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.

Conformational analysis of antibody binding site using EDMA methods /

Euclidean distance matrix analysis (EDMA) methods are used to distinguish whether or not significant difference exists between conformational samples of antibody complementarity determining region (CDR) loops, isolated LI loop and LI in three-loop assembly (LI, L3 and H3) obtained from Monte Carlo simulation. After the significant difference is detected, the specific inter-Ca distance which contributes to the difference is identified using EDMA.The estimated and improved mean forms of the conformational samples of isolated LI loop and LI loop in three-loop assembly, CDR loops of antibody binding site, are described using EDMA and distance geometry (DGEOM). To the best of our knowledge, it is the first time the EDMA methods are used to analyze conformational samples of molecules obtained from Monte Carlo simulations. Therefore, validations of the EDMA methods using both positive control and negative control tests for the conformational samples of isolated LI loop and LI in three-loop assembly must be done. The EDMA-I bootstrap null hypothesis tests showed false positive results for the comparison of six samples of the isolated LI loop and true positive results for comparison of conformational samples of isolated LI loop and LI in three-loop assembly. The bootstrap confidence interval tests revealed true negative results for comparisons of six samples of the isolated LI loop, and false negative results for the conformational comparisons between isolated LI loop and LI in three-loop assembly. Different conformational sample sizes are further explored by combining the samples of isolated LI loop to increase the sample size, or by clustering the sample using self-organizing map (SOM) to narrow the conformational distribution of the samples being comparedmolecular conformations. However, there is no improvement made for both bootstrap null hypothesis and confidence interval tests. These results show that more work is required before EDMA methods can be used reliably as a method for comparison of samples obtained by Monte Carlo simulations.