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.

Analytical modelling of bacterial migration and accumulation with rate-limited sorption in discrete fractures

An analytical model for bacterial accumulation in a discrete fractllre has been developed. The transport and accumlllation processes incorporate into the model include advection, dispersion, rate-limited adsorption, rate-limited desorption, irreversible adsorption, attachment, detachment, growth and first order decay botl1 in sorbed and aqueous phases. An analytical solution in Laplace space is derived and nlln1erically inverted. The model is implemented in the code BIOFRAC vvhich is written in Fortran 99. The model is derived for two phases, Phase I, where adsorption-desorption are dominant, and Phase II, where attachment-detachment are dominant. Phase I ends yvhen enollgh bacteria to fully cover the substratllm have accllillulated. The model for Phase I vvas verified by comparing to the Ogata-Banks solution and the model for Phase II was verified by comparing to a nonHomogenous version of the Ogata-Banks solution. After verification, a sensitiv"ity analysis on the inpllt parameters was performed. The sensitivity analysis was condllcted by varying one inpllt parameter vvhile all others were fixed and observing the impact on the shape of the clirve describing bacterial concentration verSllS time. Increasing fracture apertllre allovvs more transport and thus more accllffilliation, "Vvhich diminishes the dllration of Phase I. The larger the bacteria size, the faster the sllbstratum will be covered. Increasing adsorption rate, was observed to increase the dllration of Phase I. Contrary to the aSSllmption ofllniform biofilm thickness, the accllffilliation starts frOll1 the inlet, and the bacterial concentration in aqlleous phase moving towards the olitiet declines, sloyving the accumulation at the outlet. Increasing the desorption rate, redllces the dliration of Phase I, speeding IIp the accllmlilation. It was also observed that Phase II is of longer duration than Phase I. Increasing the attachment rate lengthens the accliffililation period. High rates of detachment speeds up the transport. The grovvth and decay rates have no significant effect on transport, althollgh increases the concentrations in both aqueous and sorbed phases are observed. Irreversible adsorption can stop accllillulation completely if the vallIes are high.