Implementation planning for lung cancer screening: five major challenges

Lung cancer LDCT screening and mortality reduction - evidence, pitfalls and future perspectives

In the past decade, the introduction of molecularly targeted agents and immune-checkpoint inhibitors has led to improved survival outcomes for patients with advanced-stage lung cancer; however, this disease remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Two large randomized controlled trials of low-dose CT (LDCT)-based lung cancer screening in high-risk populations - the US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and NELSON - have provided evidence of a statistically significant mortality reduction in patients. LDCT-based screening programmes for individuals at a high risk of lung cancer have already been implemented in the USA. Furthermore, implementation programmes are currently underway in the UK following the success of the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial, which included the Liverpool Health Lung Project, Manchester Lung Health Check, the Lung Screen Uptake Trial, the West London Lung Cancer Screening pilot and the Yorkshire Lung Screening trial. In this Review, we focus on the current evidence on LDCT-based lung cancer screening and discuss the clinical developments in high-risk populations worldwide; additionally, we address aspects such as cost-effectiveness. We present a framework to define the scope of future implementation research on lung cancer screening programmes referred to as Screening Planning and Implementation RAtionale for Lung cancer (SPIRAL).

Examining the effect of underlying individual preferences for present over future on lung cancer screening participation: a cross-sectional analysis of a Korean National Cancer Screening Survey

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to examine the effect of underlying individual preferences for the present over that for the future on lung cancer screening participation.

SETTING

We analysed the data from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey in 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

4500 adults aged 20-74 years old participated in the study.

DESIGN

In this cross-sectional survey, multivariate logistic regression analysis was carried out to examine the association between subjects' intention to participate in lung cancer screening and individual preferences. The underlying individual preferences were measured on the basis of the self-reported general willingness to spend money now in order to save money in the future and general preferences with regard to financial planning.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Intention to participate in lung cancer screening.

RESULTS

Individuals eligible for lung cancer screening who place less value on their future were around four times less likely to report an intention to participate in lung cancer screening than were those who valued their future (OR 3.86, 95% CI 1.89 to 7.90). A present-biassed individual (one with a tendency for immediate gratification) was also about four times less likely to report an intention to participate in screening than an individual with no present bias (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

Underlying individual preferences regarding the present and future significantly affect individuals' intention to participate in lung cancer screening. Hence, provision of incentives may be necessary to encourage the targeted heavy smokers who may have a strong preferences for the present over future.

Long non-coding RNA dysregulation is a frequent event in non-small cell lung carcinoma pathogenesis

Background

Long non-coding RNAs compose an important level of epigenetic regulation in normal physiology and disease. Despite the plethora of publications of lncRNAs in human cancer, the landscape is still unclear.

Methods

Microarray analysis in 44 NSCLC paired specimens was followed by qPCR-based validation in 29 (technical) and 38 (independent) tissue pairs. Cross-validation of the selected targets was achieved in 850 NSCLC tumours from TCGA datasets.

Results

Twelve targets were successfully validated by qPCR (upregulated: FEZF1-AS1, LINC01214, LINC00673, PCAT6, NUTM2A-AS1, LINC01929; downregulated: PCAT19, FENDRR, SVIL-AS1, LANCL1-AS1, ADAMTS9-AS2 and LINC00968). All of them were successfully cross validated in the TCGA datasets. Abnormal DNA methylation was observed in the promoters of FENDRR, FEZF1-AS1 and SVIL-AS1. FEZF1-AS1 and LINC01929 were associated with survival in the TCGA set.

Conclusions

Our study provides through multiple levels of internal and external validation, a comprehensive list of dysregulated lncRNAs in NSCLC. We therefore envisage this dataset to serve as an important source for the lung cancer research community assisting future investigations on the involvement of lncRNAs in the pathogenesis of the disease and providing novel biomarkers for diagnosis, prognosis and therapeutic stratification.

An Assessment of Primary Care and Pulmonary Provider Perspectives on Lung Cancer Screening

RATIONALE

Lung cancer screening has a mortality benefit to high-risk smokers, but implementation remains suboptimal. Providers represent the key entry point to screening, and an understanding of provider perspectives on lung cancer screening is necessary to improve referral and overall implementation.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to understand knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to screening in a diverse group of referring pulmonologists and primary care providers.

METHODS

We conducted an electronic survey of primary care and pulmonary providers within a tertiary care medical center across different practice sites. The survey covered the following domains: 1) beliefs and assessment of evidence, 2) knowledge of lung cancer screening and guidelines, 3) current screening practices, 4) barriers and facilitators, and 5) demographic and practice characteristics.

RESULTS

The 196 participants included 80% primary care clinicians and 19% pulmonologists (1% others). Forty-one percent practiced at university-based or affiliated clinics, 47% at county hospital-based clinics, and 12% at other or unidentified sites. The majority endorsed lung cancer screening effectiveness (74%); however, performance on knowledge-based assessments of screening eligibility, documentation, and nodule management was suboptimal. Key barriers included inadequate time (36%), inadequate staffing (36%), and patients having too many other illnesses to address screening (38%). Decision aids, which are used at the point of referral, were commonly identified both as important lung cancer screening clinical facilitators (51%) and as provider knowledge facilitators (59%). There were several differences by provider specialty, including primary care providers more frequently reporting time constraints and their patients having too many other illnesses to address screening as significant barriers to lung cancer screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers endorsed the benefits of lung cancer screening, but there are limitations in provider knowledge of key screening components. The most frequently reported barriers to screening represent a lack of clinical time or resources to address lung cancer screening in clinical practice. Facilitators for nodule management as well as point-of-care referral materials may be helpful in reducing knowledge gaps and the clinical burden of referral. These are all modifiable factors, which could be addressed to increase screening referral. Differences in attitudes and barriers by specialty should also be considered to optimize screening implementation.

[Lung cancer screening among the smoker population]

CONTEXT

Lung cancer is the most common cancer in men and the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. This cancer, often diagnosed at an advanced stage, mainly affects smokers and survival could increase with early detection. Screening by chest x-ray has not shown its effectiveness, then several randomized trials have been carried out about screening by thoracic low-dose computed tomography in smokers.

METHODS

A systematic review of these trials was conducted according to the PRISMA criteria as well as a point of the difficulties of setting up screening following these trials.

RESULTS

Among five trials that published mortality results, only the US one, the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was showed a 20% decrease in lung cancer mortality in smokers screened by low-dose computed tomography compared to chest x-ray. However, besides the lack of power of the other trials, a great heterogeneity of the methods makes the synthesis of the results difficult. While many expert groups are in favor of testing, only the United States has implemented a screening program, whose adherence remains low.

CONCLUSION

Many persistent questions about the eligible population, the organization, the side effects, and finally the cost-benefit, need additional research around these issues.

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT: a world-wide view

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide, comprising almost 20% of all cancer deaths. The concept of screening for lung cancer using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) dates back almost three decades. This paper reviews the randomized controlled trials and demonstration projects carried out world-wide on LDCT lung cancer screening. Most research has been carried out in North America, Europe and East Asia, regions where lung cancer mortality rates are generally the highest. There are currently no organized national or regional lung cancer screening programs with LDCT. A number of challenges exist to implementing such programs, including the fact that LDCT lung cancer screening generally targets only high risk ever-smokers, in contrast to screening programs for other cancers such as breast, cervical and colorectal, which target entire populations based only on age and sex. While tobacco control remains the most important tool in the long-term to decrease morbidity and mortality from lung cancer, LDCT screening, appropriately carried out, has the potential to modestly decrease lung cancer death rates for those countries whose overall resources and health care infrastructure are adequate for the task.

Cost-effectiveness of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer in a European country with high prevalence of smoking-A modelling study

OBJECTIVES

In Europe, there is uncertainty about the potential effects and cost-effectiveness of low dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer and about the applicability of results of North American studies. We aimed to estimate the effects and cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening in a population-based setting in Switzerland where the smoking prevalence is high.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The MIcrosimulation Screening ANalysis-Lung (MISCAN) model was adapted using country specific input parameters regarding lung cancer epidemiology, smoking behaviours, and treatment costs. The effects and costs of 648 screening scenarios with different screening start and stop ages, smoking eligibility criteria, and screening intervals were examined from a public healthcare system perspective across a lifetime horizon in a cohort born between 1935 and 1965.

RESULTS

All screening scenarios showed an increase in the total number of detected lung cancer cases and a decrease in lung cancer mortality. On the efficiency frontier, 15 of 27 scenarios showed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below € 50,000 per life year gained. These scenarios reduced lung cancer mortality by 6-15% while increasing incidence of lung cancer diagnoses by 2-6%.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that lung cancer screening may be cost-effective in Switzerland, a high-income, European country with high smoking prevalence.

Lung Cancer Screening Uncertainty among Patients Undergoing LDCT

OBJECTIVES

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death, yet lung screening remains underutilized. Lung cancer screening uncertainty (LCSU), including referral clarity and the perceived accuracy of screening, may hinder utilization and represent an unmet psychosocial need. This study sought to identify correlates of LCSU among lung screening patients.

METHODS

Current and former smokers (N = 169) completed questionnaires assessing LCSU, sociodemographic variables, objective and subjective numeracy, stress, and anxiety, as part of a cross-sectional study of lung screening patients at an academic hospital.

RESULTS

Patients (52% current smok- ers) reported high clarity about the reason for their lung screening referral. Less clarity was as- sociated with lower education, not receiving Medicare, and greater stress and anxiety. Patients perceived lung screening to be moderately accurate, and levels were inversely related to objective numeracy. Subjective numeracy was higher among former versus current smokers (OR = 2.5), yet was unrelated to LCSU variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Several sociodemographic, numeracy, and emotional factors were associated with greater LCSU. With multiple policy and clinical guidelines purporting the uptake of annual lung screening, it is important to identify patients with LCSU and tailor shared decision-making to clarify their uncertainties.

Risk assessment in relation to the detection of small pulmonary nodules

The National Lung Cancer Screening trial (NLST) demonstrated that individuals assigned to the LDCT screening arm had a 20% lower mortality than those who were assigned to the conventional chest radiography. The NLST was thoroughly analyzed by the US Preventive Task Force on CT Screening and they recommended that lung cancer screening should be implemented. A number of other countries have also recommended implementation, whilst others are awaiting the outcome of the NELSON Trial. However, recommendations for the management of CT screen detected nodules have only recently had any clarity. The management of CT detected nodules in the NLST was based on the identification and reporting of 4 mm diameter nodules found on the CT screens but there was no NLST radiology protocol in place for the management of nodules. The use of volumetric analysis is not routinely used in the USA and there is still a reliance on utilising the CT nodule diameter as the management parameter. The first pulmonary risk model was developed by the Canadians, utilising data sets from the Pan-Canadian Early detection of Lung cancer (PanCan) and validated in the chemoprevention trial dataset at the British Columbian Agency. This Canadian model, known as the Brock Model, is currently available and has been integrated into the British Thoracic Society guidelines on the management of pulmonary nodules. The American College of Radiology setup a Lung Cancer Screening Committee subgroup on Lung-RADS, to standardize lung cancer screening CT reporting and provide management recommendations. However, it has been recommended that the Lung-RADS system should be revised as the system as it has never been studied in a prospective fashion. The NELSON trial introduced a third screening test, the "indeterminate" screening test result, this was done with the aim to reduce the false-positives CT screening results and also utilized by the UKLS trial successfully. On comparing the radiological CT screen volumetric and diameter based protocols in the NELSON trial, the sensitivity and negative predictive value appeared to be comparable, however a higher specificity and positive predictive value was found for the volume-based protocols, thus confirming the advantage of utilising the volumetric approach over diameter The British Thoracic Society (BTS) has undertaken an in-depth piece of work developing guidelines on the management of pulmonary nodules, utilising the wealth of data published by the NELSON team and support the use of volumetric analysis for the management of pulmonary nodules.