Duration of lead time in screening for lung cancer

Estimates of the lead time in screening for bladder cancer

Some studies have suggested a survival benefit from early treatment of bladder cancer (BC). This benefit may be due in part to a "lead-time" bias (LT), i.e., the time interval between the detection of BC in asymptomatic individuals and the development of symptoms ("backward prolongation of survival"). To estimate the LT of BC, it was assumed that LT corresponds to the ratio between the prevalence of pre-symptomatic BC and the incidence of symptomatic BC. Data on the prevalence of pre-symptomatic BC were derived from published screening studies. Data on the annual incidence of symptomatic BC at the age and gender of the study populations were derived from national registries in the countries in the years in which the screening studies were conducted. The ratios of the prevalence of presymptomatic BC to the incidence of symptomatic BC ranged from 3.3 to 12.1 years when derived from screening for microhematuria, and from 1.8 to 5.3 years when derived from screening for urine cytology and cell markers. The estimates of the LT of BC derived from the ratios between its prevalence in asymptomatic persons and its incidence in the corresponding population were consistent with those previously reported in retrospective and prospective cohort studies. Since these estimates may account for the survival benefit from early treatment of BC, the gain of screening for BC remains uncertain and should be confirmed by controlled randomized trials.

Risk of developing subsequent primary lung cancer after receiving radiation for breast cancer

Background

Radiotherapy (RT) is integral to breast cancer treatment, especially in the current era that emphasizes breast conservation. The aim of our study was to determine the incidence of subsequent primary lung cancer after RT exposure for breast cancer over a time span of 3 decades to quantify this risk over time as modern oncologic treatment continues to evolve.

Methods

The SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) database was queried from 1988 to 2014 for patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer. Patients who subsequently developed primary lung cancer were identified. Multivariable regression modeling was performed to identify independent factors associated with the development of lung cancer stratified by follow up intervals of 5 to 9 years, 10 to 15 years, and >15 years after breast cancer diagnosis.

Results

Of the 612,746 patients who met our inclusion criteria, 319,014 (52%) were irradiated. primary lung cancer developed in 5556 patients (1.74%) in the RT group versus 4935 patients (1.68%) in the non-RT group. In a multivariable model stratified by follow-up duration, the overall HR of developing subsequent ipsilateral lung cancer in the RT group was 1.14 (P = .036) after 5 to 9 years of follow-up, 1.28 (P = .002) after 10 to 15 years of follow-up, and 1.30 (P = .014) after >15 years of follow-up. The HR of contralateral lung cancer was not increased at any time interval.

Conclusions

The increased risk of developing a primary lung cancer secondary to RT exposure for breast cancer is much lower than previously published. Modern RT techniques may have contributed to the improved risk profile, and this updated study is important for counseling and surveillance of breast cancer patients.

Incidental diffuse low-grade gliomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment results with correction of lead-time and length-time biases

Background

Better overall survival (OS) reported in patients with incidental diffuse low-grade glioma (iLGG) in comparison to symptomatic LGG (sLGG) may be overestimated by lead-time and length-time.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on adult hemispheric iLGGs according to the PRISMA statement to adjust for biases in their outcomes. Survival data were extracted from Kaplan-Meier curves. Lead-time was estimated by 2 methods: Pooled data of time to become symptomatic (LTs) and time calculated from the tumor growth model (LTg).

Results

We selected articles from PubMed, Ovid Medline, and Scopus since 2000. Five compared OS between patients with iLGG (n = 287) and sLGG (n = 3117). The pooled hazard ratio (pHR) for OS of iLGG to sLGG was 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] {0.27-0.61}). The estimated mean LTs and LTg were 3.76 years (n = 50) and 4.16-6.12 years, respectively. The corrected pHRs were 0.64 (95% CI [0.51-0.81]) by LTs and 0.70 (95% CI [0.56-0.88]) by LTg. In patients with total removal, the advantage of OS in iLGG was lost after the correction of lead-time. Patients with iLGG were more likely to be female pooled odds ratio (pOR) 1.60 (95% CI [1.25-2.04]) and have oligodendrogliomas (pOR 1.59 [95% CI {1.05-2.39}]). Correction of the length-time bias, which increased the pHR by 0.01 to 0.03, preserved the statistically significant difference in OS.

Conclusions

The reported outcome in iLGG was biased by lead-time and length-time. Although iLGG had a longer OS after correction of biases, the difference was less than previously reported.

Evaluating the clinical trends and benefits of low-dose computed tomography in lung cancer patients

Background

Despite guideline recommendations, utilization of low‐dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening remains low. The driving factors behind these low rates and the real‐world effect of LDCT utilization on lung cancer outcomes remain limited.

Methods

We identified patients diagnosed with non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from 2015 to 2017 within the Veterans Health Administration. Multivariable logistic regression assessed the influence of LDCT screening on stage at diagnosis. Lead time correction using published LDCT lead times was performed. Cancer‐specific mortality (CSM) was evaluated using Fine–Gray regression with non‐cancer death as a competing risk. A lasso machine learning model identified important predictors for receiving LDCT screening.

Results

Among 4664 patients, mean age was 67.8 with 58‐month median follow‐up, 95% CI = [7–71], and 118 patients received ≥1 screening LDCT before NSCLC diagnosis. From 2015 to 2017, LDCT screening increased (0.1%–6.6%, mean = 1.3%). Compared with no screening, patients with ≥1 LDCT were more than twice as likely to present with stage I disease at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] 2.16 [95% CI 1.46–3.20]) and less than half as likely to present with stage IV (OR 0.38 [CI 0.21–0.70]). Screened patients had lower risk of CSM even after adjusting for LDCT lead time (subdistribution hazard ratio 0.60 [CI 0.42–0.85]). The machine learning model achieved an area under curve of 0.87 and identified diagnosis year and region as the most important predictors for receiving LDCT. White, non‐Hispanic patients were more likely to receive LDCT screening, whereas minority, older, female, and unemployed patients were less likely.

Conclusions

Utilization of LDCT screening is increasing, although remains low. Consistent with randomized data, LDCT‐screened patients were diagnosed at earlier stages and had lower CSM. LDCT availability appeared to be the main predictor of utilization. Providing access to more patients, including those in diverse racial and socioeconomic groups, should be a priority.