Radiological Report of Pilot Study for the Korean Lung Cancer Screening (K-LUCAS) Project: Feasibility of Implementing Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System

P1.11-24 Implementation of an Organized Lung Cancer Screening Program in Korea

42O - Implementation of organized lung cancer screening program in Korea

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted healthcare systems, significantly affecting preventive services such as low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening. We aimed to evaluate the pandemic’s impact on LDCT screening practices at Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, focusing on the changes in participation rates, Lung-RADS categories, and lung cancer diagnoses to guide the development of interventions for improving screening programs and early detection during health crises. Materials and methods A retrospective cohort of 56,730 individuals who underwent health examinations between 2017 and 2023 was analyzed. Data on demographics, smoking history, family history of lung cancer, and eligibility for LDCT subsidies in Taiwan were obtained. Screening utilization and outcomes were cross-referenced with cancer registries and imaging databases. A subset of 17,743 individuals who underwent LDCT were examined to determine the pre- and post-COVID19 differences in smoking prevalence, family history, high-risk Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) categories (3 or 4), and lung cancer diagnoses. Results Following the implementation of the level 3 alert, notable shifts were observed in smoking habits and lung cancer screening eligibility. The prevalence of heavy smokers (≥30 pack-years) declined from 6.9% before the alert to 6.1% after (p = 0.002). Conversely, the proportion of individuals with a family history of lung cancer qualifying for LDCT screening increased significantly from 6.0% to 6.6% (p = 0.009). Additionally, the prevalence of lung cancer diagnoses among individuals with high-risk Lung-RADS categories (Lung-RADS 3 or 4) decreased significantly from 21.5% before the alert to 13.4% after (p = 0.037). Conclusion The pandemic disrupted LDCT screening, reducing access for high-risk smokers while increasing non-smoker participation. High-risk nodules declined but partially recovered post-pandemic. Future policies must prioritize high-risk individuals, optimize resources, and enhance early detection to improve outcomes and crisis preparedness.

To evaluate the effects of nurse-led shared decision-making (SDM) on lung cancer screening outcomes, including low-dose CT (LDCT) uptake, benign findings, early cancer detection and willingness to participate among high-risk populations. Systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, Medline via OvidSP, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE via OvidSP, Web of Science, Scopus, grey literature databases and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to March 2025. Studies evaluating nurse-led SDM interventions in high-risk lung cancer populations, reporting outcomes including LDCT uptake rates, screening results (Lung-RADS (Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System) classifications), early-stage cancer detection or willingness to participate. Randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies and observational studies were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (for non-randomised studies) and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (for randomised controlled trials). Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. Meta-regression explored sources of heterogeneity. 13 studies (n=13 608 participants) were included, comprising 10 single-arm studies and three comparative studies. In single-arm studies without control groups, nurse-led SDM programmes achieved a pooled LDCT uptake rate of 98% (95% CI 28% to 100%; I²=99%), and willingness to participate was 68% (95% CI 24% to 93%; I²=98%). In comparative studies, nurse-led SDM showed no significant difference in LDCT uptake compared with usual care (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.02; I²=0%), suggesting non-inferiority rather than superiority. Among individuals who completed screening, 81% (95% CI 77% to 85%) had benign or low-risk findings (Lung-RADS [Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System] I/II), and 2% (95% CI 1% to 3%) were diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer, rates consistent with benchmark screening trials. Meta-regression identified female sex as positively associated with uptake (β=0.54, p<0.001), while current tobacco use was negatively associated (β=-0.37, p=0.033). The risk of bias was moderate to serious across studies. Comparative evidence suggests that nurse-led SDM achieves equivalent LDCT uptake to standard care approaches, indicating feasibility as an alternative service delivery model. However, the predominance of single-arm studies, high heterogeneity and moderate-to-serious risk of bias limit causal inference. High uptake rates in single-arm studies likely reflect selection bias rather than intervention effectiveness. Current evidence supports the feasibility but not the superiority of nurse-led SDM. Well-designed randomised controlled trials are needed to establish comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness before recommending widespread integration of nurse-led SDM into lung cancer screening programmes. PROSPERO CRD420251033595. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=1033595.

P1.03-039 Is It Necessary to Repeat Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT(LDCT) in Female Never Smokers?

Lung cancer screening.

Mediastinal Lymphadenopathy in Lung Cancer Screening: A Red Flag.

Outcomes From More Than 1 Million People Screened for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose CT Imaging

BackgroundScreening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been proven to potentially reduce the rate of mortality of lung cancer. Lack of real-world data outside of protocolized trials has been cited as an impediment to its more widespread implementation, especially in Asia. This report aims to provide such real-world data.MethodsA single round of LDCT was provided through a community-based charity program in Hong Kong, China to asymptomatic adults with a family history of lung cancer and/or smoking history. Anonymized data from this program were analyzed.ResultsLDCT was performed for 99 participants, including 98 (99%) who had one or more family members with history of lung cancer, and 70 (71%) who were never-smokers. After a single round of screening, a positive LDCT was noted in 47 participants (47%). A sister with a history of lung cancer (28% vs. 8%, P=0.01) and a multiplex family (MF) (47% vs. 23%, P=0.02) were factors associated with a positive LDCT. After a median period of 10 months (range, 5–16 months) following LDCT, lung cancer (all adenocarcinoma) was diagnosed as a direct consequence of positive LDCT findings in six participants (6%), of whom four had stage I disease and five received surgery with curative intent. In the 47 participants with a positive LDCT, having a sister with a history of lung cancer was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (relative risk =5.23; 95% confidence interval: 1.09–25.21). Detected lesions categorized as Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) 3 or above (odds ratio =12.08; 95% confidence interval: 1.27–114.64) or deemed by an experienced specialist to be suspicious (odds ratio =63.33; 95% confidence interval: 5.48–732.29) were significantly more likely to turn out to be a lung cancer.ConclusionsThis real-world data demonstrates that a single round of LDCT screening at a community level in East Asia can detect potentially curable lung cancer at a rate comparable to those reported by protocolized trials. When considering future LDCT screening programs in East Asia, a family history of lung cancer may be a key factor indicating a person for screening, and how features of a LDCT-detected lesion should trigger further intervention warrant further definition.

From image to report: automating lung cancer screening interpretation and reporting with vision-language models.

BackgroundLung cancer screening conducted in high-risk group using low-dose computer tomography (LDCT) has been reported as an effective method to reduce lung cancer mortality in two large randomized-control trials. However, the effectiveness is uncertain when lung cancer screening is expanded to a nationwide population-based program.MethodsThe Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project (K-LUCAS) is a single-arm cohort study that was conducted from February 2017 to evaluate the feasibility of implementing an organized national lung cancer screening program in Korea. High-risk population aged 55–74 years with more than a 30-pack-year smoking history was recruited. Smoking history was obtained from administering questionnaires at national health screening programs or public smoking cessation programs which are already established programs in Korea. The screening results were reported using the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS), suggested by the American College of Radiology. K-LUCAS was performed by a network-based diagnosis supporting system using a computer-aided detection (CAD) program to maintain screening quality. Current smokers were provided with mandatory smoking counseling.ResultsAmong 71,829 participants aged 50 years or older in the national health screening program, 5,975 (8.3%) were eligible for lung cancer screening. Among them, 1,062 (17.8%) refused to participate in K-LUCAS. Additionally, 779 participants were recruited in the smoking cessation program. Thus, a total of 5,692 eligible high-risk participants were recruited in this study. Among them, 865 (15.2%) had positive screening results, which requires a further examination; 529 (9.3%) had Lung-RADS category 3 (indeterminate), and 336 (5.9%) had category 4 (suspicious of lung cancer); 42 (0.7%) had confirmed lung cancer. Approximately 66.7% had early-stage lung cancer: 24 (57.1%), stage I and 4 (9.5%), stage II. Six (1.1%) patients developed complications at the time of diagnosis, including one death. The anxiety level related to cancer screening was low. Participation in screening encouraged motivation to quit smoking.ConclusionsK-LUCAS provided promising evidence supporting the implementation of a national lung cancer screening program to detect early stage lung cancer and promote smoking cessation for participants in Asian population.

Background Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer death worldwide.(1) It is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia (12,741 cases diagnosed in 2018) and the leading cause of cancer death.(2) The number of years of potential life lost to lung cancer in Australia is estimated to be 58,450, similar to that of colorectal and breast cancer combined.(3) While tobacco control strategies are most effective for disease prevention in the general population, early detection via low dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening in high-risk populations is a viable option for detecting asymptomatic disease in current (13%) and former (24%) Australian smokers.(4) The purpose of this Evidence Check review is to identify and analyse existing and emerging evidence for LDCT lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals to guide future program and policy planning. Evidence Check questions This review aimed to address the following questions: 1. What is the evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? 2. What is the evidence of potential harms from lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? 3. What are the main components of recent major lung cancer screening programs or trials? 4. What is the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening programs (include studies of cost–utility)? Summary of methods The authors searched the peer-reviewed literature across three databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Embase) for existing systematic reviews and original studies published between 1 January 2009 and 8 August 2019. Fifteen systematic reviews (of which 8 were contemporary) and 64 original publications met the inclusion criteria set across the four questions. Key findings Question 1: What is the evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? There is sufficient evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of combined (pooled) data from screening trials (of high-risk individuals) to indicate that LDCT examination is clinically effective in reducing lung cancer mortality. In 2011, the landmark National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST, a large-scale randomised controlled trial [RCT] conducted in the US) reported a 20% (95% CI 6.8% – 26.7%; P=0.004) relative reduction in mortality among long-term heavy smokers over three rounds of annual screening. High-risk eligibility criteria was defined as people aged 55–74 years with a smoking history of ≥30 pack-years (years in which a smoker has consumed 20-plus cigarettes each day) and, for former smokers, ≥30 pack-years and have quit within the past 15 years.(5) All-cause mortality was reduced by 6.7% (95% CI, 1.2% – 13.6%; P=0.02). Initial data from the second landmark RCT, the NEderlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (known as the NELSON trial), have found an even greater reduction of 26% (95% CI, 9% – 41%) in lung cancer mortality, with full trial results yet to be published.(6, 7) Pooled analyses, including several smaller-scale European LDCT screening trials insufficiently powered in their own right, collectively demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in lung cancer mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73–0.91).(8) Despite the reduction in all-cause mortality found in the NLST, pooled analyses of seven trials found no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90–1.00).(8) However, cancer-specific mortality is currently the most relevant outcome in cancer screening trials. These seven trials demonstrated a significantly greater proportion of early stage cancers in LDCT groups compared with controls (RR 2.08, 95% CI 1.43–3.03). Thus, when considering results across mortality outcomes and early stage cancers diagnosed, LDCT screening is considered to be clinically effective. Question 2: What is the evidence of potential harms from lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? The harms of LDCT lung cancer screening include false positive tests and the consequences of unnecessary invasive follow-up procedures for conditions that are eventually diagnosed as benign. While LDCT screening leads to an increased frequency of invasive procedures, it does not result in greater mortality soon after an invasive procedure (in trial settings when compared with the control arm).(8) Overdiagnosis, exposure to radiation, psychological distress and an impact on quality of life are other known harms. Systematic review evidence indicates the benefits of LDCT screening are likely to outweigh the harms. The potential harms are likely to be reduced as refinements are made to LDCT screening protocols through: i) the application of risk predication models (e.g. the PLCOm2012), which enable a more accurate selection of the high-risk population through the use of specific criteria (beyond age and smoking history); ii) the use of nodule management algorithms (e.g. Lung-RADS, PanCan), which assist in the diagnostic evaluation of screen-detected nodules and cancers (e.g. more precise volumetric assessment of nodules); and, iii) more judicious selection of patients for invasive procedures. Recent evidence suggests a positive LDCT result may transiently increase psychological distress but does not have long-term adverse effects on psychological distress or health-related quality of life (HRQoL). With regards to smoking cessation, there is no evidence to suggest screening participation invokes a false sense of assurance in smokers, nor a reduction in motivation to quit. The NELSON and Danish trials found no difference in smoking cessation rates between LDCT screening and control groups. Higher net cessation rates, compared with general population, suggest those who participate in screening trials may already be motivated to quit. Question 3: What are the main components of recent major lung cancer screening programs or trials? There are no systematic reviews that capture the main components of recent major lung cancer screening trials and programs. We extracted evidence from original studies and clinical guidance documents and organised this into key groups to form a concise set of components for potential implementation of a national lung cancer screening program in Australia: 1. Identifying the high-risk population: recruitment, eligibility, selection and referral 2. Educating the public, people at high risk and healthcare providers; this includes creating awareness of lung cancer, the benefits and harms of LDCT screening, and shared decision-making 3. Components necessary for health services to deliver a screening program: a. Planning phase: e.g. human resources to coordinate the program, electronic data systems that integrate medical records information and link to an established national registry b. Implementation phase: e.g. human and technological resources required to conduct LDCT examinations, interpretation of reports and communication of results to participants c. Monitoring and evaluation phase: e.g. monitoring outcomes across patients, radiological reporting, compliance with established standards and a quality assurance program 4. Data reporting and research, e.g. audit and feedback to multidisciplinary teams, reporting outcomes to enhance international research into LDCT screening 5. Incorporation of smoking cessation interventions, e.g. specific programs designed for LDCT screening or referral to existing community or hospital-based services that deliver cessation interventions. Most original studies are single-institution evaluations that contain descriptive data about the processes required to establish and implement a high-risk population-based screening program. Across all studies there is a consistent message as to the challenges and complexities of establishing LDCT screening programs to attract people at high risk who will receive the greatest benefits from participation. With regards to smoking cessation, evidence from one systematic review indicates the optimal strategy for incorporating smoking cessation interventions into a LDCT screening program is unclear. There is widespread agreement that LDCT screening attendance presents a ‘teachable moment’ for cessation advice, especially among those people who receive a positive scan result. Smoking cessation is an area of significant research investment; for instance, eight US-based clinical trials are now underway that aim to address how best to design and deliver cessation programs within large-scale LDCT screening programs.(9) Question 4: What is the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening programs (include studies of cost–utility)? Assessing the value or cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening involves a complex interplay of factors including data on effectiveness and costs, and institutional context. A key input is data about the effectiveness of potential and current screening programs with respect to case detection, and the likely outcomes of treating those cases sooner (in the presence of LDCT screening) as opposed to later (in the absence of LDCT screening). Evidence about the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening programs has been summarised in two systematic reviews. We identified a further 13 studies—five modelling studies, one discrete choice experiment and seven articles—that used a variety of methods to assess cost-effectiveness. Three modelling studies indicated LDCT screening was cost-effective in the settings of the US and Europe. Two studies—one from Australia and one from New Zealand—reported LDCT screening would not be cost-effective using NLST-like protocols. We anticipate that, following the full publication of the NELSON trial, cost-effectiveness studies will likely be updated with new data that reduce uncertainty about factors that influence modelling outcomes, including the findings of indeterminate nodules. Gaps in the evidence There is a large and accessible body of evidence as to the effectiveness (Q1) and harms (Q2) of LDCT screening for lung cancer. N

PurposeBecause of growing concerns about lung cancer in female never smokers, chest low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening is often performed although it has never shown clinical benefits. We examinewhether or not female never smokers really need annual LDCT screening when the initial LDCT showed negative findings.Materials and MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included 4,365 female never smokers aged 40 to 79 years who performed initial LDCT from Aug 2002 to Dec 2007. Lung cancer diagnosis was identified from the Korea Central Cancer Registry Database registered until December 31, 2013. We calculated the incidence, cumulative probability, and standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of lung cancer by Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) categories showed on initial LDCT.ResultsAfter median follow-up of 9.69 years, 22 (0.5%) had lung cancer. Lung cancer incidence for Lung-RADS category 4 was 1,848.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1,132.4 to 3,017.2) per 100,000 person-years and 16.4 (95% CI, 7.4 to 36.4) for categories 1, 2, and 3 combined. The cumulative probability of lung cancer for category 4 was 10.6% at 5 years and 14.8% at 10 years while they were 0.07% and 0.17% when categories 1, 2, and 3 were combined. The SIR for subjects with category 4 was 43.80 (95% CI, 25.03 to 71.14), which was much higher than 0.47 (95% CI, 0.17 to 1.02) for categories 1, 2, and 3 combined.ConclusionConsidering the low risk of lung cancer development in female never smokers, it seems unnecessary to repeat annual LDCT screening for at least 5 years or even longer unless the initial LDCT showed Lung-RADS category 4 findings.

The results of large-scale clinical studies have shown that the lung cancer mortality rate can be reduced by lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in high-risk populations. Lung cancer screening requires rigorous quality control to ensure that imaging can be introduced into evidence-based medical systems and that results can be effectively delivered to examinees. Cessation of smoking is indispensable for reducing mortality in parallel with lung cancer screening. Pulmonary nodules found in LDCT during the Korean National Lung Cancer Screening are categorized according to their characteristics, size, and time of discovery based on the Lung Imaging Reporting And Data System (Lung-RADS); management guidelines are followed according to categorization. To improve the efficiency of lung cancer screening, studies are currently ongoing to enable selection of high-risk groups using lung cancer prediction models and biomarkers. Based on the risk estimation classification of lung cancer, it is expected that the selection of screening subjects and the screening cycle can be differentiated, which will increase the efficiency of screening, reduce the risk of unnecessary radiation exposure, and reduce the cost of screening.

Racial and ethnic differences in lung cancer screening (LCS) completion and follow-up may be associated with lung cancer incidence and mortality rates among high-risk populations. Aggregation of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander racial and ethnic groups may mask the true underlying disparities in screening uptake and diagnostic follow-up, creating barriers for targeted, preventive health care. To examine racial and ethnic differences in LCS completion and follow-up rates in a multiethnic population. This population-based cohort study was conducted at a health maintenance organization in Hawaii. LCS program participants were identified using electronic medical records from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019. Study eligibility requirements included being aged 55 to 79 years, a 30 pack-year smoking history, a current smoker or having quit within the past 15 years, at least 5 years past any lung cancer diagnosis and treatment, and cancer free. Data analysis was performed from June 2019 to October 2020. Eligible for LCS. Screening rates were analyzed by self-reported race and ethnicity and completion of a low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) test. Diagnostic follow-up results were based on the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) staging system. A total of 1030 eligible LCS program members had an order placed; their mean (SD) age was 65.5 (5.8) years, and 633 (61%) were men. The largest racial and ethnic groups were non-Hispanic White (381 participants [37.0%]), Native Hawaiian or part Native Hawaiian (186 participants [18.1%]), and Japanese (146 participants [14.2%]). Men and Filipino, Chinese, Japanese, and non-Hispanic White individuals had a higher proportion of screen orders for LDCT compared with women and individuals of the other racial and ethnic groups. The overall LCS completion rate was 81% (838 participants). There was a 14% to 15% screening completion rate gap among groups. Asian individuals had the highest screening completion rate (266 participants [86%]) followed by Native Hawaiian (149 participants [80%]) and non-Hispanic White individuals (305 participants [80%]), Pacific Islander (50 participants [79%]) individuals, and individuals of other racial and ethnic groups (68 participants [77%]). Within Asian subgroups, Korean (31 participants [94%]) and Japanese (129 participants [88%]) individuals had the highest completion rates followed by Chinese individuals (28 participants [82%]) and Filipino individuals (78 participants [79%]). Of the 54 participants with Lung-RADS stage 3 disease, 93% (50 participants) completed a 6-month surveillance LDCT test; of 37 individuals with Lung-RADS stage 4 disease, 35 (97%) were followed-up for additional procedures. This cohort study found racial and ethnic disparities in LCS completion rates after disaggregation of Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and Asian individuals and their subgroups. These findings suggest that future research is needed to understand factors that may be associated with LCS completion and follow-up behaviors among these racial and ethnic groups.