A randomized study of lung cancer screening with spiral computed tomography: three-year results from the DANTE trial

MRUNet-3D: A multi-stride residual 3D UNet for lung nodule segmentation

Obtaining an accurate segmentation of the pulmonary nodules in computed tomography (CT) images is challenging. This is due to: (1) the heterogeneous nature of the lung nodules; (2) comparable visual characteristics between the nodules and their surroundings. A robust multi-scale feature extraction mechanism that can effectively obtain multi-scale representations at a granular level can improve segmentation accuracy. As the most commonly used network in lung nodule segmentation, UNet, its variants, and other image segmentation methods lack this robust feature extraction mechanism. In this study, we propose a multi-stride residual 3D UNet (MRUNet-3D) to improve the segmentation accuracy of lung nodules in CT images. It incorporates a multi-slide Res2Net block (MSR), which replaces the simple sequence of convolution layers in each encoder stage to effectively extract multi-scale features at a granular level from different receptive fields and resolutions while conserving the strengths of 3D UNet. The proposed method has been extensively evaluated on the publicly available LUNA16 dataset. Experimental results show that it achieves competitive segmentation performance with an average dice similarity coefficient of 83.47 % and an average surface distance of 0.35 mm on the dataset. More notably, our method has proven to be robust to the heterogeneity of lung nodules. It has also proven to perform better at segmenting small lung nodules. Ablation studies have shown that the proposed MSR and RFIA modules are fundamental to improving the performance of the proposed model.

Cell-free DNA methylation in the clinical management of lung cancer

The clinical use of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) methylation in managing lung cancer depends on its ability to differentiate between malignant and healthy cells, assign methylation changes to specific tissue sources, and elucidate opportunities for targeted therapy. From a technical standpoint, cfDNA methylation analysis is primed as a potential clinical tool for lung cancer screening, early diagnosis, prognostication, and treatment, pending the outcome of elaborate validation studies. Here, we discuss the current state of the art in cfDNA methylation analysis, examine the unique features and limitations of these new methods in a clinical context, propose two models for applying cfDNA methylation data for lung cancer screening, and discuss future research directions.

Lung Cancer Screening: The European Perspective

Several randomized and observational studies on lung cancer screening held in Europe significantly contributed to the knowledge on low-dose computed tomography screening targets in high-risk individuals with smoking history and older than 50 years. In particular, steps forward have been made in the field of risk modeling, screening interval, diagnostic protocol with volumetry, optimization, overdiagnosis estimation, oncological outcome, oncological risk due to radiation exposure, recruitment, and communication strategy.

[Prevention, Diagnosis, Therapy, and Follow-up of Lung Cancer - Interdisciplinary Guideline of the German Respiratory Society and the German Cancer Society - Abridged Version]

The current S3 Lung Cancer Guidelines are edited with fundamental changes to the previous edition based on the dynamic influx of information to this field:The recommendations include de novo a mandatory case presentation for all patients with lung cancer in a multidisciplinary tumor board before initiation of treatment, furthermore CT-Screening for asymptomatic patients at risk (after federal approval), recommendations for incidental lung nodule management , molecular testing of all NSCLC independent of subtypes, EGFR-mutations in resectable early stage lung cancer in relapsed or recurrent disease, adjuvant TKI-therapy in the presence of common EGFR-mutations, adjuvant consolidation treatment with checkpoint inhibitors in resected lung cancer with PD-L1 ≥ 50%, obligatory evaluation of PD-L1-status, consolidation treatment with checkpoint inhibition after radiochemotherapy in patients with PD-L1-pos. tumor, adjuvant consolidation treatment with checkpoint inhibition in patients withPD-L1 ≥ 50% stage IIIA and treatment options in PD-L1 ≥ 50% tumors independent of PD-L1status and targeted therapy and treatment option immune chemotherapy in first line SCLC patients.Based on the current dynamic status of information in this field and the turnaround time required to implement new options, a transformation to a "living guideline" was proposed.

Utilization of Diagnostic Procedures After Lung Cancer Screening in the National Lung Screening Trial

OBJECTIVE

To examine utilization patterns of diagnostic procedures after lung cancer screening among participants enrolled in the National Lung Screening Trial.

METHODS

Using a sample of National Lung Screening Trial participants with abstracted medical records, we assessed utilization of imaging, invasive, and surgical procedures after lung cancer screening. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation by chained equations. For each procedure type, we examined utilization within a year after the screening or until the next screen, whichever came first, across arms (low-dose CT [LDCT] versus chest X-ray [CXR]) and by screening results. We also explored factors associated with having these procedures using multivariable negative binomial regressions.

RESULTS

After baseline screening, our sample had 176.5 and 46.7 procedures per 100 person-years for those with a false-positive and negative result, respectively. Invasive and surgical procedures were relatively infrequent. Among those who screened positive, follow-up imaging and invasive procedures were 25% and 34% less frequent in those screened with LDCT, compared with CXR. Postscreening utilization of invasive and surgical procedures was 37% and 34% lower at the first incidence screen compared with baseline. Participants with positive results at baseline were six times more likely to undergo additional imaging than those with normal findings.

DISCUSSION

Use of imaging and invasive procedures to evaluate abnormal findings varied by screening modality, with a lower rate for LDCT than CXR. Invasive and surgical workup were less prevalent after subsequent screening examinations compared with baseline screening. Utilization was associated with older age but not gender, race or ethnicity, insurance status, or income.

Disparities Across the Continuum of Lung Cancer Care

Despite the overall decline in lung cancer incidence and mortality, minority populations continue to bear a higher disease burden. Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States and disproportionately impacts minority populations. Social determinants of health-including low-socioeconomic status, lack of health insurance, and access to health care- disproportionately impact racial, ethnic, and rural populations resulting in direct consequences on lung cancer disparities.

Impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening on lung cancer-related mortality

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death in the world, however lung cancer screening has not been implemented in most countries at a population level. A previous Cochrane Review found limited evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening with chest radiography (CXR) or sputum cytology in reducing lung cancer-related mortality, however there has been increasing evidence supporting screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).  OBJECTIVES: To determine whether screening for lung cancer using LDCT of the chest reduces lung cancer-related mortality and to evaluate the possible harms of LDCT screening.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed the search in collaboration with the Information Specialist of the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group and included the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Trial Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library, current issue), MEDLINE (accessed via PubMed) and Embase in our search. We also searched the clinical trial registries to identify unpublished and ongoing trials. We did not impose any restriction on language of publication. The search was performed up to 31 July 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of lung cancer screening using LDCT and reporting mortality or harm outcomes.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors were involved in independently assessing trials for eligibility, extraction of trial data and characteristics, and assessing risk of bias of the included trials using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were lung cancer-related mortality and harms of screening. We performed a meta-analysis, where appropriate, for all outcomes using a random-effects model. We only included trials in the analysis of mortality outcomes if they had at least 5 years of follow-up. We reported risk ratios (RRs) and hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and used the I2 statistic to investigate heterogeneity.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 trials in this review with a total of 94,445 participants. Trials were conducted in Europe and the USA in people aged 40 years or older, with most trials having an entry requirement of ≥ 20 pack-year smoking history (e.g. 1 pack of cigarettes/day for 20 years or 2 packs/day for 10 years etc.). One trial included male participants only. Eight trials were phase three RCTs, with two feasibility RCTs and one pilot RCT. Seven of the included trials had no screening as a comparison, and four trials had CXR screening as a comparator. Screening frequency included annual, biennial and incrementing intervals. The duration of screening ranged from 1 year to 10 years. Mortality follow-up was from 5 years to approximately 12 years.  None of the included trials were at low risk of bias across all domains. The certainty of evidence was moderate to low across different outcomes, as assessed by GRADE. In the meta-analysis of trials assessing lung cancer-related mortality, we included eight trials (91,122 participants), and there was a reduction in mortality of 21% with LDCT screening compared to control groups of no screening or CXR screening (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87; 8 trials, 91,122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were probably no differences in subgroups for analyses by control type, sex, geographical region, and nodule management algorithm. Females appeared to have a larger lung cancer-related mortality benefit compared to males with LDCT screening. There was also a reduction in all-cause mortality (including lung cancer-related) of 5% (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99; 8 trials, 91,107 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  Invasive tests occurred more frequently in the LDCT group (RR 2.60, 95% CI 2.41 to 2.80; 3 trials, 60,003 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, analysis of 60-day postoperative mortality was not significant between groups (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.94; 2 trials, 409 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  False-positive results and recall rates were higher with LDCT screening compared to screening with CXR, however there was low-certainty evidence in the meta-analyses due to heterogeneity and risk of bias concerns. Estimated overdiagnosis with LDCT screening was 18%, however the 95% CI was 0 to 36% (risk difference (RD) 0.18, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.36; 5 trials, 28,656 participants; low-certainty evidence). Four trials compared different aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using various measures. Anxiety was pooled from three trials, with participants in LDCT screening reporting lower anxiety scores than in the control group (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.43, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.27; 3 trials, 8153 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data to comment on the impact of LDCT screening on smoking behaviour.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence supports a reduction in lung cancer-related mortality with the use of LDCT for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations (those over the age of 40 with a significant smoking exposure). However, there are limited data on harms and further trials are required to determine participant selection and optimal frequency and duration of screening, with potential for significant overdiagnosis of lung cancer. Trials are ongoing for lung cancer screening in non-smokers.

SANet: A Slice-Aware Network for Pulmonary Nodule Detection

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death worldwide. A timely diagnosis of the pulmonary nodules makes it possible to detect lung cancer in the early stage, and thoracic computed tomography (CT) provides a convenient way to diagnose nodules. However, it is hard even for experienced doctors to distinguish them from the massive CT slices. The currently existing nodule datasets are limited in both scale and category, which is insufficient and greatly restricts its applications. In this paper, we collect the largest and most diverse dataset named PN9 for pulmonary nodule detection by far. Specifically, it contains 8,798 CT scans and 40,439 annotated nodules from 9 common classes. We further propose a slice-aware network (SANet) for pulmonary nodule detection. A slice grouped non-local (SGNL) module is developed to capture long-range dependencies among any positions and any channels of one slice group in the feature map. And we introduce a 3D region proposal network to generate pulmonary nodule candidates with high sensitivity, while this detection stage usually comes with many false positives. Subsequently, a false positive reduction module (FPR) is proposed by using the multi-scale feature maps. To verify the performance of SANet and the significance of PN9, we perform extensive experiments compared with several state-of-the-art 2D CNN-based and 3D CNN-based detection methods. Promising evaluation results on PN9 prove the effectiveness of our proposed SANet. The dataset and source code is available at https://mmcheng.net/SANet/.

Role of low dose computed tomography on lung cancer detection and mortality - an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Chest low dose computed tomography (LDCT) is reported to be a sensitive tool for the detection of lung cancer at asymptomatic stage, thus reducing mortality. The review assesses the effect of LDCT screening on all-cause mortality, lung cancer mortality and incidence rates. We conducted literature searches of PubMed, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library from inception through January 2020 to identify relevant studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of LDCT for lung cancer. We used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines for reporting this meta-analysis and review. The inclusion criteria were a) Randomized control trials, b) Comparing LDCT to any other form of screening or standard of care, and (c) Primary outcome studied: all-cause mortality, lung cancer-specific mortality, rate of early detection of lung cancer. A total of 11 studies encompassing 97,248 patients were included. When compared with controls (no screening or CXR), LDCT screening was associated with statistically significant reduction in lung cancer mortality (pooled RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75-0.98); low heterogeneity was observed (I2= 27.86). However, LDCT screening was not associated with statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR =0.96; 95% CI: 0.92 -1.01). Notably, the LDCT screening was associated with statistically significant increase in lung cancer detection (RR =1.76; 95% CI: 1.14-2.72). LDCT screening has the potential to reduce mortality due to lung cancer among high-risk individuals. LDCT could be considered as a screening modality after careful assessment of other factors like prevalence of TB, proportion of high-risk population, cost, access and availability of LDCT.

Earlier diagnosis of lung cancer

The purpose of this article is to review options for more rapid diagnosis of lung cancer at an earlier stage, thereby improving survival. These options include screening, allowing general practitioners to refer patients directly to low-dose computed tomography scan instead of a chest X-ray and the abolition of the "visitation filter", i.e. hospital doctors' ability to reject referrals from general practitioners without prior discussion with the referring doctor.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND

Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part because of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, and increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not.

METHODS

Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, and key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses were performed when enough evidence was available. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in seven graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can impact this balance.

Results of Second Round Lung Cancer Screening by Low-Dose CT scan - French Cohort Study (DEP-KP80)

INTRODUCTION

Over the last few years, lung cancer screening by low-dose CT scan has demonstrated a decrease in lung cancer mortality. While this method has been in use since 2013 in the United States of America, no European country has yet implemented a systematic screening program. We hereby report the results from the second round of screening from a French cohort study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

DEP KP80 is a prospective study evaluating lung cancer screening by means of three low-dose computer tomography (CT) scans at 1-year intervals in 1,307 participants, aged 55 to 74 years old, all smokers or former smokers, having quit within the last 15 years, with over 30 pack years. The results of the first round demonstrated it was possible to conduct effective screening in real-life situations.

RESULTS

Participation was lower in this second round than in the first (35.3% vs. 73.1%, P < .001). The rate of negative results was significantly higher and that of undetermined results lower than those produced in the first round. Overall, 75% of cancers revealed were Stage 1 and 87.5% benefitted from surgical treatment. The incidence of cancer in the second round was 2.43%.

CONCLUSION

As with the first round, the results of this second round confirm the feasibility and efficacy of lung cancer screening. The lower participation rate for this second round is proof of the need to improve awareness among participants and healthcare professionals of the relevance of committing to an annual screening program.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report - Executive Summary

BACKGROUND

Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part due to the results of the National Lung Screening Trial. Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, as well as increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not.

METHODS

Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, as well as key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the GRADE approach. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and un-graded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in 7 graded recommendations and 9 ungraded consensus statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions, can impact this balance.

Risk stratification of indeterminate pulmonary nodules

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, with poor overall 5-year survival. Early detection and diagnosis are key to survival as demonstrated in lung cancer screening trials. However, with increasing implementation of screening guidelines and use of computed tomography, there has been a sharp rise in the incidence of indeterminate pulmonary nodules (IPNs). Risk stratification of IPNs, particularly those in the intermediate-risk category, remains challenging in clinical practice. Individual risk factors, imaging characteristics, biomarkers, and prediction models are currently used to assist in risk stratifying patients, but such strategies remain suboptimal. This review focuses on established risk stratification methods, current areas of research, and future directions.

RECENT FINDINGS

The multitude of yearly incidental and screening-detected IPNs, its management-related healthcare costs, and risk of invasive procedures provides a strong rationale for risk stratification efforts. The development of new molecular and imaging biomarkers to discriminate benign from malignant lung nodules shows great promise. Yet, risk stratification methods need integration into the diagnostic workflow and await validation in prospective, biomarker-driven clinical trials.

SUMMARY

Novel biomarkers and new imaging analysis, including radiomics and deep-learning methods, have been developed to optimize the risk stratification of IPNs. While promising, additional validation and clinical studies are needed before they can be part of routine clinical practice.

Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening by Chest Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis aims to combine and analyze randomized clinical trials comparing computed tomography lung screening (CTLS) versus either no screening (NS) or chest x-ray (CXR) in subjects with cigarette smoking history, to provide a precise and reliable estimation of the benefits and harms associated with CTLS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from all published randomized trials comparing CTLS versus either NS or CXR in a highly tobacco-exposed population were collected, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Subgroup analyses by comparator (NS or CXR) were performed. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and relative 95% CIs were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Nine eligible trials (88,497 patients) were included. Pooled analysis showed that CTLS is associated with: a significant reduction of lung cancer-related mortality (overall RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.98; NS RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.92); a significant increase of early-stage tumors diagnosis (overall RR, 2.84; 95% CI 1.76 to 4.58; NS RR, 3.33; 95% CI, 2.27 to 4.89; CXR RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.23); a significant decrease of late-stage tumors diagnosis (overall RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.83; NS RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.80); a significant increase of resectability rate (NS RR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.76 to 3.74); a nonsignificant reduction of all-cause mortality (overall RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.05); and a significant increase of overdiagnosis rate (NS, 38%; 95% CI, 14 to 63). The analysis of lung cancer-related mortality by sex revealed nonsignificant differences between men and women (P = .21; I-squared = 33.6%).

CONCLUSION

Despite there still being uncertainty about overdiagnosis estimate, this meta-analysis suggested that the CTLS benefits outweigh harms, in subjects with cigarette smoking history, ultimately supporting the systematic implementation of lung cancer screening worldwide.

The role of seven autoantibodies in lung cancer diagnosis

Background

To investigate the expression and diagnostic value of seven autoantibodies (P53, PGP9.5, SOX2, GAGE7, GBU4-5, MAGE, and CACE) in lung cancer patients.

Methods

A total of 370 patients were admitted to the Thoracic Surgery of the First Affiliated Hospital of Suzhou University from 2017 to 2019, including 305 patients with lung cancer and 65 patients with benign lesions. The concentrations of the seven autoantibodies were determined by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).The expression levels of each antibody were compared between the two groups, and the levels of each antibody between lung cancer patients with different pathological types were also compared. We aimed to analyze the diagnostic efficiency of single antibody detection combined with seven antibodies, and also to explore whether there were differences among the positive rates of each antibody in sex, age, smoking history, pathological classification, and clinical stages in the lung cancer group.

Results

The expression levels of seven autoantibodies in the lung cancer group were higher than those in the benign lesion group. In the lung cancer group, the expression levels of the seven autoantibodies did not vary statistically among different pathological types. The area under the curve of combined detection of the seven antibodies reached 0.735, and the Y-index reached 0.35, which was higher than that of single antibody detection. P53 exhibited the highest sensitivity and lowest specificity; meanwhile, PGP9.5, SOX2, GAGE7, GBU4-5, and MAGEA1 exhibited low sensitivity and high specificity. The sensitivity and specificity of the CAGE were approximately 60%, respectively. There was no statistical difference in the positive rate of each antibody in age, smoking history, and clinical stage. The positive rate of MAGEA1 and CAGE was statistically different in sex, and the positive rate of MAGEA1 was statistically different in pathological classification.

Conclusions

The seven autoantibodies of lung cancer can potentially be used as an auxiliary examination method for the early diagnosis of lung cancer.

[Lung cancer screening with low dose computed tomography : a systematic review]

INTRODUCTION

Bronchial cancer, often diagnosed at a late stage, is the leading cause of cancer death. As early detection could potentially lead to curative treatment, several studies have evaluated low-dose chest CT (LDCT) as a screening method. The main objective of this work is to determine the impact of LDCT screening on overall mortality of a smoking population.

METHODS

Systematic review of randomised controlled screening trials comparing LDCT with no screening or chest x-ray.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomised controlled trials were identified, seven of which reported mortality results. NSLT showed a significant reduction of 6.7% in overall mortality and 20% in lung cancer mortality after 6.5 years of follow-up. NELSON showed a significant reduction in lung cancer mortality of 24% at 10 years among men. LUSI and MILD showed a reduction in lung cancer mortality of 69% at 8 years among women and 39% at 10 years, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Screening for bronchial cancer is a complex issue. Clarification is needed regarding the selection of individuals, the definition of a positive result and the attitude towards a suspicious nodule.

Patients with atherosclerotic peripheral arterial disease have a high risk of lung cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of literature

PURPOSE

Lung cancer and atherosclerosis share common risk factors. Literature data suggest that the prevalence of lung malignancy in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is higher than in the general population. Our goal was to determine, through a systematic literature review, the prevalence of lung cancer in patients with PAD.

METHODS

We consulted available publications in the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included all articles, written in English or French, published between 1990 and 2020 reporting the prevalence of lung cancer in patients with PAD (atherosclerotic aortic aneurysm or peripheral occlusive diseases). Patients with coronary artery disease, cardiac valvulopathy or carotid stenosis were not included. We did not include case reports. We performed a critical analysis of each article. Data were collected from two independent readers. A fixed effect model meta-analysis allowed to estimate a summary prevalence rate.

RESULTS

We identified 303 articles, and selected 19 articles according to selection criteria. A total of 16849 patients were included (mean age 68.3 years, 75.1% of males). Aortic aneurysms were found in 29% of patients and atherosclerotic occlusive disease in 66% of patients. Lung cancer was identified in 538 patients, representing a prevalence of 3%.

DISCUSSION

Lung cancer is found in 3% of patients with atherosclerotic PAD. This prevalence is higher than that found in lung cancer screening programs performed in the general population of smokers and former smokers. These patients should be screened for lung cancer. Their selection may dramatically increase the benefit of lung cancer screening.

Screening for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the US.

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence on screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through May 2019; references; experts; and literature surveillance through November 20, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language studies of screening with LDCT, accuracy of LDCT, risk prediction models, or treatment for early-stage lung cancer.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings. Data were not pooled because of heterogeneity of populations and screening protocols.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Lung cancer incidence, lung cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, test accuracy, and harms.

RESULTS

This review included 223 publications. Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (N = 86 486) evaluated lung cancer screening with LDCT; the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST, N = 53 454) and Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON, N = 15 792) were the largest RCTs. Participants were more likely to benefit than the US screening-eligible population (eg, based on life expectancy). The NLST found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.96]; number needed to screen [NNS] to prevent 1 lung cancer death, 323 over 6.5 years of follow-up) with 3 rounds of annual LDCT screening compared with chest radiograph for high-risk current and former smokers aged 55 to 74 years. NELSON found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (IRR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61-0.90]; NNS to prevent 1 lung cancer death of 130 over 10 years of follow-up) with 4 rounds of LDCT screening with increasing intervals compared with no screening for high-risk current and former smokers aged 50 to 74 years. Harms of screening included radiation-induced cancer, false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, and increases in distress. For every 1000 persons screened in the NLST, false-positive results led to 17 invasive procedures (number needed to harm, 59) and fewer than 1 person having a major complication. Overdiagnosis estimates varied greatly (0%-67% chance that a lung cancer was overdiagnosed). Incidental findings were common, and estimates varied widely (4.4%-40.7% of persons screened).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Screening high-risk persons with LDCT can reduce lung cancer mortality but also causes false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, increases in distress, and, rarely, radiation-induced cancers. Most studies reviewed did not use current nodule evaluation protocols, which might reduce false-positive results and invasive procedures for false-positive results.

Real-World Lung Cancer CT Screening Performance, Smoking Behavior, and Adherence to Recommendations: Lung-RADS Category and Smoking Status Predict Adherence

BACKGROUND. Low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening (LCS) has been shown to decrease mortality in persons with a significant smoking history. However, adherence in real-world LCS programs is significantly lower than in randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to assess real-world LDCT LCS performance and factors predictive of adherence to LCS recommendations. METHODS. We retrospectively identified all persons who underwent at least two LCS examinations from 2014 to 2019. Patient demographics, smoking history and behavior changes, Lung-RADS category, PPV, NPV, and adherence to screening recommendations were recorded. Predictors of adherence were assessed via univariate comparisons and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS. A total of 260 persons returned for follow-up LDCT (57.7% had two, 34.2% had three, 7.7% had four, and 0.4% had five LDCT examinations). A total of 43 of 260 (16.5%) had positive (Lung-RADS category 3 or above) scans, of which 27 of 260 persons (10.3%) were graded as Lung-RADS category 3, eight of 260 (3.1%) were category 4A, six of 260 (2.3%) were category 4B, and two of 260 (0.8%) were category 4X. Cancer was diagnosed in four of the 260 (three with lung cancer and one with metastatic melanoma). A total of 143 of 260 (55.0%) persons were current smokers at baseline and 121 of 260 (46.5%) were current smokers at the last round of LCS. LCS had sensitivity of 100.0%, specificity of 84.8%, PPV of 9.3%, and NPV of 100%. Overall adherence was 43.0% but increased progressively with higher Lung-RADS category (Lung-RADS 1: 33.2%; Lung-RADS 2: 46.3%; Lung-RADS 3: 53.8%; Lung-RADS 4A: 77.8%; Lung-RADS 4B: 83.3%; Lung-RADS 4X: 100%; p < .001). was also higher in former versus current smokers (50.0% vs 36.2%; p < .001). Being a former smoker and having a nodule that is Lung-RADS category 3 or greater were the only significant independent predictors of adherence. CONCLUSION. Our real-world LCS program showed very high sensitivity and NPV, but moderate specificity and very low PPV. Adherence to LCS recommendations increased with former versus current smokers and in those with positive (Lung-RADS categories 3, 4A, 4B, or 4X) LCS examinations. Adherence was less than 50.0% in current smokers and persons with negative (Lung-RADS categories 1 or 2) LCS examinations. CLINICAL IMPACT. Our results offer a road map for targeted performance improvement by focusing on LCS subjects less likely to remain in the program, such as persons with negative LCS examinations and persons who continue to smoke, potentially improving LCS cost effectiveness and maximizing its societal benefits.

Clinical Utility of microRNAs in Exhaled Breath Condensate as Biomarkers for Lung Cancer

This study represents a novel proof of concept of the clinical utility of miRNAs from exhaled breath condensate (EBC) as biomarkers of lung cancer (LC). Genome-wide miRNA profiling and machine learning analysis were performed on EBC from 21 healthy volunteers and 21 LC patients. The levels of 12 miRNAs were significantly altered in EBC from LC patients where a specific signature of miR-4507, miR-6777-5p and miR-451a distinguished these patients with high accuracy. Besides, a distinctive miRNA profile between LC adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma was observed, where a combined panel of miR-4529-3p, miR-8075 and miR-7704 enabling discrimination between them. EBC levels of miR-6777-5p, 6780a-5p and miR-877-5p predicted clinical outcome at 500 days. Two additional miRNA signatures were also associated with other clinical features such as stage and invasion status. Dysregulated EBC miRNAs showed potential target genes related to LC pathogenesis, including CDKN2B, PTEN, TP53, BCL2, KRAS and EGFR. We conclude that EBC miRNAs might allow the identification, stratification and monitorization of LC, which could lead to the development of precision medicine in this and other respiratory diseases.

Establishment and validation of a prediction model for the probability of malignancy in solid solitary pulmonary nodules in northwest China

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To construct a prediction model of solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs), to predict the possibility of malignant SPNs in patients aged 15-85 years in northwest China for clinical diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making.

METHODS

The features of SPNs were assessed by multivariate logistic regression, followed by visualization using a nomogram. Hosmer lemeshow was applied to evaluate the fitting degree of the model. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was identified to determine the discriminative ability of the model.

RESULTS

Lobulation, spiculation, pleural-tag, carcinoembryonic antigen, neuron-specific enolase, and total serum protein were independent predictors of malignant pulmonary nodules (p < .05). Lobulation (100 points) scored the highest in the nomogram, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic was 0.805 (p > .05). The area under curve (AUC) of the modeling and validation groups using logistic regression were 0.859 (95% CI, 0.805-0.903) and 0.823 (95% CI, 0.738-0.890), respectively. Moreover, the AUC of our model was higher than that of the Mayo model, VA model, and Peking University (AUC 0.823 vs. 0.655 vs. 0.603 vs. 0.521).

CONCLUSION

Our prediction model is more suitable for predicting the possibility of malignant SPNs in northwest China, and can be calculated using a nomogram to determine further treatments.

Clinic image surveillance reduces mortality in patients with primary hepato-gastrointestinal cancer who develop second primary lung cancer: A STROBE-compliant retrospective study

Second primary cancer is prevalent in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, for which lung cancer is the most common and associated with high lethality. Image screening for lung cancer was proved to be effective in early diagnosis and lower mortality. However, trials of screen for lung cancer generally excluded patients with a previous diagnosis of malignancy. The study aimed to investigate the outcome of second primary lung cancer and the factor that improve survival in patients with hepato-GI cancer.A total of 276 patients with secondary lung cancer were found among 3723 newly-diagnosed lung cancer patients diagnosed in Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, between 2010 and 2014. Patients' clinical characteristics, stages and survival were recorded and analyzed. The patients were separated into 2 groups: Group I was defined as lung cancer detected in original primary cancer clinic and group II patients defined as lung cancer detected in other medical places.Sixty-nine cases with primary GI-hepatic and secondary lung cancer were diagnosed (42 (60.8%) in Group I and 27 (39.1%) in Group II). Although both groups had comparable primary cancer stages and treatment, more patients in Group I than Group II were diagnosed as early stage lung cancer (stage I-II: 40.5% vs 11.1%; P = .023). Group II had larger lung tumor sizes than Group I (4.7 vs 3.5 cm; P = .025). Group I showed better 5-year overall survival than Group II (P = .014, median survival: 27 vs 10 months). Among Group II, only 37% had received image follow up in clinic compared with 67% of Group I cases (P = .025). Patients with chest image follow up in clinics also had better 5-year overall survival (P = .043).GI-hepatic cancer was the most common primary malignancy in the lung cancer cohort. Patients had better survival outcome when secondary lung cancer was diagnosed in original primary cancer clinic. Chest image screening strategy may contribute better survival in secondary lung cancer due to detection at an earlier stage.

Low-dose chest computed tomographic screening and invasive diagnosis of pulmonary nodules for lung cancer in never-smokers

BACKGROUND

Although lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is now widely used in clinical practice, the characteristics and outcomes of diagnostic procedures related to screen-detected nodules in never-smokers remain unclear. We aimed to determine the incidence of nodules considered for invasive biopsy and evaluate the final diagnoses and procedure-related complications in never-smokers in comparison to ever-smokers who underwent LDCT screening.

METHODS

We evaluated 37 436 asymptomatic adults (17 968 never-smokers and 19 468 ever-smokers) who underwent LDCT screening for lung cancer between January 2009 and December 2018 at a tertiary centre in South Korea. The rates of invasive diagnostic procedures for detected nodules and related complications, and the diagnostic outcomes were determined in the never-smoker and ever-smoker groups.

RESULTS

Among the never-smokers, 2908 (16.2%) out of 17 968 had positive nodules. Overall, 139 (0.77%) out of 17 968 never-smokers and 194 (1.00%) out of 19 468 ever-smokers underwent invasive biopsy (p=0.022). Lung cancer was diagnosed in 84 (0.47%) out of 17 968 never-smokers and 123 (0.63%) out of 19 468 ever-smokers (p=0.032). The proportions of participants diagnosed with benign disease after invasive biopsy (false-positive) were 50 (0.28%) out of 17 968 and 69 (0.35%) out of 19 468 in the never-smoker and ever-smoker groups, respectively (p=0.191). Multivariate analyses revealed no significant associations of smoking with the risk of a false-positive diagnosis (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.62-1.57) and complications (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.65-3.73) after biopsy. Of the 84 never-smokers with lung cancer, 82 (97.6%) had adenocarcinoma, and 75 (89.3%) were in stage I with a favourable prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

LDCT screening in never-smokers resulted in a notable detection rate of lung nodules, which warranted invasive biopsy. The lung cancer detection rate was lower in never-smokers than in ever-smokers. However, no significant differences in the false-positive and complication rates were observed between the two groups. Accordingly, a more specifically tailored management strategy is needed for screen-detected nodules in Asian never-smokers.

9G TestTM Cancer/Lung: A Desirable Companion to LDCT for Lung Cancer Screening

Simple Summary

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Patients diagnosed at early-stage (0–I) have a higher survival rate than the metastasized stages (III–IV). Thus, there is great potential to reduce mortality by diagnosing lung cancer at stage 0~I through community screening. LDCT is a promising method, but it has a high false-positive rate. Therefore, a biomarker test that can be used in combination with LDCT for lung cancer screening to reduce false-positive rates is highly awaited. The present study evaluated the applicability of 9G test^TM Cancer/Lung test to detect stage 0~IV lung cancer. 9G test^TM Cancer/Lung test detects stage I, stage II, stage III, and stage IV cancers with the sensitivities of 77.5%, 78.1%, 67.4%, and 33.3%, respectively, at the specificity of 97.3%. These results indicate that the 9G test^TM Cancer/Lung can be used in conjunction with LDCT to screen lung cancer.

Abstract

A complimentary biomarker test that can be used in combination with LDCT for lung cancer screening is highly desirable to improve the diagnostic capacity of LDCT and reduce the false-positive rates. Most importantly, the stage I lung cancer detection rate can be dramatically increased by the simultaneous use of a biomarker test with LDCT. The present study was conducted to evaluate 9G test^TM Cancer/Lung’s sensitivity and specificity in detecting Stage 0~IV lung cancer. The obtained results indicate that the 9G test^TM Cancer/Lung can detect lung cancer with overall sensitivity and specificity of 75.0% (69.1~80.3) and 97.3% (95.0~98.8), respectively. The detection of stage I, stage II, stage III, and stage IV cancers with sensitivities of 77.5%, 78.1%, 67.4%, and 33.3%, respectively, at the specificity of 97.3% have never been reported before. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis allowed us to determine the population-weighted AUC of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91–0.95). These results indicate that the 9G test^TM Cancer/Lung can be used in conjunction with LDCT to screen lung cancer. Furthermore, obtained results indicate that the use of 9G test^TM Cancer/Lung with LDCT for lung cancer screening can increase stage I cancer detection, which is crucial to improve the currently low 5-year survival rates.

Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT: a Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening on lung cancer (LC) outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

Meta-analyze LDCT lung cancer screening trials.

METHODS

We identified studies by searching PubMed, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov , and reference lists from retrieved publications. We abstracted data on study design features, stage I LC diagnoses, LC and overall mortality, false positive results, harm from invasive diagnostic procedures, overdiagnosis, and significant incidental findings. We assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We used random-effects models to calculate relative risks and assessed effect modulators with subgroup analyses and meta-regression.

RESULTS

We identified 9 studies that enrolled 96,559 subjects. The risk of bias across studies was judged to be low. Overall, LDCT screening significantly increased the detection of stage I LC, RR = 2.93 (95% CI, 2.16-3.98), I² = 19%, and reduced LC mortality, RR = 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75-0.93), I² = 0%. The number needed to screen to prevent an LC death was 265. Women had a lower risk of LC death (RR = 0.69, 95% CI, 0.40-1.21) than men (RR = 0.86, 95% CI, 0.66-1.13), p value for interaction = 0.11. LDCT screening did not reduce overall mortality, RR = 0.96 (95% CI, 0.91-1.01), I² = 0%. The pooled false positive rate was 8% (95% CI, 4-18); subjects with false positive results had < 1 in 1000 risk of major complications following invasive diagnostic procedures. The most valid estimates for overdiagnosis and significant incidental findings were 8.9% and 7.5%, respectively.

DISCUSSION

LDCT screening significantly reduced LC mortality, though not overall mortality, with women appearing to benefit more than men. The estimated risks for false positive results, screening complications, overdiagnosis, and incidental findings were low. Long-term survival data were available only for North American and European studies limiting generalizability.

Biopsy of lung lesions under CT control

OBJECTIVES

With the increasing number of detected lung nodules and the need for morphological verification, the number of CT- controlled biopsies is increasing. The aim of this study was to assess the risks and benefits of these biopsies.

METHODS

This is a prospective and observational study. We evaluated 101 punctures performed on a group of 90 consecutive patients in the Department of Radiology.

RESULTS

In patients with a mean age of 66 years, with mostly accidentally detected lung nodules, we observed complications 38 times. The most common were minor pneumothoraxes or insignificant bleedings. In 6 patients, the complications were more serious, 5 times the pneumothoraxes required chest drainage, once massive hemoptysis was recorded. The lesions were successfully biopsied 78 times, the target was missed 23 times. The diagnosis of lung cancer (LC) was confirmed in 60 patients, 49 LCs were verified by puncture under CT control. 42% (25/60) of patients with LC were diagnosed in TNM stages I and II. 23% (14/60) of patients with LC were treated surgically. The remaining 30 patients most often suffered from lung metastazes (13/30), in 8 of them an inflammatory lung disease was diagnosed. 69 patients underwent bronchoscopy, in only 19% (13/69) it contributed to the diagnosis. In a model "screening like" group of 49 patients with only randomly detected lung deposits, we diagnosed LC in 76% (37/49). 49% (18/37) were in TNM stage I and II, 11 were treated surgically.

CONCLUSIONS

CT-controlled biopsy of lung lesions is an effective and safe diagnostic method.

A practical and adaptive approach to lung cancer screening: a review of international evidence and position on CT lung cancer screening in the Singaporean population by the College of Radiologists Singapore

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death around the world, being the top cause of cancer-related deaths among men and the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths among women in Singapore. Currently, no screening programme for lung cancer exists in Singapore. Since there is mounting evidence indicating a different epidemiology of lung cancer in Asian countries, including Singapore, compared to the rest of the world, a unique and adaptive approach must be taken for a screening programme to be successful at reducing mortality while maintaining cost-effectiveness and a favourable risk-benefit ratio. This review article promotes the use of low-dose computed tomography of the chest and explores the radiological challenges and future directions.

Volatile organic compounds in human matrices as lung cancer biomarkers: a systematic review

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have shown potential as non-invasive breath biomarkers for lung cancer, but their unclear biological origin currently limits clinical applications. This systematic review explores headspace analysis of VOCs in patient-derived body fluids and lung cancer cell lines to pinpoint lung cancer-specific VOCs and uncover their biological origin. A search was performed in the databases MEDLINE and Web of Science. Twenty-two articles were included in this systematic review. Since there is no standardised approach to analyse VOCs, a plethora of techniques and matrices/cell lines were explored, which is reflected in the various VOCs identified. However, comparing VOCs in the headspace of urine, blood and pleural effusions from patients and lung cancer cell lines showed some overlapping VOCs, indicating their potential use in lung cancer diagnosis. This review demonstrates that VOCs are promising biomarkers for lung cancer. However, due to lack of inter-matrix consensus, standardised prospective trials will have to be conducted to validate clinically relevant biomarkers.

Smoking pattern and risk of lung cancer among women participating in cancer screening programmes

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to describe the smoking prevalence, the smoking pattern, and the risk of lung cancer among women who participated in a cancer screening (breast, cervical and colorectal) in Spain.

METHODS

We used data from the Spanish National Health Survey of 2011-12, a cross-sectional study of the adult Spanish population from women in the age of participation in the population cancer screening. We used two definitions of the high risk of lung cancer according to the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) criteria and the NELSON criteria.

RESULTS

Participation in screening was 76.6% in breast cancer, 6.6% in colorectal cancer, and 70.3% in cervical cancer. The percentage of current smokers was 17.1 of women who participated breast cancer, 15.4 of women who participated colorectal cancer, and 26.1 of women who participated cervical cancer. According to NLST criteria, the percentage of current smokers women who had a high risk of lung cancer was 23.1 for breast cancer, 23.5 for colorectal cancer and 4.5 for cervical cancer. These figures were higher with the NELSON criteria.

CONCLUSION

At least 250 000 women in Spain have a high risk of lung cancer and are participating in a cancer screening programme. These programmes might be an opportunity for implementing specific interventions aiming to reduce this risk.

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.Key Points• Pulmonologists and radiologists both have key roles in the set up of multidisciplinary LCS teams with experts from many other fields.• Pulmonologists identify people eligible for LCS, reach out to family doctors, share the decision-making process and promote tobacco cessation.• Radiologists ensure appropriate image quality, minimum dose and a standardised reading/reporting algorithm, together with a clear definition of a "positive screen".• Strict algorithms define the exact management of screen-detected nodules and incidental findings.• For LCS to be (cost-)effective, it has to target a population defined by risk prediction models.

Evaluate the Malignancy of Pulmonary Nodules Using the 3-D Deep Leaky Noisy-OR Network

Automatic diagnosing lung cancer from computed tomography scans involves two steps: detect all suspicious lesions (pulmonary nodules) and evaluate the whole-lung/pulmonary malignancy. Currently, there are many studies about the first step, but few about the second step. Since the existence of nodule does not definitely indicate cancer, and the morphology of nodule has a complicated relationship with cancer, the diagnosis of lung cancer demands careful investigations on every suspicious nodule and integration of information of all nodules. We propose a 3-D deep neural network to solve this problem. The model consists of two modules. The first one is a 3-D region proposal network for nodule detection, which outputs all suspicious nodules for a subject. The second one selects the top five nodules based on the detection confidence, evaluates their cancer probabilities, and combines them with a leaky noisy-OR gate to obtain the probability of lung cancer for the subject. The two modules share the same backbone network, a modified U-net. The overfitting caused by the shortage of the training data is alleviated by training the two modules alternately. The proposed model won the first place in the Data Science Bowl 2017 competition.

Multi-resolution convolutional networks for chest X-ray radiograph based lung nodule detection

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Early detection of lung cancer is helpful to provide the best possible clinical treatment for patients. Due to the limited number of radiologist and the huge number of chest x-ray radiographs (CXR) available for observation, a computer-aided detection scheme should be developed to assist radiologists in decision-making. While deep learning showed state-of-the-art performance in several computer vision applications, it has not been used for lung nodule detection on CXR. In this paper, a deep learning-based lung nodule detection method was proposed. We employed patch-based multi-resolution convolutional networks to extract the features and employed four different fusion methods for classification. The proposed method shows much better performance and is much more robust than those previously reported researches. For publicly available Japanese Society of Radiological Technology (JSRT) database, more than 99% of lung nodules can be detected when the false positives per image (FPs/image) was 0.2. The FAUC and R-CPM of the proposed method were 0.982 and 0.987, respectively. The proposed approach has the potential of applications in clinical practice.

Lung Cancer Screening, Version 3.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States and worldwide. Early detection of lung cancer is an important opportunity for decreasing mortality. Data support using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) of the chest to screen select patients who are at high risk for lung cancer. Lung screening is covered under the Affordable Care Act for individuals with high-risk factors. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) covers annual screening LDCT for appropriate Medicare beneficiaries at high risk for lung cancer if they also receive counseling and participate in shared decision-making before screening. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening provides recommendations for initial and subsequent LDCT screening and provides more detail about LDCT screening. This manuscript focuses on identifying patients at high risk for lung cancer who are candidates for LDCT of the chest and on evaluating initial screening findings.

[Lung cancer screening]

CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in 2011 was able to prove for the first time that screening with a low-dose CT can reduce lung carcinoma mortality by 20%. Despite the positive outcome of the NLST, there is-unlike in the USA-currently no systematic lung cancer screening in Europe. This is partly because several significantly smaller screening studies in Europe failed to show any improvement in lung cancer mortality.

STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS

On the other hand, Europe's healthcare systems differ substantially from those in the United States, so that a direct transfer of US experience to Europe is not possible. For this reason, guidelines for lung cancer screening must be developed in the individual European countries to ensure that lung cancer mortality can be reduced by means of a quality-assured and cost-effective lung cancer screening.

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The experience and the expected results of the European screening studies can provide valuable help for these purposes.

Effects of low-dose computed tomography on lung cancer screening: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

The Nelson mortality results were presented in September 2018. Four other randomized control trials (RCTs) were also reported the latest mortality outcomes in 2018 and 2019. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis to update the evidence and investigate the benefits and harms of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in lung cancer screening.

METHODS

Detailed electronic database searches were performed to identify reports of RCTs that comparing LDCT to any other type of lung cancer screening. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using random effects models.

RESULTS

We identified nine RCTs (n = 97,244 participants). In pooled analyses LDCT reduced lung cancer mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.76-0.90, I2 = 1%) but had no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90-1.00). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) confirmed the results of our meta-analysis. Subgroup defined by high quality trials benefitted from LDCT screening in reducing lung cancer mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73-0.91, I2 = 7%), whereas no benefit observed in other low quality RCTs. LDCT was associated with detection of a significantly higher number of early stage lung cancers than the control. No significant difference (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.30-1.33) was found in mortality after invasive procedures between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In meta-analysis based on sufficient evidence demonstrated by TSA suggests that LDCT screening is superiority over usual care in lung cancer survival. The benefit of LDCT is expected to be heavily influenced by the risk of lung cancer in the different target group (smoking status, Asian) being screened.

Second round results from the Manchester 'Lung Health Check' community-based targeted lung cancer screening pilot

We report results from the second annual screening round (T1) of Manchester's 'Lung Health Check' pilot of community-based lung cancer screening in deprived areas (undertaken June to August 2017). Screening adherence was 90% (n=1194/1323): 92% of CT scans were classified negative, 6% indeterminate and 2.5% positive; there were no interval cancers. Lung cancer incidence was 1.6% (n=19), 79% stage I, treatments included surgery (42%, n=9), stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (26%, n=5) and radical radiotherapy (5%, n=1). False-positive rate was 34.5% (n=10/29), representing 0.8% of T1 participants (n=10/1194). Targeted community-based lung cancer screening promotes high screening adherence and detects high rates of early stage lung cancer.

Lung cancer mortality reduction by LDCT screening-Results from the randomized German LUSI trial

In 2011, the U.S. National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST) reported a 20% reduction of lung cancer mortality after regular screening by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), as compared to X-ray screening. The introduction of lung cancer screening programs in Europe awaits confirmation of these first findings from European trials that started in parallel with the NLST. The German Lung cancer Screening Intervention (LUSI) is a randomized trial among 4,052 long-term smokers, 50-69 years of age, recruited from the general population, comparing five annual rounds of LDCT screening (screening arm; n = 2,029 participants) with a control arm (n = 2,023) followed by annual postal questionnaire inquiries. Data on lung cancer incidence and mortality and vital status were collected from hospitals or office-based physicians, cancer registries, population registers and health offices. Over an average observation time of 8.8 years after randomization, the hazard ratio for lung cancer mortality was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.46-1.19; p = 0.21) among men and women combined. Modeling by sex, however showed a statistically significant reduction in lung cancer mortality among women (HR = 0.31 [95% CI: 0.10-0.96], p = 0.04), but not among men (HR = 0.94 [95% CI: 0.54-1.61], p = 0.81) screened by LDCT (p_{heterogeneity} = 0.09). Findings from LUSI are in line with those from other trials, including NLST, that suggest a stronger reduction of lung cancer mortality after LDCT screening among women as compared to men. This heterogeneity could be the result of different relative counts of lung tumor subtypes occurring in men and women.

Risk factors associated with an increase in the size of ground-glass lung nodules on chest computed tomography

BACKGROUND

The detection rate of ground-glass nodules (GGNs) in the lung has increased with the increased use of low-dose computed tomography (CT) of the chest for cancer screening; however, limited data is available on the natural history, follow-up, and treatment of GGNs. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with an increase in the size of GGNs.

METHODS

A total of 338 patients (mean ages, 59.8 years; males, 35.5%) with 689 nodules who underwent chest CT at our institute between June 2004 and February 2014 were included in this study. The cut-off date of follow-up was August 2018. We analyzed the size, solidity, number, and margins of the nodules compared with their appearance on previous chest CT images. The Cox proportional hazard model was used to identify risk factors associated with nodule growth.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 21.8 months. Of the 338 patients, 38.5% had a history of malignancy, including lung cancer (8.9%). Among the 689 nodules, the median size of the lesions was 6.0 mm (IQR, 5-8 mm), and the proportion of nodules with size ≥10 mm and multiplicity was 17.1% and 66.3%, respectively. Compared to the nodules without an increase in size, the 79 nodules with an increase in size during the follow-up period were initially larger (growth group, 7.0 mm vs. non-growth group, 6.0 mm; P = 0.027), more likely to have a size ≥10 mm (26.6% vs. 15.9%; P = 0.018), and had less frequent multiplicity (54.4% vs. 67.9%, P = 0.028). In the multivariate analysis, nodule size ≥10 mm (hazard ratio [HR], 2.044; P = 0.005), a patient history of lung cancer (HR: 2.190, P = 0.006), and solitary nodule (HR: 2.499, P < 0.001) were independent risk factors for nodule growth.

CONCLUSION

Careful follow-up of GGNs is warranted in patients with a history of malignancy, a large , or a solitary nodule.

Awareness and interest in lung cancer screening among current and former smokers: findings from the ITC United States Survey

PURPOSE

To examine the awareness of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening among a population of current and former smokers using a nationally representative sample from the United States.

METHODS

Data for this study come from Wave 9 of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) United States Survey, conducted between 2013 and 2015. Among respondents age ≥ 40 (n = 1145), a 50% random sample were asked a series of questions pertaining to lung cancer screening. This study examines awareness and screening behaviors in relationship to demographic characteristics of respondents, health beliefs, psychosocial behaviors, and smoking behaviors. Descriptive tables and χ² tests were used to examine the association between those who were aware and unaware. Logistic regression analyses were conducted, stratified on respondents' smoking status. Data were weighed to be representative of the current smoking population in the US.

RESULTS

Overall, 52% of current and former smokers reported being aware of lung cancer screening. Among the group with no prior screening, 80.6% said they would take a lung cancer screening exam if recommended by their physician. In the multivariate models, former smokers had significantly greater awareness of lung cancer screening compared to current smokers [odds ratio 1.42 (95% confidence interval 1.03, 1.97)].

CONCLUSIONS

Awareness of LDCT lung cancer screening was lower among current smokers compared to former smokers. Most smokers who had not ever been screened said they would have lung cancer screening if it were recommended by their physician, demonstrating the need for healthcare providers to encourage those eligible for screening to take the test.

Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of lung cancer frequently occurs in its later stages. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could detect lung cancer early.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LDCT lung cancer screening in high-risk populations.

DATA SOURCES

Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library.

METHODS

Clinical effectiveness - a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDCT screening programmes with usual care (no screening) or other imaging screening programmes [such as chest X-ray (CXR)] was conducted. Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Meta-analyses, including network meta-analyses, were performed. Cost-effectiveness - an independent economic model employing discrete event simulation and using a natural history model calibrated to results from a large RCT was developed. There were 12 different population eligibility criteria and four intervention frequencies [(1) single screen, (2) triple screen, (3) annual screening and (4) biennial screening] and a no-screening control arm.

RESULTS

Clinical effectiveness - 12 RCTs were included, four of which currently contribute evidence on mortality. Meta-analysis of these demonstrated that LDCT, with ≤ 9.80 years of follow-up, was associated with a non-statistically significant decrease in lung cancer mortality (pooled relative risk 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.19). The findings also showed that LDCT screening demonstrated a non-statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality. Given the considerable heterogeneity detected between studies for both outcomes, the results should be treated with caution. Network meta-analysis, including six RCTs, was performed to assess the relative clinical effectiveness of LDCT, CXR and usual care. The results showed that LDCT was ranked as the best screening strategy in terms of lung cancer mortality reduction. CXR had a 99.7% probability of being the worst intervention and usual care was ranked second. Cost-effectiveness - screening programmes are predicted to be more effective than no screening, reduce lung cancer mortality and result in more lung cancer diagnoses. Screening programmes also increase costs. Screening for lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), but may be cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000/QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a single screen in smokers aged 60-75 years with at least a 3% risk of lung cancer is £28,169 per QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Screening was only cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/QALY in only a minority of analyses.

LIMITATIONS

Clinical effectiveness - the largest of the included RCTs compared LDCT with CXR screening rather than no screening. Cost-effectiveness - a representative cost to the NHS of lung cancer has not been recently estimated according to key variables such as stage at diagnosis. Certain costs associated with running a screening programme have not been included.

CONCLUSIONS

LDCT screening may be clinically effective in reducing lung cancer mortality, but there is considerable uncertainty. There is evidence that a single round of screening could be considered cost-effective at conventional thresholds, but there is significant uncertainty about the effect on costs and the magnitude of benefits.

FUTURE WORK

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness estimates should be updated with the anticipated results from several ongoing RCTs [particularly the NEderlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) screening trial].

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016048530.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Lung Cancer Screening

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in both men and women. Smoking is the single greatest risk factor for the development of lung cancer. For patients between the age of 55 and 80 with 30 or more pack years smoking history who currently smoke or who have quit within the last 15 years should undergo lung cancer screening with low-dose CT. In patients who do not meet these criteria but who have additional risk factors for lung cancer, lung cancer screening with low-dose CT is controversial but may be appropriate. Imaging is not recommended for lung cancer screening of patient younger than 50 years of age or patients older than 80 years of age or patients of any age with less than 20 packs per year history of smoking and no additional risk factor (ie, radon exposure, occupational exposure, cancer history, family history of lung cancer, history of COPD, or history of pulmonary fibrosis). The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Validation of lesion simulations in clinical CT data for anonymized chest and abdominal CT databases

PURPOSE

To make available to the medical imaging community a computed tomography (CT) image database composed of hybrid datasets (patient CT images with digitally inserted anthropomorphic lesions) where lesion ground truth is known a priori. It is envisioned that such a dataset could be a resource for the assessment of CT image quality, machine learning, and imaging technologies [e.g., computer aided detection (CAD) and segmentation algorithms].

ACQUISITION AND VALIDATION METHODS

This HIPPA compliant, IRB waiver of approval study consisted of utilizing 120 chest and 100 abdominal clinically acquired adult CT exams. One image series per patient exam was utilized based on coverage of the anatomical region of interest (either the thorax or abdomen). All image series were de-identified. Simulated lesions were derived from a library of anatomically informed digital lesions (93 lung and 50 liver lesions) where six and four digital lesions with nominal diameters ranging from 4 to 20 mm were inserted into lung and liver image series, respectively. Locations for lesion insertion were randomly chosen. A previously validated lesion simulation and virtual insertion technique were utilized. The resulting hybrid images were reviewed by three experienced radiologists to assure similarity with routine clinical imaging in a diverse adult population.

DATA FORMAT AND USAGE NOTES

The database is composed of four datasets that contain 100 patient cases each, for a total of 400 image series accompanied by Matlab.mat tables that provide descriptive information about the virtually inserted lesions (i.e., size, shape, opacity, and insertion location in physical (world) coordinates and voxel indices). All image and metadata are stored in DICOM format on the Quantitative Imaging Data Warehouse (https://qidw.rsna.org/#collection/57d463471cac0a4ec8ff8f46/folder/5b23dceb1cac0a4ec800a770?dialog=login), in two sets: (a) QIBA CT Hybrid Dataset I which contains Lung I and Liver I datasets, and (b) QIBA CT Hybrid Dataset II which contains Lung II and Liver II datasets. The QIDW is supported by the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA). Registration is required upon initial log in.

POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS

By simulating lesion opacity (full solid, part solid and ground glass), size, and texture, the relationship between lesion morphology and segmentation or CAD algorithm performance can be investigated without the need for repetitive patient exams. This database can also serve as a reference standard for device and reader performance studies.

Do we know enough about the effect of low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer on survival to act? A systematic review, meta-analysis and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of lung cancer frequently occurs in its later stages. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could detect lung cancer early.

METHODS

Our objective was to estimate the effect of LDCT lung cancer screening on mortality in high-risk populations. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDCT screening programmes with usual care (no screening) or other imaging screening programme (such as chest X-ray (CXR)) was conducted. RCTs of CXR screening were additionally included in the network meta-analysis. Bibliographic sources including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched to January 2017. All key review steps were done by two persons. Quality assessment used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Four RCTs were included. More will provide data in the future. Meta-analysis demonstrated that LDCT screening with up to 9.80 years of follow-up was associated with a statistically non-significant decrease in lung cancer mortality (pooled relative risk (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.19; p = 0.62). There was a statistically non-significant increase in all-cause mortality. Given the considerable heterogeneity for both outcomes, the results should be treated with caution.Network meta-analysis including the four original RCTs plus two further RCTs assessed the relative effectiveness of LDCT, CXR and usual care. The results showed that in terms of lung cancer mortality reduction LDCT was ranked as the best screening strategy, CXR screening as the worst strategy and usual care intermediate.

CONCLUSIONS

LDCT screening may be effective in reducing lung cancer mortality but there is considerable uncertainty: the largest of the RCTs compared LDCT with CXR screening rather than no screening; there is imprecision of the estimates; and there is important heterogeneity between the included study results. The uncertainty about the effect on all-cause mortality is even greater. Maturing trials may resolve the uncertainty.