Decrease In Lung Cancer Mortality Research Articles

Lung cancer screening: Real screening site data, Vojvodina, Serbia

Abstract Background Lung cancer (LC) is the top cause of cancer-related deaths globally and in Serbia, often diagnosed in advanced stage of disease with when 5-year survival is 10% to 20%. LC screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) can decrease LC mortality and overall mortality. The first pilot LC screening program in Serbia started in the Institute for Pulmonary Diseases of Vojvodina in September 2020. The main objective of this study was to analyze LC patient characteristics according to their screening status. Methods This retrospective study utilized LC hospital registry data from September 2020 to December 2023, including gender, age at diagnosis, settlement area, smoking habits, cancer histological type, TNM classification, disease stage (1-4), and data on participation in LC screening. Group differences were assessed using chi-square and Student’s t-tests, with analyses conducted in SPSS v24.0. Results During observed period from a total of 4649 LC cases 2948 (63.4%) were males, and 73 (1.6%) were included in LC screening. Average age of all LC patients was 66 years, without differences between groups (p = 0.778). Significant differences between groups by gender were find (p = 0.042). Non-screened LC patients were significantly common males compared to females (63.6% vs 36.4%), while among screened difference by gender were lower (52.1% vs 47.9%, respectively). Screened compared to non-screened LC patients have significantly lower percentage of SCLC (9.6% vs 19.1%), and higher percentage of NSCLC (90.4% vs 80.9%), (p = 0.040). According to LC stage, screened compared to non-screened patients were significantly common diagnosed in stage I of disease (45.8% vs 7.8%), and significantly less common in higher LC stages; stage IIIB (11.1% vs 22.5%), and in stage IV (22.2% vs 45.7%), (p < 0.001). Conclusions LC screening with LDCT is proven secondary preventive measure with significant influence on decreasing LC mortality by increasing number of LC patients in early stages of disease. Key messages • Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT significantly increases early-stage diagnoses, improving survival chances. • Population strategies to prevent smoking and screening programs for high-risk groups are needed to reduce lung cancer incidence and mortality rates in Serbia.

Abstract A071: County-level racial and ethnic diversity index and cancer mortality in the U.S.

Abstract Background: The United States is experiencing a demographic trend of increasing racial and ethnic diversity. While persistent racial and ethnic disparities in cancer mortality are well documented, little is known about the impact of racial and ethnic diversity on cancer outcomes in the United States. Purpose: We examined associations between the U.S. county-level racial & ethnic diversity index and age-adjusted cancer mortality rates. We also assessed whether associations differed by geographic region, persistent poverty, and rurality. Methods: We used the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2020 Racial and Ethnic Diversity Index, which estimates the chance that two people chosen at random will be from different racial and ethnic groups. The diversity index was calculated at the county-level and categorized as follows: less than 35% (lowest), 35.0 to 44.9%, 45.0 to 54.9%, 55.0 to 64.9% and 65.0% or more (highest). We described county- level sociodemographic characteristics according to the diversity index categories. We calculated mean and standard errors of the county-level age-adjusted cancer mortality rates per 100,000 from 2016-2020 (overall and by site for the top four sites for cancer mortality) across the diversity index categories. We used multivariable linear regression models to examine associations between racial and ethnic diversity and cancer mortality, overall and by cancer site. We also assessed models stratified by geographic region (U.S. Census regions), persistent poverty and rurality. Results: Counties with more racial and ethnic diversity had a younger median age, a higher proportion of college graduates, and were less likely to be rural. Cancer mortality rates per 100,000 were lower in the most vs. least diverse counties, overall (144.7 vs. 164.6), and for lung (32.5 vs. 44.8), and colorectal cancer (13.0 vs. 15.6). In adjusted models, the highest vs. lowest racial and ethnic diversity was associated with a 7.25 decrease in overall cancer mortality rates (95% CI: -10.5 to -4.0), a 6.55 decrease in lung cancer mortality (95% CI: -8.0 to -5.1) and a 1.49 increase in breast cancer mortality (95% CI: 0.7 to 2.3). The diversity index was not associated with colorectal cancer mortality or pancreatic cancer mortality in adjusted models. Inverse associations of diversity index and overall cancer mortality were strongest in the South Census region (b=-13.0, 95% CI: -17.5 to -8.4), in non-persistent poverty counties (b=-9.0, 95% CI: -12.4 to -5.5), and in rural counties (b=-8.6, 95% CI: -13.2 to -4.1). Conclusions: Greater racial and ethnic diversity was associated with lower overall cancer mortality and lung cancer mortality rates, although it was associated with significantly higher breast cancer mortality rates. Findings help elucidate whether and how social factors may differentially impact subgroups of the population to influence cancer mortality. This study addresses an urgent need to explore contextual factors that may shape racial and ethnic disparities at the population level. Citation Format: Kelly A. Hirko, Breanna Greteman, Sabrina Ford, Sarah H. Nash. County-level racial and ethnic diversity index and cancer mortality in the U.S. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl):Abstract nr A071.

In-training and private physicians' knowledge, attitudes, practices and perceived barriers on the utilization of low dose chest CT scan as lung cancer screening for high-risk patients in a tertiary hospital: Single center experience.

150 Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Aside from smoking cessation efforts and guidelines from all proficient panels, utilizing Low dose CT scan (LDCT) of the chest as lung cancer screening (LCS) has been poorly adopted. Methods: This was conducted after institutional review board approval. The respondents were handed hard copy or electronic consent forms and survey questionnaire depending on the platform of their choice. Results: Majority of the respondents were in-training female physicians with median age of 31 years old who specialized in Internal Medicine practicing between 1-5 years who catered to more than 10 patients per week in outpatient clinics. Nearly half of the respondents answered that the recommended frequency for lung cancer screening (LCS) for high-risk individuals is done bi-annually. Majority agreed that lung cancer screening is effective in decreasing lung cancer mortality and morbidity. Most respondents have initiated discussion about the risks and benefits of low dose chest CT scan (LDCT) as lung cancer screening among eligible high-risk patients. However, most of the respondents disagreed that lung cancer screening is cost effective. The top three perceived barriers on the utilization of Low dose chest CT scan as lung cancer screening reported in descending order revealed that it is not cost-effective, some forgets to screen patients and lung cancer screening has the potential to cause mental anguish or anxiety to patients. Conclusions: This study recommends conducting further studies exploring the socio-economic burden and impact assessment of lung cancer in the Philippines to enable translation of more meaningful strategies for local and national lung cancer screening access, health policies and financing. Promoting continuous lung cancer screening forums, lectures and information dissemination of annual LDCT of the chest among high risk patients will encourage and strengthen interdepartmental and multidisciplinary referral and collaboration in increasing earlier detection of lung cancer and decreasing related morbidity and mortality.

Increasing Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening Among Emergency Department Patients: A Pilot Study

BackgroundLung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Lung cancer screening (LCS) decreases lung cancer mortality. Emergency department (ED) patients are at disproportionately high risk for lung cancer. The ED, therefore, is an optimal environment for interventions to promote LCS. ObjectivesDemonstrate the operational feasibility of identifying ED patients in need of LCS, referring them to LCS services, deploying a text message intervention to promote LCS, and conducting follow-up to determine LCS uptake. MethodsWe conducted a randomized clinical trial to determine the feasibility and provide estimates of the preliminary efficacies of 1) basic referral for LCS and 2) basic referral plus a text messaging intervention, grounded in behavioral change theory, to promote uptake of LCS among ED patients. Participants aged 50 to 80, identified as eligible for LCS, were randomized to study arms and followed up at 150 days to assess interval LCS uptake (primary outcome), barriers to screening, and perceptions of the study interventions. ResultsA total of 303 patients were surveyed, with 198 identified as eligible for LCS and subsequently randomized. Results indicated that 24% of participants with follow-up data received LCS (11% of the total randomized sample). Rates of screening at follow-up were similar across study arms. The intervention significantly improved normative perceptions of LCS (p = 0.015; Cohen's d = 0.45). ConclusionThis pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of ED-based interventions to increase uptake of LCS among ED patients. A scalable ED-based intervention that increases LCS uptake could reduce lung cancer mortality.

Abstract PR007: Molecular subtyping of lung adenocarcinoma premalignant lesions identifies features associated with aggressive disease

Abstract Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death. The five year survival rate had remained stagnant for decades, but more effective screening protocols using low-dose computed tomographic screening for high-risk individuals, along with progress in treatment for advanced-stage lung cancer with targeted therapy and immunotherapy, have helped decrease lung cancer mortality. However, improved approaches to lung cancer prevention and early detection are still urgently needed. Adenocarcinoma (LUAD) is the most common form of lung cancer. Following surgical resection of pre-invasive adenocarcinoma in situ, the five-year survival rate approaches 100%. This emphasizes the need for improved understanding of characteristics of aggressive premalignant lesions that would benefit from early interventions. In contrast to the well-characterized histopathologic sequence of lung squamous cell carcinoma, atypical adenomatous hyperplasia (AAH) and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) are the only known precursors in the sequence of LUAD pathogenesis. The features of AAH and AIS that lead to invasive LUAD are poorly characterized. The relationship of AIS and AAH to the histologically diverse subtypes of LUAD, ranging from the typically slow growing lepidic to aggressive solid subtypes, are also unclear. We hypothesized that transcriptomic changes in subsets of premalignant lesions are linked to distinct genomic and clinicopathologic features of malignant disease. To investigate this hypothesis, we performed exome sequencing and bulk RNA sequencing of laser capture microdissected tissue from tumor margins that included premalignant lesions, invasive tumor, and adjacent normal tissues. With our analysis, we discovered de novo subtypes of LUAD premalignant lesions based on gene expression. One of these subtypes had gene expression alterations similar to aggressive invasive LUAD solid tumors. This molecular adenomatous premalignant lesion subtype was also associated with an increased accumulation of cancer driver mutations. This subtype was further characterized by altered expression of immune-related pathways. Molecular signatures measured in adenomatous PML may thus enhance our understanding of pathway dysregulation and mutational heterogeneity occurring during LUAD carcinogenesis, and implicate immunotherapeutic strategies to prevent their progression to cancer. Citation Format: Kelley Anderson, Linh Tran, Kostyantyn Krysan, William Wallace, Gregory Fishbein, Emily Green, Gang Liu, Hanqiao Liu, Erin Kane, Sarah Mazzilli, Steven Dubinett, Avrum Spira, Marc Lenburg, Jennifer Beane. Molecular subtyping of lung adenocarcinoma premalignant lesions identifies features associated with aggressive disease [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Translating Cancer Evolution and Data Science: The Next Frontier; 2023 Dec 3-6; Boston, Massachusetts. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(3 Suppl_2):Abstract nr PR007.

Do we know enough about the effect of low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer on mortality to act? An updated systematic review, meta-analysis and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials 2017 to 2021

BackgroundFor people at high risk of lung cancer, low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is proposed as a method to reduce mortality.MethodsOur objective was to estimate the effect of LDCT lung cancer screening on mortality in high-risk populations.A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDCT screening programmes with usual care (no screening) or other imaging screening programme (such as chest X-ray (CXR)) was conducted. RCTs of CXR screening were additionally included in the network meta-analyses. Bibliographic sources including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched to January 2017, and then further extended to November 2021. All key review steps were done by two persons. Quality assessment used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analyses were performed.ResultsNine RCTs, with up to 12.3 years of follow-up from randomisation, were included in the direct meta-analysis, which showed that LDCT screening was associated with a statistically significant decrease in lung cancer mortality (pooled relative risk (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77 to 0.96). There was a statistically non-significant decrease in all-cause mortality (pooled RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.01). The statistical heterogeneity for both outcomes was minimal. Network meta-analysis including the nine RCTs in the direct meta-analysis plus two further RCTs comparing CXR with usual care confirmed the size of the effect of LDCT on lung cancer mortality and that this was very similar irrespective of whether the comparator was usual care or CXR screening.ConclusionsLDCT screening is effective in reducing lung cancer mortality in high-risk populations. The uncertainty of its effect on lung cancer mortality observed in 2018 has been much reduced with new trial results and updates to existing trials, emphasising the importance of updating systematic reviews. Although there are still a number of RCTs unreported or in progress, we predict that further evolution of summary mortality estimates is unlikely. The focus for debate now moves to resolving uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening taking into account the balance between benefits and harms which occur in all screening programmes.

Patient navigation for lung cancer screening in an urban safety-net system: A pragmatic randomized clinical trial.

10577 Background: Although low-dose computed tomography (LDCT)-based lung cancer screening (LCS) can decrease lung cancer mortality in high-risk individuals, it may be a complex and time-intensive process that poses challenges to patients, particularly those from minority, under- and uninsured populations. We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of telephone-based navigation for LCS within an integrated, urban safety-net healthcare system (Parkland Health, Dallas, Texas). Methods: Patients eligible for LCS based on United States Preventive Services Task Force 2013 Guidelines were randomized (1:1) to usual care with or without phone-based navigation. Following a structured protocol, navigators made systemic contact with patients to provide appointment reminders, share information and resources, assess barriers to LCS, and address smoking cessation. The primary endpoint was completion of the first three consecutive steps (eg, 3 annual LDCTs or LDCT, other imaging, biopsy) in a patient’s LCS process. We also explored differences in completion of LCS steps in navigation and usual care groups according to patient characteristics using chi-square test. Results: Patients (n=447) were randomized to phone-based navigation (n=225) or usual care (n=222) between February 2017 and February 2019. Mean patient age was 62 years, 46% were female, and 69% were racial-ethnic minorities. There was no significant difference in completion of the first three steps of the LCS algorithm (12 vs. 9%; P=0.3) between arms. Completion of LCS steps was not impacted by navigation among different subgroups, including age (<65 vs. ≥65 years), gender (male vs. female), race/ethnicity (non-hispanic white vs. racial minorities), and comorbidity status (Charlson Comorbidity Index <5 vs. ≥5). A key reason for step non-completion was lack of order placement. In the navigation arm, 368 of expected 675 steps (55%) were ordered, and in the usual care arm, 344 of expected 666 steps (52%) were ordered. Despite low three-step completion rates overall, the majority (>75%) of LCS algorithm steps were completed when ordered by their clinical team(Table). In exploratory univariable analysis, completion rates for ordered steps were 86% for navigation and 79% for usual care ( P=0.03). Conclusions: In this study, lack of order placement was a key reason for incomplete LCS steps. When orders were placed, navigated patients had higher rates of completion. Clinical team education and enhanced EHR processes to simplify order placement, coupled with patient navigation, may increase LCS uptake and completion in safety-net healthcare systems. Clinical trial information: NCT02758054 . [Table: see text]

Screening for Lung Cancer: An Expert Review

The NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening have evolved over time to reflect the latest evidence and expert consensus. These NCCN Guidelines have played a significant role in shaping clinical practice and policy, leading to increased payer coverage for lung cancer screening and decreasing lung cancer mortality. Continued research and advancements in early detection methods, along with the implementation of effective screening programs, will be crucial in the ongoing effort to reduce lung cancer mortality and improve the overall quality of life for patients affected by this disease.

A predictive model for lung cancer screening nonadherence in a community setting health-care network.

Lung cancer screening (LCS) decreases lung cancer mortality. However, its benefit may be limited by nonadherence to screening. Although factors associated with LCS nonadherence have been identified, to the best of our knowledge, no predictive models have been developed to predict LCS nonadherence. The purpose of this study was to develop a predictive model leveraging a machine learning model to predict LCS nonadherence risk. A retrospective cohort of patients who enrolled in our LCS program between 2015 and 2018 was used to develop a model to predict the risk of nonadherence to annual LCS after the baseline examination. Clinical and demographic data were used to fit logistic regression, random forest, and gradient-boosting models that were internally validated on the basis of accuracy and area under the receiver operating curve. A total of 1875 individuals with baseline LCS were included in the analysis, with 1264 (67.4%) as nonadherent. Nonadherence was defined on the basis of baseline chest computed tomography (CT) findings. Clinical and demographic predictors were used on the basis of availability and statistical significance. The gradient-boosting model had the highest area under the receiver operating curve (0.89, 95% confidence interval = 0.87 to 0.90), with a mean accuracy of 0.82. Referral specialty, insurance type, and baseline Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (LungRADS) score were the best predictors of nonadherence to LCS. We developed a machine learning model using readily available clinical and demographic data to predict LCS nonadherence with high accuracy and discrimination. After further prospective validation, this model can be used to identify patients for interventions to improve LCS adherence and decrease lung cancer burden.

Smoking Cessation Interventions for Chinese American Smokers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Smoking cessation interventions are important for decreasing lung cancer mortality rate among Chinese Americans. This study aims to investigate and summarize the intervention methods focusing on smoking cessation among Chinese Americans and to compare the effects of intervention methods on the smoking cessation rates. A systematic review and meta-analysis design was used in this study. Keyword searching was conducted in August 2021 on PubMed, Google Scholar, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. The methodological quality of each study was assessed using the PEDro scale or The Methodological item for non-randomized studies (MINORS). The Review Manager Version 5.4 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Random effect model and subgroup analysis were applied in the analysis. Twenty and 11 studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. Of the 20 studies, 8 were randomized control studies, 9 were pre-post single group intervention studies, 1 was retrospective analysis for an intervention study, 1 was a baseline data analysis from a cluster randomized trial, 1 was a feasibility intervention study. Results showed that compared to the control group, the group that received interventions on smoking cessation had a significantly increased smoking cessation rate (OR, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.72-8.21; P=0.0009). Subgroup analysis showed individual-based (OR, 5.88) NRT outreach interventions (OR, 3.80) conducted in person (OR, 2.53) with smokers (OR, 6.64) seemed to be more effective to increase smoking cessation rates among Chinese Americans compared with group-based, telephone counseling, indirect remote interventions conducted among Chinese American smokers and their non-smoke family members. Individual-based NRT outreach interventions conducted in person with smokers is an effective way to increase smoking cessation rates among Chinese Americans. More culturally sensitive and effective interventions are needed to help Chinese American smokers to quit smoking.

Important parameters for cost-effective implementation of lung cancer screening.

It is now widely accepted that lung cancer screening through low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) results in fewer diagnoses at a late stage, and decreased lung cancer mortality. Whilst reducing deaths from lung cancer is an essential prerequisite, this must be balanced against the considerable economic costs accumulated in screening. Multiple health economic models have shown substantial variation in cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY), partly driven by the healthcare costs in the country concerned and partly by other modifiable programme components. Recent modelling using UK costs and a targeted approach suggest that most scenarios are within the willingness to pay threshold for the UK. However, identifying the most clinically and cost-effective programme is a priority to minimise the total financial impact. Programme components that influence cost-effectiveness include the method of selection of the eligible population, the participation rate, the interval between rounds of screening, the method of pulmonary nodule management, and the approach to clinical work up. Future research will clarify if a personalised approach to screening, using baseline and subsequent risk to define screening intervals is more cost-effective. The burden of LDCT screening on the medical infrastructure and workforce has to be quantified and carefully managed during implementation.

EP01.02-007 It’s Not How You Start, It’s How You Finish: Patient Motivators to Follow Low-Dose Screening Recommendations

Low-Dose CT (LDCT) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended for ages 50-80 with 20 pack-years smoking history that currently smoke or have quit within 15 years. Although LCS decreases lung cancer mortality 20-25%, recent US screening rates are only 6.5%. Furthermore, adherence to follow-up is suboptimal outside of studies due to provider, patient, and system barriers. Our goal was to explore patients’ motivating factors and deterrents to LDCT follow-up in an underserved population.

Doing Versus Documenting Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening-Are They the Same?

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with annual low-dose chest CT (LDCT) decreases lung cancer mortality by 20% compared with chest radiography [1]. LCS for high-risk individuals carries a US Preventive Services Task Force Grade B recommendation and is covered by CMS and third-party insurers [1,2]. Yet, different to other cancer screenings, CMS requires a documented, structured, shared decision-making (SDM) encounter before the first screening examination. This policy was intended to reinforce the need to select appropriate individuals for screening and to counsel them about the potential benefits and risks of screening and the importance of adherence [2].

Abstract 2227: Development and validation of a blood-based protein-only predictor of 5-year lung cancer risk in ever smokers

Abstract Background: Lung cancer is the second most common cancer type and is the leading cause of cancer death globally, with smoking and advancing age as the leading causal risk factors. The USPSTF guidelines for lung cancer screening recommends annual screening for select current or former smokers over 50 years of age. While annual screening via low dose CT has been demonstrated to decrease lung cancer mortality, compliance with screening guidelines remains low. Additional prognostic tools for future lung cancer risk stratification, particularly those without immutable demographic and health history, may be beneficial in increasing screening compliance and monitoring changing risk across time. Methods: Using modified-aptamer proteomics technology, SomaScan® assay v4.0, we scanned ~5000 proteins in 6085 EDTA plasma samples from “Ever Smokers” (current or former smokers, aged 50-73) with no known prevalent cancer at visit 3 of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, for a total of ~30 million protein measurements. A total of 348 incident lung cancer diagnoses occurred in this sample set, with 75 occurring within 5 years of visit 3 blood-draw. Time to lung cancer diagnosis events were modeled with protein measurements using machine learning methods in 70% of ARIC visit 3 ever smokers. A model was selected based on performance in a 15% holdout sample subset and validated in the remaining 15% ARIC visit 3 samples not used for model training or selection. Results: A 7-feature protein-only accelerated failure time (AFT) Weibull model was successfully developed to predict the probability of a lung cancer diagnosis within 5 years of blood draw. Model performance in training, model selection, and validation datasets was AUC equal to 0.76, 0.72, and 0.83, respectively. Based on predicted probabilities from the model, individuals were stratified into 3 risk bins (low, medium, and high) with a 5-year event rate of 0.49% vs 2.74% in low vs high risk bins. Model performance was additionally assessed in an independent Japanese cohort. Conclusion: We successfully developed a blood-based protein-only model that predicts risk of developing lung cancer in ever smokers. Performance of the protein model out-performs traditional risk factors for lung cancer and given the lack of immutable factors it has the potential to provide real-time risk which can be repeatedly assessed over time. Proteomics-driven risk stratification may have ability to increase adherence to lung cancer screening guidelines and/or influence a positive behavior change in modifiable risk-related behaviors. Citation Format: Clare Paterson, Leigh Alexander, Rachel Ostroff, Joseph Gogain, Yolanda Hagar, Hannah Biegel, Stephen Williams. Development and validation of a blood-based protein-only predictor of 5-year lung cancer risk in ever smokers [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 2227.

Lung Cancer Screening: Review and 2021 Update.

Purpose of ReviewLung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) scans has been widely accepted within the last decade. Our knowledge and ability to implement screening has greatly increased because of significant research efforts and guidelines from multiple professional societies. The purpose of this review is to summarize some of the significant findings pertaining to lung cancer screening.Recent FindingsScreening with LDCT decreases lung cancer mortality in multiple studies. Use of validated risk prediction calculators can improve patient selection and screening efficiency. Shared decision making and smoking cessation counseling are essential screening components. Multidisciplinary involvement is required for the success of a screening program.SummaryLung cancer screening is complex, and implementation of a successful program requires multidisciplinary expertise. Further prospective studies are required to determine optimal patient selection, screening intervals, and strategies to maximize benefit while further decreasing harms.’

Factors Associated With Lung Cancer Screening Adherence Among Patients With Negative Baseline CT Results in a Community Health Care Setting.

Lung cancer screening (LCS) decreases lung cancer mortality; however, that reduction depends upon screening adherence. The purpose of this study was to determine factors associated with adherence rate for LCS among patients with negative baseline CT results in a multi-integrated health care network. A retrospective analysis was conducted among patients with negative baseline CT results in a multi-integrated health care network LCS program between January 2015 and January 2020. The two outcomes were adherence for the first and second subsequent LCS studies. Negative baseline result was defined as a Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System score 0, 1, or 2. Adherence was defined as undergoing a follow-up study within 11 to 15 months of a prior scan. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine significant predictors of adherence, adjusting for patient demographics, median household income (on the basis of geocoding ZIP codes from the US Census Bureau), smoking history, screening sites, and provider specialty. A total of 30.7% (512 of 1,668) and 16.3% (270 of 1,660) of patients were adherent for the first two annual subsequent screens, respectively. First-year adherence was higher among former smokers and varied by site and provider specialty. Second-year adherence was higher among former smokers and varied by site, provider specialty, and pack-years smoked. Adherence to LCS in a multihospital integrated health care network was poor and even lower at year 2. The identified factors associated with adherence may serve as targets to increase LCS adherence and decrease lung cancer mortality.

Narrative review of cytokines and cell surface markers in the tumor microenvironment of stage I lung cancer

: The possibility to apply the knowledge of cell surface markers and cytokines in the tumor microenvironment of early lung cancer (LC) in clinical practice, is still a developing facet of oncological medicine, but may possibly be a very fertile, not wholly explored facet. Although early diagnosis of LC through the efforts of LC screening has served an important role in decreasing LC mortality, cancer recurrence is also an equally important clinical concern. Cell surface markers and cytokines in the tumor microenvironment of LC may serve a clinical prognostic purpose. This is specifically with regard to risk stratification and subsequent identification of patients that may most benefit from early postoperative adjuvant therapy, based on their risk of recurrence. These molecules could also potentially serve as therapeutic targets. However, the roles and effects of various cytokines and cell surface markers in the immune microenvironment (IME) of LC and other cancers, as well as the interplay between these molecules and infiltrating immune cells, have not been fully elaborated, and there remains work to be done in this respect. This article attempts to discuss some of these cell surface markers and cytokines that may, in the future, serve as prognosticators for the early LC, possibly in the forms of stratification scores and models.

Lung cancer screening: a critical appraisal.

The recently published large-scale NELSON trial showed a reduction in lung cancer (LC) mortality with the use of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in high-risk patients. This is the first such European-based trial to mirror the results of the US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). The NLST was responsible for nationwide implementation of LC screening protocols which has shown a decrease in LC mortality. However, the implementation of such screening in Europe has been challenging. With the findings from the NELSON trial, implementation of LC screening throughout Europe should once again be evaluated. This review article further elaborates on the advantages of LDCT in LC screening. It also discusses promising future approaches that can supplement the current LC screening guidelines. Implementation of LC screening with LDCT should again be evaluated throughout Europe as it could substantially decrease LC-related mortality.

Results of Second Round Lung Cancer Screening by Low-Dose CT scan - French Cohort Study (DEP-KP80)

IntroductionOver the last few years, lung cancer screening by low-dose CT scan has demonstrated a decrease in lung cancer mortality. While this method has been in use since 2013 in the United States of America, no European country has yet implemented a systematic screening program. We hereby report the results from the second round of screening from a French cohort study. Patients and MethodsDEP KP80 is a prospective study evaluating lung cancer screening by means of three low-dose computer tomography (CT) scans at 1-year intervals in 1,307 participants, aged 55 to 74 years old, all smokers or former smokers, having quit within the last 15 years, with over 30 pack years. The results of the first round demonstrated it was possible to conduct effective screening in real-life situations. ResultsParticipation was lower in this second round than in the first (35.3% vs. 73.1%, P < .001). The rate of negative results was significantly higher and that of undetermined results lower than those produced in the first round. Overall, 75% of cancers revealed were Stage 1 and 87.5% benefitted from surgical treatment. The incidence of cancer in the second round was 2.43%. ConclusionAs with the first round, the results of this second round confirm the feasibility and efficacy of lung cancer screening. The lower participation rate for this second round is proof of the need to improve awareness among participants and healthcare professionals of the relevance of committing to an annual screening program.

Lung Cancer Screening in a Safety-Net Hospital: Rare Harms Inform Decision Making

BackgroundLung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) decreases lung cancer mortality; however, screening benefits and harms are poorly described in minority populations. Our purpose is to report benefits and harms of LCS implemented in a safety-net institution. Because harms are rare, there is a paucity of clinical experience guiding shared decision making (SDM) with diverse populations. MethodsWe conducted a prospective, observational study of patients undergoing LCS between September 2014 and March 2019 with 2-year follow-up. LDCT results, lung cancer diagnosis, stage, treatment, false-positive results, false-negative procedure from a false-positive result, complication from procedures, and death were recorded. Patient cases highlighting the challenges of delivering LCS to an underserved population were evaluated in the context of current evidence. ResultsAmong the 995 patients who underwent screening, 54.9% were African American, with 2.9% receiving a cancer diagnosis, a false-positive rate of 9.4% and a 0.7% rate of procedures resulting from a false-positive result. Five patient cases highlight challenges, namely (1) false-positive result resulting in operation, (2) false-negative result, (3) incidental finding, (4) delay in diagnosis, and (5) death from cause other than lung cancer. ConclusionsLCS of a predominantly African American population with 2-year follow-up demonstrates early detection and treatment of lung cancer with few harms. Although rare, harms must be clearly described with population-specific evidence. We report clinical perspective of rare harms that can provide guidance to providers and patients.