Decision analysis of the effectiveness of lung cancer screening using autofluorescence bronchoscopy and computed tomography

Background: Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer death in the developed world. Most cancers are associated with tobacco smoking. A primary hope for reducing lung cancer has been prevention of smoking and successful smoking cessation programs. To date, these programs have not been as successful as anticipated. Objective: The aim of the current study was to evaluate whether lung cancer screening combining low dose computed tomography with autofluorescence bronchoscopy (combined CT & AFB) is superior to CT or AFB screening alone in improving lung cancer specific survival. In addition, the extent of improvement and ideal conditions for combined CT & AFB screening were evaluated. Methods: We applied decision analysis and Monte Carlo simulation modeling using TreeAge Software to evaluate our study aims. Histology- and stage specific probabilities of lung cancer 5-year survival proportions were taken from Surveillance and Epidemiologic End Results (SEER) Registry data. Screeningassociated data was taken from the US NCI Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO), National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), and US NCI Lung Screening Study (LSS), other relevant published data and expert opinion. Results: Decision Analysis - Combined CT and AFB was the best approach at Improving 5-year survival (Overall Expected Survival (OES) in the entire screened population was 0.9863) and in lung cancer patients only (Lung Cancer Specific Expected Survival (LOSES) was 0.3256). Combined screening was slightly better than CT screening alone (OES = 0.9859; LCSES = 0.2966), and substantially better than AFB screening alone (OES = 0.9842; LCSES = 0.2124), which was considerably better than no screening (OES = 0.9829; LCSES = 0.1445). Monte Carlo simulation modeling revealed that expected survival in the screened population and lung cancer patients is highest when screened using CT and combined CT and AFB. CT alone and combined screening was substantially better than AFB screening alone or no screening. For LCSES, combined CT and AFB screening is significantly better than CT alone (0.3126 vs. 0.2938, p< 0.0001). Conclusions: Overall, these analyses suggest that combined CT and AFB is slightly better than CT alone at improving lung cancer survival, and both approaches are substantially better than AFB screening alone or no screening.

Associations Between Personal Cancer History and Lung Cancer Risk

The study aim was to investigate the relationship between factors related to personal cancer history and lung cancer risk as well as assess their predictive utility. Characteristics of interest included the number, anatomical site(s), and age of onset of previous cancer(s). Data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Screening (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial (N = 154,901) and National Lung Screening Trial (N = 53,452) were analysed. Logistic regression models were used to assess the relationships between each variable of interest and 6-year lung cancer risk. Predictive utility was assessed through changes in area-under-the-curve (AUC) after substitution into the PLCOall2014 lung cancer risk prediction model. Previous lung, uterine and oral cancers were strongly and significantly associated with elevated 6-year lung cancer risk after controlling for confounders. None of these refined measures of personal cancer history offered more predictive utility than the simple (yes/no) measure already included in the PLCOall2014 model.

Predicting the Risk of Lung Cancer in Never-smokers

Despite being considered a disease of smokers, approximately 10-15% of lung cancer cases occur in never-smokers. Lung cancer risk prediction models have demonstrated excellent ability to discriminate cases from non-cases, and have been shown to be more efficient at selecting individuals for future screening than current criteria. Existing models have primarily been developed in populations of smokers, thus there was a need to develop an accurate model in never-smokers. This study focused on developing and validating a model using never-smokers from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. Cox regression analysis, with six-year follow-up, was used for model building. Predictors included: age, body mass index, education level, personal history of cancer, family history of lung cancer, previous chest X-ray, and secondhand smoke exposure. This model achieved fair discrimination (optimism corrected c-statistic = 0.6645) and good calibration. This represents an improvement on existing neversmoker models, but is not suitable for individual-level risk prediction.