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

The solid component within part-solid nodules: 3-dimensional quantification, correlation with the malignant grade of nonmucinous pulmonary adenocarcinomas, and comparisons with 2-dimentional measures and semantic features in low-dose computed tomography

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on 3-dimensional (3D) quantification method for solid component within part-solid nodules (PSNs). This study aimed to find the optimal attenuation threshold for the 3D solid component proportion in low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), namely the consolidation/tumor ratio of volume (CTRV), basing on its correlation with the malignant grade of nonmucinous pulmonary adenocarcinomas (PAs) according to the 5th edition of World Health Organization classification. Then we tested the ability of CTRV to predict high-risk nonmucinous PAs in PSNs, and compare its performance with 2-dimensional (2D) measures and semantic features.

METHODS

A total of 313 consecutive patients with 326 PSNs, who underwent LDCT within one month before surgery and were pathologically diagnosed with nonmucinous PAs, were retrospectively enrolled and were divided into training and testing cohorts according to scanners. The CTRV were automatically generated by setting a series of attenuation thresholds from - 400 to 50 HU with an interval of 50 HU. The Spearman's correlation was used to evaluate the correlation between the malignant grade of nonmucinous PAs and semantic, 2D, and 3D features in the training cohort. The semantic, 2D, and 3D models to predict high-risk nonmucinous PAs were constructed using multivariable logistic regression and validated in the testing cohort. The diagnostic performance of these models was evaluated by the area under curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic curve.

RESULTS

The CTRV at attenuation threshold of -250 HU (CTRV_- 250HU) showed the highest correlation coefficient among all attenuation thresholds (r = 0.655, P < 0.001), which was significantly higher than semantic, 2D, and other 3D features (all P < 0.001). The AUCs of CTRV_- 250HU to predict high-risk nonmucinous PAs were 0.890 (0.843-0.927) in the training cohort and 0.832 (0.737-0.904) in the testing cohort, which outperformed 2D and semantic models (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal attenuation threshold was - 250 HU for solid component volumetry in LDCT, and the derived CTRV_- 250HU might be valuable for the risk stratification and management of PSNs in lung cancer screening.

Earlier diagnosis of lung cancer

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

Stakeholder Research Priorities to Promote Implementation of Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: An American Thoracic Society and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Statement

Rationale: Shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended in guidelines and required by Medicare, yet it is seldom achieved in practice. The best approach for implementing SDM for LCS remains unknown, and the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force calls for implementation research to increase uptake of SDM for LCS. Objectives: To develop a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and recommended outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS. Methods: The American Thoracic Society and VA Health Services Research and Development Service convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in SDM, LCS, patient-centered care, and implementation science. During a virtual State of the Art conference, we reviewed evidence and identified research questions to address barriers to implementing SDM for LCS, as well as outcome constructs, which were refined by writing group members. Our committee (n = 34) then ranked research questions and SDM effectiveness outcomes by perceived importance in an online survey. Results: We present our committee's consensus on three topics important to implementing SDM for LCS: 1) foundational principles for the best practice of SDM for LCS; 2) stakeholder rankings of 22 implementation research questions; and 3) recommended outcomes, including Proctor's implementation outcomes and stakeholder rankings of SDM effectiveness outcomes for hybrid implementation-effectiveness studies. Our committee ranked questions that apply innovative implementation approaches to relieve primary care providers of the sole responsibility of SDM for LCS as highest priority. We rated effectiveness constructs that capture the patient experience of SDM as most important. Conclusions: This statement offers a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS.

The Need for Brevity During Shared Decision Making (SDM) for Cancer Screening: Veterans' Perspectives on an "Everyday SDM" Compromise

Introduction. Detailed or “full” shared decision making (SDM) about cancer screening is difficult in the primary care setting. Time spent discussing cancer screening is time not spent on other important issues. Given time constraints, brief SDM that is incomplete but addresses key elements may be feasible and acceptable. However, little is known about how patients feel about abbreviated SDM. This study assessed patient perspectives on a compromise solution (“everyday SDM”): 1) primary care provided makes a tailored recommendation, 2) briefly presents qualitative information on key tradeoffs, and 3) conveys full support for decisional autonomy and desires for more information. Methods. We recruited a stratified random sample of Veterans from an academic Veterans Affairs medical center who were eligible for lung cancer screening, oversampling women and minority patients, to attend a 6-hour deliberative focus group. Experts informed participants about cancer screening, factors that influence screening benefits, and the role of patient preferences. Then, facilitator-led small groups elicited patient questions and informed opinions about the everyday SDM proposal, its acceptability, and their recommendations for improvement. Results. Thirty-six Veterans with a heavy smoking history participated (50% male, 83% white). There was a strong consensus that everyday SDM was acceptable if patients were the final deciders and could get more information on request. Participants broadly recommended that clinicians only mention downsides directly related to screening and avoid discussion of potential downstream harms (such as biopsies). Discussion. Although further testing in more diverse populations and different conditions is needed, these patients found the everyday SDM approach to be acceptable for routine lung cancer screening discussions, despite its use of an explicit recommendation and presentation of only qualitative information.

The BUILT study: a single-center 5-year experience of Lung Cancer screening in Taiwan

Background: There are no uniform guidelines on low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) follow-up in lung cancer screening. Few studies have analyzed the incidental abnormalities and role of tumor markers in lung cancer screening. The purpose of this study was to investigate the diagnostic performance of LDCT, optimal follow-up duration, incidental findings, and role of tumor markers in diagnosing lung cancer. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed subjects who underwent their first LDCT in Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital between September 1, 2015, and August 31, 2016. All chest CT scans until August 31, 2020, were recorded. A non-calcified nodule with a diameter ≥2 mm on LDCT was defined as a positive result. We extracted the data, including possible risk factors of lung cancer and follow-up outcomes. Results: A total of 1502 subjects were recruited. Of the 38 subjects who underwent biopsy, 31 had confirmed lung cancer. Lung cancer in all patients was diagnosed within 4 years. Univariate logistic regression analysis revealed that a family history of lung cancer in first-degree relatives and abnormal serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels were the significant risk factors for lung cancer. A cumulative lung cancer incidence of 54.7 patients per 1000 person-years was determined solely via radiological follow-up. In total, 271 (18%) subjects exhibited incidental findings on baseline LDCT. Conclusion: The overall lung cancer detection rate in this study was 2.1% in the 5-year study period. A family history of lung cancer and abnormal serum CEA levels are important risk factors for lung cancer. A minimum of 4-year follow-up is required to track suspicious nodules. A purely radiological follow-up detects a high incidence of lung cancer.