Why and how would we implement a lung cancer screening program?

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Engaging veteran stakeholders to identify patient-centred research priorities for optimizing implementation of lung cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement in research agenda setting is increasingly being seen as a strategy to improve the responsiveness of healthcare to patient priorities. Implementation of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer is suboptimal, suggesting that research is needed.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to describe an approach by which a Veteran patient group worked with other stakeholders to develop a research agenda for LDCT screening and to describe the research questions that they prioritized.

METHODS

We worked with Veterans organizations to identify 12 Veterans or family members at risk for or having experience with lung cancer to form a Patient Advisory Council (PAC). The PAC met repeatedly from June 2018 to December 2020, both independently and jointly, with stakeholders representing clinicians, health administrators and researchers to identify relevant research topics. The PAC prioritized these topics and then identified questions within these areas where research was needed using an iterative process. Finally, they ranked the importance of obtaining answers to these questions.

RESULTS

PAC members valued the co-learning generated by interactions with stakeholders, but emphasized the importance of facilitation to avoid stakeholders dominating the discussion. The PAC prioritized three broad research areas-(1) the impact of insurance on uptake of LDCT; (2) how best to inform Veterans about LDCT; and (3) follow-up and impact of screening results. Using these areas as guides, PAC members identified 20 specific questions, ranking as most important (1) innovative outreach methods, (2) the impact of screening on psychological health, and (3) the impact of outsourcing scans from VA to non-VA providers on completion of recommended follow-up of screening results. The latter two were not identified as high priority by the stakeholder group.

CONCLUSIONS

We present an approach that facilitates co-learning between Veteran patients and providers, researchers and health system administrators to increase patient confidence in their ability to contribute important information to a research agenda. The research questions prioritized by the Veterans who participated in this project illustrate that for this new screening technology, patients are concerned about the practical details of implementation (e.g., follow-up) and the technology's impact on quality of life.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Veterans and Veteran advocates contributed to our research team throughout the entire research process, including conceiving and co-authoring this manuscript.

[Lung cancer screening among the smoker population]

CONTEXT

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Risk-Targeted Lung Cancer Screening: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Targeting low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening to persons at highest risk for lung cancer mortality has been suggested to improve screening efficiency.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the value of risk-targeted selection for lung cancer screening compared with National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) eligibility criteria.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis using a multistate prediction model.

DATA SOURCES

NLST.

TARGET POPULATION

Current and former smokers eligible for lung cancer screening.

TIME HORIZON

Lifetime.

PERSPECTIVE

Health care sector.

INTERVENTION

Risk-targeted versus NLST-based screening.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental 7-year mortality, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness of screening with LDCT versus chest radiography at each decile of lung cancer mortality risk.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

Participants at greater risk for lung cancer mortality were older and had more comorbid conditions and higher screening-related costs. The incremental lung cancer mortality benefits during the first 7 years ranged from 1.2 to 9.5 lung cancer deaths prevented per 10 000 person-years for the lowest to highest risk deciles, respectively (extreme decile ratio, 7.9). The gradient of benefits across risk groups, however, was attenuated in terms of life-years (extreme decile ratio, 3.6) and QALYs (extreme decile ratio, 2.4). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were similar across risk deciles ($75 000 per QALY in the lowest risk decile to $53 000 per QALY in the highest risk decile). Payers willing to pay $100 000 per QALY would pay for LDCT screening for all decile groups.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Alternative assumptions did not substantially alter our findings.

LIMITATION

Our model did not account for all correlated differences between lung cancer mortality risk and quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Although risk targeting may improve screening efficiency in terms of early lung cancer mortality per person screened, the gains in efficiency are attenuated and modest in terms of life-years, QALYs, and cost-effectiveness.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health (U01NS086294).