Results of the Randomized Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial with Focus on High-Risk Profiling

[Lung cancer screening: new frontiers]

CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. In early, asymptomatic stages, curative treatment is possible, but the disease is often diagnosed too late.

STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS

Lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) helps to detect potentially malignant lesions in early stages and to reduce lung cancer mortality.

METHODOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS

The application of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms enables a more precise analysis of LDCT scans.

PERFORMANCE

A meta-analysis of eight LCS studies revealed a statistically significant 12% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality.

ACHIEVEMENTS

Based on strong scientific evidence, a recommendation for a structured lung cancer screening program using LDCT for the high-risk population in Germany was issued.

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The holistic LCS program requires a clear definition of the high-risk population, individual risk assessment, qualified personnel for conducting and reading examinations, verification of all diagnostic and therapeutic steps, central documentation and quality assurance, as well as the integration of tobacco cessation programs.

Lung cancer screening in Brazil: recommendations from the Brazilian Society of Thoracic Surgery, Brazilian Thoracic Association, and Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging

Although lung cancer (LC) is one of the most common and lethal tumors, only 15% of patients are diagnosed at an early stage. Smoking is still responsible for more than 85% of cases. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) reduces LC-related mortality by 20%, and that reduction reaches 38% when LCS by LDCT is combined with smoking cessation. In the last decade, a number of countries have adopted population-based LCS as a public health recommendation. Albeit still incipient, discussion on this topic in Brazil is becoming increasingly broad and necessary. With the aim of increasing knowledge and stimulating debate on LCS, the Brazilian Society of Thoracic Surgery, the Brazilian Thoracic Association, and the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging convened a panel of experts to prepare recommendations for LCS in Brazil. The recommendations presented here were based on a narrative review of the literature, with an emphasis on large population-based studies, systematic reviews, and the recommendations of international guidelines, and were developed after extensive discussion by the panel of experts. The following topics were reviewed: reasons for screening; general considerations about smoking; epidemiology of LC; eligibility criteria; incidental findings; granulomatous lesions; probabilistic models; minimum requirements for LDCT; volumetric acquisition; risks of screening; minimum structure and role of the multidisciplinary team; practice according to the Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System; costs versus benefits of screening; and future perspectives for LCS.

The insufficiency of CT examination in early detection of central lung squamous cell carcinoma and squamous epithelial precancerous lesions

BACKGROUND

CT examination for lung cancer has been carried out for more than 20 years and great achievements have been made in the early detection of lung cancer. However, in the clinical work, a large number of advanced central lung squamous cell carcinoma are still detected through bronchoscopy. Meanwhile, a part of CT-occult central lung squamous cell carcinoma and squamous epithelial precancerous lesions are also accidentally detected through bronchoscopy.

METHODS

This study retrospectively collects the medical records of patients in the bronchoscopy room of the Endoscopy Department of Zhejiang Cancer Hospital from January 2014 to December 2018. The inclusion criteria for patients includes: 1.Patient medical records completed, 2.Without history of lung cancer before the diagnosis and first pathological diagnosis of primary lung cancer, 3.Have the lung CT data of the same period, 4.Have the bronchoscopy records and related pathological diagnosis, 5.The patients undergoing radical surgical treatment must have a complete postoperative pathological diagnosis. Finally, a total of 10,851 patients with primary lung cancer are included in the study, including 7175 males and 3676 females, aged 22-98 years. Firstly, 130 patients with CT-occult lesions are extracted and their clinical features are analyzed. Then, 604 cases of single central squamous cell carcinoma and 3569 cases of peripheral adenocarcinoma are extracted and compares in postoperative tumor diameter and lymph node metastasis.

RESULTS

115 cases of CT-occult central lung squamous cell carcinoma and 15 cases of squamous epithelial precancerous lesions are found. In the total lung cancer, the proportion of CT-occult lesions is 130/10,851 (1.20%). Meanwhile, all these patients are middle-aged and elderly men with a history of heavy smoking. There are statistically significant differences in postoperative median tumor diameter (3.65 cm vs.1.70 cm, P < 0.0001) and lymph node metastasis rate (50.99% vs.13.06%, P < 0.0001) between 604 patients with operable single central lung squamous cell carcinoma and 3569 patients with operable peripheral lung adenocarcinoma. Of the 604 patients with squamous cell carcinoma, 96.52% (583/604) are male with a history of heavy smoking and aged 40-82 years with a median age of 64 years.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that the current lung CT examination of lung cancer is indeed insufficiency for the early diagnosis of central squamous cell carcinoma and squamous epithelial precancerous lesions. Further bronchoscopy in middle-aged and elderly men with a history of heavy smoking can make up for the lack of routine lung CT examination.

Guideline concordance for timely chest imaging after new presentations of dyspnoea or haemoptysis in primary care: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend urgent chest X-ray for newly presenting dyspnoea or haemoptysis but there is little evidence about their implementation.

METHODS

We analysed linked primary care and hospital imaging data for patients aged 30+ years newly presenting with dyspnoea or haemoptysis in primary care during April 2012 to March 2017. We examined guideline-concordant management, defined as General Practitioner-ordered chest X-ray/CT carried out within 2 weeks of symptomatic presentation, and variation by sociodemographic characteristic and relevant medical history using logistic regression. Additionally, among patients diagnosed with cancer we described time to diagnosis, diagnostic route and stage at diagnosis by guideline-concordant status.

RESULTS

In total, 22 560/162 161 (13.9%) patients with dyspnoea and 4022/8120 (49.5%) patients with haemoptysis received guideline-concordant imaging within the recommended 2-week period. Patients with recent chest imaging pre-presentation were much less likely to receive imaging (adjusted OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.14-0.18 for dyspnoea, and adjusted OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.06-0.11 for haemoptysis). History of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma was also associated with lower odds of guideline concordance (dyspnoea: OR 0.234, 95% CI 0.225-0.242 and haemoptysis: 0.88, 0.79-0.97). Guideline-concordant imaging was lower among dyspnoea presenters with prior heart failure; current or ex-smokers; and those in more socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.The likelihood of lung cancer diagnosis within 12 months was greater among the guideline-concordant imaging group (dyspnoea: 1.1% vs 0.6%; haemoptysis: 3.5% vs 2.7%).

CONCLUSION

The likelihood of receiving urgent imaging concords with the risk of subsequent cancer diagnosis. Nevertheless, large proportions of dyspnoea and haemoptysis presenters do not receive prompt chest imaging despite being eligible, indicating opportunities for earlier lung cancer diagnosis.

Effectiveness of a single low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer: A population-based perspective cohort study in China

The purpose of this perspective cohort study was to evaluate the effectiveness of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer in China. This study was conducted under the China Urban Cancer Screening Program (CanSPUC). The analysis was based on participants aged 40 to 74 years from 2012 to 2019. A total of 255 569 eligible participants were recruited in the study. Among the 58 136 participants at high risk of lung cancer, 20 346 (35.00%) had a single LDCT scan (defined as the screened group) and 37 790 (65.00%) not (defined as the non-screened group). Overall, 1162 participants were diagnosed with lung cancer at median follow-up time of 5.25 years. The screened group had the highest cumulative incidence of lung cancer and the non-screened group had the highest cumulative lung cancer mortality and all-cause cumulative mortality. We performed inverse probability weighting (IPW) to account for potential imbalances, and Cox proportional hazards model to estimate the weighted association between mortality and LDCT scans. After IPW adjusted with baseline characteristics, the lung cancer incidence density was significantly increased (37.0% increase) (HR1.37 [95%CI 1.12-1.69]), lung cancer mortality was decreased (31.0% decrease) (HR0.69 [95%CI 0.49-0.97]), and the all-cause mortality was significantly decreased (23.0% lower) (HR0.77 [95% CI 0.68-0.87]) in the screened group. In summary, a single LDCT for lung cancer screening will reduce the mortality of lung cancer and all-cause mortality in China.

[Statement Paper on the Implementation of a National Organized Program in Germany for the Early Detection of Lung Cancer in Risk Populations Using Low-dose CT Screening Including Management of Screening Findings]

The process of implementing early detection of lung cancer with low-dose CT (LDCT) in Germany has gained significant momentum in recent years. It is expected that the ordinance of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection (BMUV) on early detection of lung cancer, which has been commented on by the professional societies, will come into effect by the end of 2023. Based on this regulation, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) will set up a program for early lung cancer detection with LDCT in the near future. In this position paper, the specialist societies involved in lung cancer screening present concrete cornerstones for a uniform, structured and quality-assured early detection program for lung cancer in Germany to make a constructive contribution to this process.

[Statement paper on the implementation of a national organized program in Germany for the early detection of lung cancer in risk populations using low-dose CT screening including management of screening findings]

The process of implementing early detection of lung cancer with low-dose CT (LDCT) in Germany has gained significant momentum in recent years. It is expected that the ordinance of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection (BMUV) on the early detection of lung cancer, which has been commented on by the professional societies, will come into effect by the end of 2023. Based on this regulation, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) will set up a program for early lung cancer detection with LDCT in the near future. In this position paper, the specialist societies involved in lung cancer screening present key points for a uniform, structured and quality-assured early detection program for lung cancer in Germany to make a constructive contribution to this process. CITATION FORMAT: · Vogel-Claussen J, Blum TG, Andreas S et al. Position paper on the implementation of a nationally organized program in Germany for the early detection of lung cancer in high-risk populations using low-dose CT screening including the management of screening findings requiring further workup. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2024; 196: DOI 10.1055/a-2178-2846.

Validation of the psychosocial consequences of screening in lung cancer questionnaire in the international lung screen trial Australian cohort

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of psychosocial consequences of lung cancer screening with LDCT in high-risk populations has generally been performed using generic psychometric instruments. Such generic instruments have low coverage and low power to detect screening impacts. This study aims to validate an established lung cancer screening-specific questionnaire, Consequences Of Screening Lung Cancer (COS-LC), in Australian-English and describe early results from the baseline LDCT round of the International Lung Screen Trial (ILST).

METHODS

The Danish-version COS-LC was translated to Australian-English using the double panel method and field tested in Australian-ILST participants to examine content validity. A random sample of 200 participants were used to assess construct validity using Rasch item response theory models. Reliability was assessed using classical test theory. The COS-LC was administered to ILST participants at prespecified timepoints including at enrolment, dependent of screening results.

RESULTS

Minor linguistic alterations were made after initial translation of COS-LC to English. The COS-LC demonstrated good content validity and adequate construct validity using psychometric analysis. The four core scales fit the Rasch model, with only minor issues in five non-core scales which resolved with modification. 1129 Australian-ILST participants were included in the analysis, with minimal psychosocial impact observed shortly after baseline LDCT results.

CONCLUSION

COS-LC is the first lung cancer screening-specific questionnaire to be validated in Australia and has demonstrated excellent psychometric properties. Early results did not demonstrate significant psychosocial impacts of screening. Longer-term follow-up is awaited and will be particularly pertinent given the announcement of an Australian National Lung Cancer Screening Program.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02871856.

The Smokers Health Multiple ACtions (SMAC-1) Trial: Study Design and Results of the Baseline Round

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening with low-dose helical computed tomography (LDCT) reduces mortality in high-risk subjects. Cigarette smoking is linked to up to 90% of lung cancer deaths. Even more so, it is a key risk factor for many other cancers and cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases. The Smokers health Multiple ACtions (SMAC-1) trial aimed to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of an integrated program based on the early detection of smoking-related thoraco-cardiovascular diseases in high-risk subjects, combined with primary prevention. A new multi-component screening design was utilized to strengthen the framework on conventional lung cancer screening programs. We report here the study design and the results from our baseline round, focusing on oncological findings.

METHODS

High-risk subjects were defined as being >55 years of age and active smokers or formers who had quit within 15 years (>30 pack/y). A PLCOm2012 threshold >2% was chosen. Subject outreach was streamlined through media campaign and general practitioners' engagement. Eligible subjects, upon written informed consent, underwent a psychology consultation, blood sample collection, self-evaluation questionnaire, spirometry, and LDCT scan. Blood samples were analyzed for pentraxin-3 protein levels, interleukins, microRNA, and circulating tumor cells. Cardiovascular risk assessment and coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring were performed. Direct and indirect costs were analyzed focusing on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life years gained in different scenarios. Personalized screening time-intervals were determined using the "Maisonneuve risk re-calculation model", and a threshold <0.6% was chosen for the biennial round.

RESULTS

In total, 3228 subjects were willing to be enrolled. Out of 1654 eligible subjects, 1112 participated. The mean age was 64 years (M/F 62/38%), with a mean PLCOm2012 of 5.6%. Former and active smokers represented 23% and 77% of the subjects, respectively. At least one nodule was identified in 348 subjects. LDCTs showed no clinically significant findings in 762 subjects (69%); thus, they were referred for annual/biennial LDCTs based on the Maisonneuve risk (mean value = 0.44%). Lung nodule active surveillance was indicated for 122 subjects (11%). Forty-four subjects with baseline suspicious nodules underwent a PET-FDG and twenty-seven a CT-guided lung biopsy. Finally, a total of 32 cancers were diagnosed, of which 30 were lung cancers (2.7%) and 2 were extrapulmonary cancers (malignant pleural mesothelioma and thymoma). Finally, 25 subjects underwent lung surgery (2.25%). Importantly, there were zero false positives and two false negatives with CT-guided biopsy, of which the patients were operated on with no stage shift. The final pathology included lung adenocarcinomas (69%), squamous cell carcinomas (10%), and others (21%). Pathological staging showed 14 stage I (47%) and 16 stage II-IV (53%) cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

LDCTs continue to confirm their efficacy in safely detecting early-stage lung cancer in high-risk subjects, with a negligible risk of false-positive results. Re-calculating the risk of developing lung cancer after baseline LDCTs with the Maisonneuve model allows us to optimize time intervals to subsequent screening. The Smokers health Multiple ACtions (SMAC-1) trial offers solid support for policy assessments by policymakers. We trust that this will help in developing guidelines for the large-scale implementation of lung cancer screening, paving the way for better outcomes for lung cancer patients.

[Statement paper on the implementation of a national organized program in Germany for the early detection of lung cancer in risk populations using low-dose CT screening including management of screening findings]

The process of implementing early detection of lung cancer with low-dose CT (LDCT) in Germany has gained significant momentum in recent years. It is expected that the ordinance of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection (BMUV) on early detection of lung cancer, which has been commented on by the professional societies, will come into effect by the end of 2023. Based on this regulation, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) will set up a program for early lung cancer detection with LDCT in the near future. In this position paper, the specialist societies involved in lung cancer screening present concrete cornerstones for a uniform, structured and quality-assured early detection program for lung cancer in Germany to make a constructive contribution to this process.

Deaths averted: An unbiased alternative to rate ratios for measuring the performance of cancer screening programs

INTRODUCTION

Screening trials and meta-analyses emphasize the ratio of cancer death rates in screening and control arms. However, this measure is diluted by the inclusion of deaths from cancers that only became detectable after the end of active screening.

METHODS

We review traditional analysis of cancer screening trials and show that ratio estimates are inevitably biased to the null, because follow-up (FU) must continue beyond the end of the screening period and thus includes cases only becoming detectable after screening ends. But because such cases are expected to occur in equal numbers in the two arms, calculation of the difference between the number of cancer deaths in the screening and control arms avoids this dilutional bias. This difference can be set against the number of invitations to screening; we illustrate by reanalyzing data from all trials of tomography screening of lung cancer (LC) using this measure.

RESULTS

In nine trials of LC screening from 2000 to 2013, a total of 94,441 high-risk patients were invited to be in screening or control groups, with high participation rates (average 95%). In the older trials comparing computed tomography to chest X-ray, 88,285 invitations averted 83 deaths (1068 per death averted (DA)). In the six more recent trials with no screening in the control group, 69,976 invitations averted 121 deaths (577 invitations per DA).

DISCUSSION

Screens per DA is an undiluted measure of screening's effect and it is unperturbed by the arbitrary duration of FU. This estimate can be useful for program planning and informed consent.

Estimated Lifetime Gained With Cancer Screening Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

Cancer screening tests are promoted to save life by increasing longevity, but it is unknown whether people will live longer with commonly used cancer screening tests.

Objective

To estimate lifetime gained with cancer screening.

Data Sources

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized clinical trials with more than 9 years of follow-up reporting all-cause mortality and estimated lifetime gained for 6 commonly used cancer screening tests, comparing screening with no screening. The analysis included the general population. MEDLINE and the Cochrane library databases were searched, and the last search was performed October 12, 2022.

Study Selection

Mammography screening for breast cancer; colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) for colorectal cancer; computed tomography screening for lung cancer in smokers and former smokers; or prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Searches and selection criteria followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data were independently extracted by a single observer, and pooled analysis of clinical trials was used for analyses.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Life-years gained by screening was calculated as the difference in observed lifetime in the screening vs the no screening groups and computed absolute lifetime gained in days with 95% CIs for each screening test from meta-analyses or single randomized clinical trials.

Results

In total, 2 111 958 individuals enrolled in randomized clinical trials comparing screening with no screening using 6 different tests were eligible. Median follow-up was 10 years for computed tomography, prostate-specific antigen testing, and colonoscopy; 13 years for mammography; and 15 years for sigmoidoscopy and FOBT. The only screening test with a significant lifetime gain was sigmoidoscopy (110 days; 95% CI, 0-274 days). There was no significant difference following mammography (0 days: 95% CI, -190 to 237 days), prostate cancer screening (37 days; 95% CI, -37 to 73 days), colonoscopy (37 days; 95% CI, -146 to 146 days), FOBT screening every year or every other year (0 days; 95% CI, -70.7 to 70.7 days), and lung cancer screening (107 days; 95% CI, -286 days to 430 days).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that current evidence does not substantiate the claim that common cancer screening tests save lives by extending lifetime, except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy.

Historical Perspective on Lung Cancer Screening

Lung cancer represents a large burden on society with a staggering incidence and mortality rate that has steadily increased until recently. The impetus to design an effective screening program for the deadliest cancer in the United States and worldwide began in 1950. It has taken more than 50 years of numerous clinical trials and continued persistence to arrive at the development of modern-day screening program. As the program continues to grow, it is important for clinicians to understand its evolution, track outcomes, and continually assess the impact and bias of screening on the medical, social, and economic systems.

Asian Perspective on Lung Cancer Screening

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in Japan and worldwide. Early detection of lung cancer is an important strategy for decreasing mortality. Advances in diagnostic imaging have made it possible to detect lung cancer at an early stage in medical practice. Conversely, screening of asymptomatic healthy populations is recommended only when the evidence shows the benefits of regular intervention. Due to a variety of evidence and racial differences, screening methods vary from country to country. This article focused on the perspective of lung cancer screening in Japan.

[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.

Lung Cancer Screening in Asia: An Expert Consensus Report

INTRODUCTION

The incidence and mortality of lung cancer are highest in Asia compared with Europe and USA, with the incidence and mortality rates being 34.4 and 28.1 per 100,000 respectively in East Asia. Diagnosing lung cancer at early stages makes the disease amenable to curative treatment and reduces mortality. In some areas in Asia, limited availability of robust diagnostic tools and treatment modalities, along with variations in specific health care investment and policies, make it necessary to have a more specific approach for screening, early detection, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with lung cancer in Asia compared with the West.

METHOD

A group of 19 advisors across different specialties from 11 Asian countries, met on a virtual Steering Committee meeting, to discuss and recommend the most affordable and accessible lung cancer screening modalities and their implementation, for the Asian population.

RESULTS

Significant risk factors identified for lung cancer in smokers in Asia include age 50 to 75 years and smoking history of more than or equal to 20 pack-years. Family history is the most common risk factor for nonsmokers. Low-dose computed tomography screening is recommended once a year for patients with screening-detected abnormality and persistent exposure to risk factors. However, for high-risk heavy smokers and nonsmokers with risk factors, reassessment scans are recommended at an initial interval of 6 to 12 months with subsequent lengthening of reassessment intervals, and it should be stopped in patients more than 80 years of age or are unable or unwilling to undergo curative treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Asian countries face several challenges in implementing low-dose computed tomography screening, such as economic limitations, lack of efforts for early detection, and lack of specific government programs. Various strategies are suggested to overcome these challenges in Asia.

Prediction Variability to Identify Reduced AI Performance in Cancer Diagnosis at MRI and CT

Background A priori identification of patients at risk of artificial intelligence (AI) failure in diagnosing cancer would contribute to the safer clinical integration of diagnostic algorithms. Purpose To evaluate AI prediction variability as an uncertainty quantification (UQ) metric for identifying cases at risk of AI failure in diagnosing cancer at MRI and CT across different cancer types, data sets, and algorithms. Materials and Methods Multicenter data sets and publicly available AI algorithms from three previous studies that evaluated detection of pancreatic cancer on contrast-enhanced CT images, detection of prostate cancer on MRI scans, and prediction of pulmonary nodule malignancy on low-dose CT images were analyzed retrospectively. Each task's algorithm was extended to generate an uncertainty score based on ensemble prediction variability. AI accuracy percentage and partial area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (pAUC) were compared between certain and uncertain patient groups in a range of percentile thresholds (10%-90%) for the uncertainty score using permutation tests for statistical significance. The pulmonary nodule malignancy prediction algorithm was compared with 11 clinical readers for the certain group (CG) and uncertain group (UG). Results In total, 18 022 images were used for training and 838 images were used for testing. AI diagnostic accuracy was higher for the cases in the CG across all tasks (P < .001). At an 80% threshold of certain predictions, accuracy in the CG was 21%-29% higher than in the UG and 4%-6% higher than in the overall test data sets. The lesion-level pAUC in the CG was 0.25-0.39 higher than in the UG and 0.05-0.08 higher than in the overall test data sets (P < .001). For pulmonary nodule malignancy prediction, accuracy of AI was on par with clinicians for cases in the CG (AI results vs clinician results, 80% [95% CI: 76, 85] vs 78% [95% CI: 70, 87]; P = .07) but worse for cases in the UG (AI results vs clinician results, 50% [95% CI: 37, 64] vs 68% [95% CI: 60, 76]; P < .001). Conclusion An AI-prediction UQ metric consistently identified reduced performance of AI in cancer diagnosis. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Babyn in this issue.

Effective lung cancer control: An unaccomplished challenge in cancer research

Lung cancer has always been a burden to the society since its non-effective early detection and poor survival status. Different imaging modalities such as computed tomography scan have been practiced for lung cancer detection. This review focuses on the importance of sputum cytology for early lung cancer detection and biomarkers effective in sputum samples. Published articles were discussed in light of the potential of sputum cytology for lung cancer early detection and risk assessment across high-risk groups. Recent developments in sample processing techniques have documented a clear potential to improve or refine diagnosis beyond that achieved with conventional sputum cytology examination. The diagnostic potential of sputum cytology may be exploited better through the standardization and automation of sputum preparation and analysis for application in routine laboratory practices and clinical trials. The challenging aspects in sputum cytology as well as sputum-based molecular markers are to ensure appropriate standardization and validation of the processing techniques.

Invasive Procedures Associated With Lung Cancer Screening in Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

The harm associated with imaging abnormalities related to lung cancer screening (LCS) is not well documented, especially outside the clinical trial and academic setting.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the frequency of invasive procedures and complications associated with a community based LCS program, including procedures for false-positive and benign, but clinically important, incidental findings?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We performed a single-center retrospective study of an LCS program at a nonuniversity teaching hospital from 2016 through 2019 to identify invasive procedures prompted by LCS results, including their indication and complications.

RESULTS

Among 2,003 LCS participants, 58 patients (2.9%) received a diagnosis of lung cancer and 71 patients (3.5%) received a diagnosis of any malignancy. Invasive procedures were performed 160 times in 103 participants (5.1%), including 1.7% of those without malignancy. Eight invasive procedures (0.4% of participants), including four surgeries (12% of diagnostic lung resections), were performed for false-positive lung nodules. Only 1% of Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4A nodules that proved benign were subject to an invasive procedure. Among those without malignancy, an invasive procedure was performed in eight participants for extrapulmonary false-positive findings (0.4%) and in 19 participants (0.9%) to evaluate incidental findings considered benign but clinically important. Procedures for the latter indication resulted in treatment, change in management, or diagnosis in 79% of individuals. Invasive procedures in those without malignancy resulted in three complications (0.15%). Seventy nonsurgical procedures (6% complication rate) and 48 thoracic surgeries (4% major complication rate) were performed in those with malignancy.

INTERPRETATION

The use of invasive procedures to resolve false-positive findings was uncommon in the clinical practice of a nonuniversity LCS program that adhered to a nodule management algorithm and used a multidisciplinary approach. Incidental findings considered benign but clinically important resulted in invasive procedure rates that were similar to those for false-positive findings and frequently had clinical value.

Systematic Review of Lung Cancer Screening: Advancements and Strategies for Implementation

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Europe, with low survival rates primarily due to late-stage diagnosis. Early detection can significantly improve survival rates, but lung cancer screening is not currently implemented in Italy. Many countries have implemented lung cancer screening programs for high-risk populations, with studies showing a reduction in mortality. This review aimed to identify key areas for establishing a lung cancer screening program in Italy. A literature search was conducted in October 2022, using the PubMed and Scopus databases. Items of interest included updated evidence, approaches used in other countries, enrollment and eligibility criteria, models, cost-effectiveness studies, and smoking cessation programs. A literature search yielded 61 scientific papers, highlighting the effectiveness of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening in reducing mortality among high-risk populations. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in the United States demonstrated a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality with LDCT, and other trials confirmed its potential to reduce mortality by up to 39% and detect early-stage cancers. However, false-positive results and associated harm were concerns. Economic evaluations generally supported the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening, especially when combined with smoking cessation interventions for individuals aged 55 to 75 with a significant smoking history. Implementing a screening program in Italy requires the careful consideration of optimal strategies, population selection, result management, and the integration of smoking cessation. Resource limitations and tailored interventions for subpopulations with low-risk perception and non-adherence rates should be addressed with multidisciplinary expertise.

Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography

BACKGROUND

Approximately 21 900 women and 35 300 men developed lung cancer in Germany in 2018, and 16 514 women and 28 365 men died of it. The outcome mainly depends on the tumor stage. In early stages (stage I or II), treatment can be curative; unfortunately, because early-stage lung cancers are generally asymptomatic, 74% of women and 77% of men already have advanced-stage disease (stage III or IV) at the time of diagnosis. Screening with low-dose computed tomography is an option enabling early diagnosis and curative treatment.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent articles retrieved by a selective search of the literature on screening for lung cancer.

RESULTS

In the studies of lung cancer screening that have been published to date, sensitivity ranged from 68.5% to 93.8%, and specificity from 73.4% to 99.2%. A meta-analysis by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection revealed a 15% reduction in lung cancer mortality when low-dose computed tomography was used in persons who were judged to be at high risk for lung cancer (risk ratio [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [0.77; 0.95]). 1.9% of subjects died in the screening arm of the metaanalysis, and 2.2% in the control group. The observation periods ranged from 6.6 to 10 years; false-positive rates ranged from 84.9% to 96.4%. Malignant findings were confirmed in 45% to 70% of the biopsies or resective procedures that were performed.

CONCLUSION

Systematic lung cancer screening with low-dose CT lowers mortality from lung cancer in (current or former) heavy smokers. This benefit must be weighed against the high rate of false-positive findings and overdiagnoses.

China lung cancer screening (CLUS) version 2.0 with new techniques implemented: Artificial intelligence, circulating molecular biomarkers and autofluorescence bronchoscopy

OBJECTIVE

The present study, CLUS version 2.0, was conducted to evaluate the performance of new techniques in improving the implementation of lung cancer screening and to validate the efficacy of LDCT in reducing lung cancer-specific mortality in a high-risk Chinese population.

METHODS

From July 2018 to February 2019, high-risk participants from six screening centers in Shanghai were enrolled in our study. Artificial intelligence, circulating molecular biomarkers and autofluorescencebronchoscopy were applied during screening.

RESULTS

A total of 5087 eligible high-risk participants were enrolled in the study; 4490 individuals were invited, and 4395 participants (97.9%) finally underwent LDCT detection. Positive screening results were observed in 857 (19.5%) participants. Solid nodules represented 53.6% of all positive results, while multiple nodules were the most common location type (26.8%). Up to December 2020, 77 participants received lung resection or biopsy, including 70 lung cancers, 2 mediastinal tumors, 1 tracheobronchial tumor, 1 malignant pleural mesothelioma and 3 benign nodules. Lung cancer patients accounted for 1.6% of all the screened participants, and 91.4% were in the early stage (stage 0-1).

CONCLUSIONS

LDCT screening can detect a high proportion of early-stage lung cancer patients in a Chinese high-risk population. The utilization of new techniques would be conducive to improving the implementation of LDCT screening.

Important steps towards a big change for lung health: a joint approach by the European Respiratory Society, the European Society of Radiology and their partners to facilitate implementation of the European Union's new recommendations on lung cancer screening

Enormous progress has been made on the epic journey towards implementation of lung cancer screening in Europe. A breakthrough for lung health has been achieved with the EU proposal for a Council recommendation on cancer screening. https://bit.ly/3J4O0Jb.

Secondary prevention and treatment innovation of early stage non-small cell lung cancer: Impact on diagnostic-therapeutic pathway from a multidisciplinary perspective

Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, mostly because the lack of a screening program so far. Although smoking cessation has a central role in LC primary prevention, several trials on LC screening through low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in a high risk population showed a significant reduction of LC related mortality. Most trials showed heterogeneity in terms of selection criteria, comparator arm, detection nodule method, timing and intervals of screening and duration of the follow-up. LC screening programs currently active in Europe as well as around the world will lead to a higher number of early-stage Non Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) at the diagnosis. Innovative drugs have been recently transposed from the metastatic to the perioperative setting, leading to improvements in terms of resection rates and pathological responses after induction chemoimmunotherapy, and disease free survival with targeted agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors. The present review summarizes available evidence about LC screening, highlighting potential pitfalls and benefits and underlining the impact on the diagnostic therapeutic pathway of NSCLC from a multidisciplinary perspective. Future perspectives in terms of circulating biomarkers under evaluation for patients' risk stratification as well as a focus on recent clinical trials results and ongoing studies in the perioperative setting will be also presented.

Assessment of Barriers and Challenges to Screening, Diagnosis, and Biomarker Testing in Early-Stage Lung Cancer

Management of lung cancer has transformed over the past decade and is no longer considered a singular disease as it now has multiple sub-classifications based on molecular markers. The current treatment paradigm requires a multidisciplinary approach. One of the most important facets of lung cancer outcomes however relies on early detection. Early detection has become crucial, and recent effects have shown success in lung cancer screening programs and early detection. In this narrative review, we evaluate low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening and how this screening modality may be underutilized. The barriers to broader implementation of LDCT screening is also explored as well as approaches to address these barriers. Current developments in diagnosis, biomarkers, and molecular testing in early-stage lung cancer are evaluated as well. Improving approaches to screening and early detection can ultimately lead to improved outcomes for patients with lung cancer.

Shall We Screen Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography? Cost-Effectiveness in Hungary

OBJECTIVES

Clinical data and cost-effectiveness analyses from several countries support the use of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to screen patients with high risk of lung cancer (LC). This study aimed to explore the economic value of screening LC with LDCT in Hungary.

METHODS

Cohorts of screened and nonscreened subjects were simulated in a decision analytic model over their lifetime. Five steps in the patient trajectory were distinguished: no LC, nondiagnosed LC, screening, diagnosed LC, and post-treatment. Patient pathways were populated based on the Hungarian pilot study of screening, the Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON) LC screening trial, and local incidence and prevalence data. Healthcare costs were obtained from the National Health Insurance Fund. Utility data were obtained from international sources and adjusted to local tariffs. Scenarios according to screening frequency, age bands (50-74, 55-74 years), and smoking status were analyzed.

RESULTS

Annual LDCT-based screening compared with no screening for 55- to 74-year-old current smokers showed 0.031 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains for an additional €137, which yields €5707 per QALY. Biennial screening for the same target population showed that purchasing 1 QALY would cost €10 203. The least cost-effective case was biennial screening of the general population aged 50 to 74 years, which yielded €37 931 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening LC with LDCT for a high-risk population could be cost-effective in Hungary. For the introduction of screening with LDCT, targeting the most vulnerable groups while having a long-term approach on costs and benefits is essential.

The prevalence of comorbidity in the lung cancer screening population: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Comorbidity is associated with adverse outcomes for all lung cancer patients, but its burden is less understood in the context of screening. This review synthesises the prevalence of comorbidities among lung cancer screening (LCS) candidates and summarises the clinical recommendations for screening comorbid individuals.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL databases from January 1990 to February 2021. We included LCS studies that reported a prevalence of comorbidity, as a prevalence of a particular condition, or as a summary score. We also summarised LCS clinical guidelines that addressed comorbidity or frailty for LCS as a secondary objective for this review. Meta-analysis was used with inverse-variance weights obtained from a random-effects model to estimate the prevalence of selected comorbidities.

RESULTS

We included 69 studies in the review; seven reported comorbidity summary scores, two reported performance status, 48 reported individual comorbidities, and 12 were clinical guideline papers. The meta-analysis of individual comorbidities resulted in an estimated prevalence of 35.2% for hypertension, 23.5% for history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (10.7% for severe COPD), 16.6% for ischaemic heart disease (IHD), 13.1% for peripheral vascular disease (PVD), 12.9% for asthma, 12.5% for diabetes, 4.5% for bronchiectasis, 2.2% for stroke, and 0.5% for pulmonary fibrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Comorbidities were highly prevalent in LCS populations and likely to be more prevalent than in other cancer screening programmes. Further research on the burden of comorbid disease and its impact on screening uptake and outcomes is needed. Identifying individuals with frailty and comorbidities who might not benefit from screening should become a priority in LCS research.

Lung cancer screening

Randomised controlled trials, including the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and the NELSON trial, have shown reduced mortality with lung cancer screening with low-dose CT compared with chest radiography or no screening. Although research has provided clarity on key issues of lung cancer screening, uncertainty remains about aspects that might be critical to optimise clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. This Review brings together current evidence on lung cancer screening, including an overview of clinical trials, considerations regarding the identification of individuals who benefit from lung cancer screening, management of screen-detected findings, smoking cessation interventions, cost-effectiveness, the role of artificial intelligence and biomarkers, and current challenges, solutions, and opportunities surrounding the implementation of lung cancer screening programmes from an international perspective. Further research into risk models for patient selection, personalised screening intervals, novel biomarkers, integrated cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessments, smoking cessation interventions, and artificial intelligence for lung nodule detection and risk stratification are key opportunities to increase the efficiency of lung cancer screening and ensure equity of access.

Argentine consensus recommendations for lung cancer screening programmes: a RAND/UCLA-modified Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer (LC) screening improves LC survival; the best screening method in terms of improving survival is low-dose CT (LDCT), outpacing chest X-ray and sputum cytology.

METHODS

A consensus of experts in Argentina was carried out to review the literature and generate recommendations for LC screening programmes. A mixed-method study was used with three phases: (1) review of the literature; (2) modified Delphi consensus panel; and (3) development of the recommendations. The Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework was used to generate 13 evaluation criteria. Nineteen experts participated in four voting rounds. Consensus among participants was defined using the RAND/UCLA method.

RESULTS

A total of 16 recommendations scored ≥7 points with no disagreement on any criteria. Screening for LC should be performed with LDCT annually in the population at high-risk, aged between 55 and 74 years, regardless of sex, without comorbidities with a risk of death higher than the risk of death from LC, smoking ≥30 pack-years or former smokers who quit smoking within 15 years. Screening will be considered positive when finding a solid nodule ≥6 mm in diameter (or ≥113 mm³) on baseline LDCT and 4 mm in diameter if a new nodule is identified on annual screening. A smoking cessation programme should be offered, and cardiovascular risk assessment should be performed. Institutions should have a multidisciplinary committee, have protocols for the management of symptomatic patients not included in the programme and distribute educational material.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations provide a basis for minimum requirements from which local institutions can develop their own protocols adapted to their needs and resources.

Radiation Exposure to Low-Dose Computed Tomography for Lung Cancer Screening: Should We Be Concerned?

Lung cancer screening (LCS) programs through low-dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) are being implemented in several countries worldwide. Radiation exposure of healthy individuals due to prolonged CT screening rounds and, eventually, the additional examinations required in case of suspicious findings may represent a concern, thus eventually reducing the participation in an LCS program. Therefore, the present review aims to assess the potential radiation risk from LDCT in this setting, providing estimates of cumulative dose and radiation-related risk in LCS in order to improve awareness for an informed and complete attendance to the program. After summarizing the results of the international trials on LCS to introduce the benefits coming from the implementation of a dedicated program, the screening-related and participant-related factors determining the radiation risk will be introduced and their burden assessed. Finally, future directions for a personalized screening program as well as technical improvements to reduce the delivered dose will be presented.

Assessment of circulating biomarkers for detection of lung cancer in a high-risk cohort

BACKGROUND

There is an urgent need for early detection of lung cancer. Screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is now implemented in the US. Supplementary use of a lung cancer biomarker with high specificity is desirable.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the diagnostic properties of a biomarker panel consisting of cytokeratin 19 fragment (CYFRA 21-1), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cancer antigen 125 (CA125).

METHODS

A cohort of 250 high-risk patients was investigated on suspicion of lung cancer. Ahead of diagnostic work-up, blood samples taken. Cross-validated prediction models were computed to assess lung cancer detection properties.

RESULTS

In total 32% (79/250) of patients were diagnosed with lung cancer. Area under the curve (AUC) for the three biomarkers was of 0.795, with sensitivity/specificity of 57%/93% and negative predictive value of 83%. When combining the biomarkers with US screening criteria, the AUC was 0.809, while applying only US screening criteria on the cohort, yielded an AUC of 0.62. The ability of the biomarkers to detect stage I-II lung cancer was substantially lower; AUC 0.54.

CONCLUSIONS

In a high-risk cohort, the detection properties of the three biomarkers were acceptable compared to current LDCT screening criteria. However, the ability to detect early stage lung cancer was low.

Impact of Interstitial Lung Abnormalities on Disease Expression and Outcomes in COPD or Emphysema: A Systematic Review

Background

Both COPD and interstitial lung abnormalities (ILAs) are conditions associated with smoking and age. The impact of coexistent ILAs on the manifestations and outcomes of COPD or emphysema awaits evaluation.

Methods

We searched PubMed and Embase using Medical Subject Headings terms in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

Results

Eleven studies were included in the review. The sample size of the studies ranged from 30 to 9579. ILAs were reported in 6.5% to 25.7% of the patients with COPD/emphysema, higher than that reported in the general populations. COPD/emphysema patients with ILAs were older, mostly male, and had a higher smoking index than those without ILAs. Hospital admission and mortality were increased in COPD patients with ILAs compared to those without ILAs, whereas the frequency of COPD exacerbations was discrepant in 2 of the studies. The FEV₁ and FEV₁% predicted tended to be higher in the group with ILAs, but not significantly in most of the studies.

Conclusion

ILAs were more frequent in subjects with COPD/emphysema than in the general population. ILAs may have a negative impact on hospital admission and mortality of COPD/emphysema. The impact of ILAs on lung functions and exacerbations of COPD/emphysema was discrepant in these studies. Further prospective studies are warranted to provide high-quality evidence of the association and interaction between COPD/emphysema and ILAs.

SCLC: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Genetic Susceptibility, Molecular Pathology, Screening, and Early Detection

We review research regarding the epidemiology, risk factors, genetic susceptibility, molecular pathology, and early detection of SCLC, a deadly tumor that accounts for 14% of lung cancers. We first summarize the changing incidences of SCLC globally and in the United States among males and females. We then review the established risk factor (i.e., tobacco smoking) and suspected nonsmoking-related risk factors for SCLC, and emphasize the importance of continued effort in tobacco control worldwide. Review of genetic susceptibility and molecular pathology suggests different molecular pathways in SCLC development compared with other types of lung cancer. Last, we comment on the limited utility of low-dose computed tomography screening in SCLC and on several promising blood-based molecular biomarkers as potential tools in SCLC early detection.

Comparison of discrimination performance of 11 lung cancer risk models for predicting lung cancer in a prospective cohort of screening-age adults from Germany followed over 17 years

Randomized trials have demonstrated considerable reduction in lung cancer (LC) mortality by screening pre-selected heavy smokers with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). Newer screening guidelines recommend refined LC risk models for selecting the target population for screening. We aimed to evaluate and compare the discrimination performance of LC risk models and previously used trial criteria in predicting LC incidence and mortality in a large German cohort of screening-age adults. Within ESTHER, a population-based prospective cohort study conducted in Saarland, Germany, 4812 ever smokers aged 50-75 years were followed up with respect to LC incidence and mortality for up to 17 years. We quantified the performance of 11 different LC risk models by the area under the curve (AUC) and compared the proportion of correctly predicted LC cases between the best performing models and the LDCT trial criteria. Risk prediction of LC incidence in the ESTHER ever smokers was best for the Bach model, LCRAT and LCDRAT with AUCs ranging from 0.782 to 0.787, from 0.770 to 0.774, and from 0.765 to 0.771 for the follow-up time periods of cases identified at 6, 11, and 17 years, respectively. At cutoffs yielding comparable positivity rates as the LDCT trial criteria, these models would have identified between 11.8 (95% CI 3.0-20.5) and 17.6 (95% CI 10.1-25.2) percent units higher proportions of LC cases occurring during the initial 6 years of follow-up. Use of LC risk models is expected to result in substantially greater potential to identify people at highest risk of LC, suggesting enhanced potential for reducing LC mortality by LC screening.

Lung Cancer Screening

Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer death in the United States and globally with the majority of lung cancer cases attributable to cigarette smoking. Given the high societal and personal cost of a diagnosis of lung cancer including that most cases of lung cancer when diagnosed are found at a late stage, work over the past 40 years has aimed to detect lung cancer earlier when curative treatment is possible. Screening trials using chest radiography and sputum failed to show a reduction in lung cancer mortality however multiple studies using low dose CT have shown the ability to detect lung cancer early and a survival benefit to those screened. This review will discuss the history of lung cancer screening, current recommendations and screening guidelines, and implementation and components of a lung cancer screening program.

Lung Cancer Screening

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer deaths by early detection. The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends lung cancer screening with LDCT in adults of age 50 years to 80 years who have at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and are currently smoking or have quit within the past 15 years. The implementation of a lung-cancer-screening program is complex. High-quality screening requires the involvement of a multidisciplinary team. The aim of a screening program is to find balance between mortality reduction and avoiding potential harms related to false-positive findings, overdiagnosis, invasive procedures, and radiation exposure. Components and processes of a high-quality lung-cancer-screening program include the identification of eligible individuals, shared decision-making, performing and reporting LDCT results, management of screen-detected lung nodules and non-nodule findings, smoking cessation, ensuring adherence, data collection, and quality improvement.

The influence of postscreening follow-up time and participant characteristics on estimates of overdiagnosis from lung cancer screening trials

We aimed to explore the underlying reasons that estimates of overdiagnosis vary across and within low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening trials. We conducted a systematic review to identify estimates of overdiagnosis from randomised controlled trials of LDCT screening. We then analysed the association of Ps (the excess incidence of lung cancer as a proportion of screen-detected cases) with postscreening follow-up time using a linear random effects meta-regression model. Separately, we analysed annual Ps estimates from the US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and German Lung Cancer Screening Intervention Trial (LUSI) using exponential decay models with asymptotes. We conducted stratified analyses to investigate participant characteristics associated with Ps using the extended follow-up data from NLST. Among 12 overdiagnosis estimates from 8 trials, the postscreening follow-up ranged from 3.8 to 9.3 years, and Ps ranged from -27.0% (ITALUNG, 8.3 years follow-up) to 67.2% (DLCST, 5.0 years follow-up). Across trials, 39.1% of the variation in Ps was explained by postscreening follow-up time. The annual changes in Ps were -3.5% and -3.9% in the NLST and LUSI trials, respectively. Ps was predicted to plateau at 2.2% for NLST and 9.2% for LUSI with hypothetical infinite follow-up. In NLST, Ps increased with age from -14.9% (55-59 years) to 21.7% (70-74 years), and time trends in Ps varied by histological type. The findings suggest that differences in postscreening follow-up time partially explain variation in overdiagnosis estimates across lung cancer screening trials. Estimates of overdiagnosis should be interpreted in the context of postscreening follow-up and population characteristics.

Evaluation of Simplified Diet Scores Related to C-Reactive Protein in Heavy Smokers Undergoing Lung Cancer Screening

The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between adherence to a healthy diet, such as the Mediterranean diet (MedDiet), and C-reactive protein (CRP) in Italian heavy smokers undergoing an LDCT screening program (bioMILD trial), using scores calculated by simple questionnaires. Simple formats of food frequency questionnaires were administered to a sample of 2438 volunteers, and the adherence to a healthy diet was measured by the validated 14-point MEDAS and by two adaptations proposed by us: 17-item revised-MEDAS and 18-item revised-MEDAS. The OR of CRP ≥ 2 mg/L for 1-point increase in 14-point MEDAS score was 0.95 (95% CI 0.91–0.99), for 17-point score was 0.94 (95% CI 0.91–0.98), and for 18-point score was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88–0.97). These inverse associations remained statistically significant also after further adjustment for body mass index. These results showed the efficacy of simplified scores and their relationship with lower levels of CRP in a population of heavy smokers. This suggests that a targeted nutritional intervention might achieve a substantial reduction in CRP levels. The findings will be prospectively tested in a new randomized study on primary prevention during lung cancer screening.

The 50-Year Journey of Lung Cancer Screening: A Narrative Review

Early diagnosis and treatment are associated with better outcomes in oncology. We reviewed the existing literature using the search terms “low dose computed tomography” and “lung cancer screening” for systematic reviews, metanalyses, and randomized as well as non-randomized clinical trials in PubMed from January 1, 1963 to April 30, 2022. The studies were heterogeneous and included people with different age groups, smoking histories, and other specific risk scores for lung cancer screening. Based on the available evidence, almost all the guidelines recommend screening for lung cancer by annual low dose CT (LDCT) in populations over 50 to 55 years of age, who are either current smokers or have left smoking less than 15 years back with more than 20 to 30 pack-years of smoking. “LDCT screening” can reduce lung cancer mortality if carried out judiciously in countries with adequate resources and infrastructure.

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.

Screening Criteria Evaluation for Expansion in Pulmonary Neoplasias (SCREEN)

The SCREEN study investigated screening eligibility and survival outcomes between heavy smokers and light-or-never-smokers with lung cancer to determine whether expanded risk factor analysis is needed to refine screening criteria. SCREEN is a retrospective study of 917 lung cancer patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2018 in Nova Scotia, Canada. Screening eligibility was determined using the National Lung Screening Trial (NSLT) criteria. Mortality risk between heavy smokers and light-or-never-smokers was compared using proportional-hazards models. The median follow-up was 2.9 years. The cohort was comprised of 179 (46.1%) female heavy smokers and 306 (57.8%) female light-or-never-smokers. Light-or-never-smokers were more likely to have a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma [n=378 (71.6%)] compared to heavy smokers [n=234 (60.5%); P< 0.001]. Heavy smokers were more frequently diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma [n=111 (28.7%)] compared to light-or-never-smokers, [n=100 (18.9%); P< 0.001]. Overall, 36.9% (338) of patients met NLST screening criteria. There was no difference in 5-year survival between light-or-never-smokers and heavy smokers [55.2% (338) vs 58.5% (529); P = 0.408; HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.80-1.40; P = 0.704]. Multivariate analysis showed that males had an increased mortality risk [HR 2.00 (95% CI 1.57-2.54); P< 0.001]. Half of lung cancer patients were missed with the conventional screening criteria. There were more curable, stage 1 tumors among light-or-never-smokers. Smoking status and age alone may be insufficient predictors of lung cancer risk and prognosis. Expanded risk factor analysis is needed to refine lung cancer screening criteria.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Lung Cancer Screening, Version 1.2022

The NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening recommend criteria for selecting individuals for screening and provide recommendations for evaluation and follow-up of lung nodules found during initial and subsequent screening. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening.

Low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening: Clinical evidence and implementation research

Lung cancer causes more deaths than breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer combined. Nevertheless, population-based lung cancer screening is still not considered standard practice in most countries worldwide. Early lung cancer detection leads to better survival outcomes: patients diagnosed with stage 1A lung cancer have a >75% 5-year survival rate, compared to <5% at stage 4. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) thorax imaging for the secondary prevention of lung cancer has been studied at length, and has been shown to significantly reduce lung cancer mortality in high-risk populations. The US National Lung Screening Trial reported a 20% overall reduction in lung cancer mortality when comparing LDCT to chest X-ray, and the Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON) trial more recently reported a 24% reduction when comparing LDCT to no screening. Hence, the focus has now shifted to implementation research. Consequently, the 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN consortium based in five European countries, has set up a large-scale multicenter implementation trial. Successful implementation of and accessibility to LDCT lung cancer screening are dependent on many factors, not limited to population selection, recruitment strategy, computed tomography screening frequency, lung-nodule management, participant compliance, and cost effectiveness. This review provides an overview of current evidence for LDCT lung cancer screening, and draws attention to major factors that need to be addressed to successfully implement standardized, effective, and accessible screening throughout Europe. Evidence shows that through the appropriate use of risk-prediction models and a more personalized approach to screening, efficacy could be improved. Furthermore, extending the screening interval for low-risk individuals to reduce costs and associated harms is a possibility, and through the use of volumetric-based measurement and follow-up, false positive results can be greatly reduced. Finally, smoking cessation programs could be a valuable addition to screening programs and artificial intelligence could offer a solution to the added workload pressures radiologists are facing.

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.

Advances in lung cancer screening and early detection

Lung cancer is associated with a heavy cancer-related burden in terms of patients' physical and mental health worldwide. Two randomized controlled trials, the US-National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON), indicated that low-dose CT (LDCT) screening results in a statistically significant decrease in mortality in patients with lung cancer, LDCT has become the standard approach for lung cancer screening. However, many issues in lung cancer screening remain unresolved, such as the screening criteria, high false-positive rate, and radiation exposure. This review first summarizes recent studies on lung cancer screening from the US, Europe, and Asia, and discusses risk-based selection for screening and the related issues. Second, an overview of novel techniques for the differential diagnosis of pulmonary nodules, including artificial intelligence and molecular biomarker-based screening, is presented. Third, current explorations of strategies for suspected malignancy are summarized. Overall, this review aims to help clinicians understand recent progress in lung cancer screening and alleviate the burden of lung cancer.

European lung cancer screening: valuable trial evidence for optimal practice implementation

Lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose computed tomography is a strategy for secondary prevention of lung cancer. In the last two decades, LCS trials showed several options to practice secondary prevention in association with primary prevention, however, the translation from trial to practice is everything but simple. In 2020, the European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society published their joint statement paper on LCS. This commentary aims to provide the readership with detailed description about hurdles and potential solutions that could be encountered in the practice of LCS.

Potential of Inflammatory Protein Signatures for Enhanced Selection of People for Lung Cancer Screening

Randomized trials have demonstrated a substantial reduction in lung cancer (LC) mortality by screening heavy smokers with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). The aim of this study was to assess if and to what extent blood-based inflammatory protein biomarkers might enhance selection of those at highest risk for LC screening. Ever smoking participants were chosen from 9940 participants, aged 50-75 years, who were followed up with respect to LC incidence for 17 years in a prospective population-based cohort study conducted in Saarland, Germany. Using proximity extension assay, 92 inflammation protein biomarkers were measured in baseline plasma samples of ever smoking participants, including 172 incident LC cases and 285 randomly selected participants free of LC. Smoothly clipped absolute deviation (SCAD) penalized regression with 0.632+ bootstrap for correction of overoptimism was applied to derive an inflammation protein biomarker score (INS) and a combined INS-pack-years score in a training set, and algorithms were further evaluated in an independent validation set. Furthermore, the performances of nine LC risk prediction models individually and in combination with inflammatory plasma protein biomarkers for predicting LC incidence were comparatively evaluated. The combined INS-pack-years score predicted LC incidence with area under the curves (AUCs) of 0.811 and 0.782 in the training and the validation sets, respectively. The addition of inflammatory plasma protein biomarkers to established nine LC risk models increased the AUCs up to 0.121 and 0.070 among ever smoking participants from training and validation sets, respectively. Our results suggest that inflammatory protein biomarkers may have potential to improve the selection of people for LC screening and thereby enhance screening efficiency.