80 539).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This economic evaluation found that the 2021 USPSTF recommendation for lung cancer screening was cost-effective; however, alternative screening strategies that maintained a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years but included individuals who quit smoking within the past 25 years may be more cost-effective and warrant further evaluation.

Evaluation of Population-Level Changes Associated With the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Lung Cancer Screening Recommendations in Community-Based Health Care Systems

IMPORTANCE

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released updated lung cancer screening recommendations in 2021, lowering the screening age from 55 to 50 years and smoking history from 30 to 20 pack-years. These changes are expected to expand screening access to women and racial and ethnic minority groups.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the population-level changes associated with the 2021 USPSTF expansion of lung cancer screening eligibility by sex, race and ethnicity, sociodemographic factors, and comorbidities in 5 community-based health care systems.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study analyzed data of patients who received care from any of 5 community-based health care systems (which are members of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Consortium, a collaboration that conducts research to better understand how to improve the cancer screening processes in community health care settings) from January 1, 2010, through September 30, 2019. Individuals who had complete smoking history and were engaged with the health care system for 12 or more continuous months were included. Those who had never smoked or who had unknown smoking history were excluded.

EXPOSURES

Electronic health record-derived age, sex, race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), comorbidities, and smoking history.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Differences in the proportion of the newly eligible population by age, sex, race and ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis, and SES as well as lung cancer diagnoses under the 2013 recommendations vs the expected cases under the 2021 recommendations were evaluated using χ2 tests.

RESULTS

As of September 2019, there were 341 163 individuals aged 50 to 80 years who currently or previously smoked. Among these, 34 528 had electronic health record data that captured pack-year and quit-date information and were eligible for lung cancer screening according to the 2013 USPSTF recommendations. The 2021 USPSTF recommendations expanded screening eligibility to 18 533 individuals, representing a 53.7% increase. Compared with the 2013 cohort, the newly eligible 2021 population included 5833 individuals (31.5%) aged 50 to 54 years, a larger proportion of women (52.0% [n = 9631]), and more racial or ethnic minority groups. The relative increases in the proportion of newly eligible individuals were 60.6% for Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander; 67.4% for Hispanic; 69.7% for non-Hispanic Black; and 49.0% for non-Hispanic White groups. The relative increase for women was 13.8% higher than for men (61.2% vs 47.4%), and those with a lower comorbidity burden and lower SES had higher relative increases (eg, 68.7% for a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 0; 61.1% for lowest SES). The 2021 recommendations were associated with an estimated 30% increase in incident lung cancer diagnoses compared with the 2013 recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cohort study suggests that, in diverse health care systems, adopting the 2021 USPSTF recommendations will increase the number of women, racial and ethnic minority groups, and individuals with lower SES who are eligible for lung cancer screening, thus helping to minimize the barriers to screening access for individuals with high risk for lung cancer.

Lung cancer screening implementation: Complexities and priorities

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

Lung cancer screening in Europe: where are we in 2021?

This manuscript reviews the recent evidence obtained in lung cancer screening with low dose spiral CT-scan (LDSCT) and focuses on the issues associated with its implementation in Europe. After a review of the magnitude of the lung cancer toll in lives, disease and Euro's, the recently released data of the major lung cancer screening trials are reviewed and mirrored with the results of the US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), comparing their strengths and weaknesses and areas of future research. The specific barriers and hurdles to be addressed for widely implementing this population screening in European countries are discussed, with special emphasis on the issues of inclusion of smokers, smoking cessation interventions, radiation injury and capacity planning. The pros and cons of including current smokers will be addressed together with the issue which is the better smoking cessation intervention. A medical physicist's view on radiation exposure and quality control will address concerns about radiation induced cancers. The downstream effects of a LDSCT screening program on the capacity of CT-scans, radiologists, thoracic surgeons and radiation oncologists will follow. An estimated roadmap for the future is sketched with the expected role of all key stakeholders. This roadmap reflects the opinion leader's reflections as expressed in a number of discussions with European health authorities, taking place as part of the recently released European Beating Cancer plan.

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

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

Uptake of minimally invasive surgery and stereotactic body radiation therapy for early stage non-small cell lung cancer in the USA: an ecological study of secular trends using the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

We aimed to assess the uptake of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) among early stage (stage IA-IIB) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases in the USA, and the rate of conversions from MIS to open surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were obtained from the US National Cancer Database, a nationwide facility-based cancer registry capturing up to 70% of incident cancer cases in the USA. We included cases diagnosed with early stage (clinical stages IA-IIB) NSCLC between 2010 and 2014. In an ecological analysis, we assessed changes in treatment by year of diagnosis. Among surgically treated cases, we assessed the uptake of MIS and whether conversion to open surgery took place. For cases that received thoracic radiotherapy, we assessed the uptake of SBRT.

RESULTS

Among 117 370 selected cases, radiotherapy use increased 3.4 percentage points between 2010 and 2014 (p<0.0001). Surgical treatments decreased 3.5 percentage points (p<0.0001). Rates of non-treatment remained stable (range: 10.0%-10.6% (p=0.4066)). Among surgically treated stage IA cases, uptake of MIS increased from 28.7% (95% CI 27.8% to 29.7%) in 2010 to 48.6% (95% CI 47.6% to 49.6%) in 2014 (p<0.0001), while conversions decreased from 17.0% (95% CI 15.6% to 18.6%) in 2010 to 9.1% (95% CI 8.3% to 10.0%) in 2014 (p<0.0001). MIS uptake among stages IB-IIB was lower and conversion rates were higher, but time trends were similar. Uptake of SBRT among stage IA receiving thoracic radiotherapy increased from 53.4% (95% CI 51.2% to 55.6%) in 2010 to 73.0% (95% CI 71.4% to 74.6%) in 2014 (p<0.0001). SBRT uptake among stage IB increased from 32.5% (95% CI 29.9% to 35.2%) in 2010 to 48.2% (95% CI 45.6% to 50.8%) in 2014 (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Between 2010 and 2014, uptake of MIS and SBRT among early stage NSCLC significantly increased, while the rate of conversions to open surgery significantly decreased. Continuing these trends may contribute to improving patient care, in particular with the expected increase in early stages due to the implementation of lung cancer screening.

Update on screening for lung cancer

As the leading cause of cancer related death world wide, lung cancer is responsible for an enormous amount of suffering and disability. Detection of disease when it is surgically curable is associated with far greater odds of cure, and therefore it is a disease for which mass screening of high-risk populations has significant potential benefit. Starting in 2011, with the publication of the National Lung Screening Trial from United States (U.S.), mass screening programs have emerged throughout the U.S., as well as in other countries. More recently, large European screening trials have confirmed the potential mortality benefit of lung cancer screening. This invited non-systematic review paper covers the trial that data justify mass-screening, for lung cancer and proposes strategies for maximizing benefits and minimizing harms in the context of a mass public health lung cancer screening program.