Early detection of lung cancer: a statement from an expert panel of the Swiss university hospitals on lung cancer screening.

The discussion about setting up a program for lung cancer screening was launched with the publication of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial, which suggested reduced mortality in high-risk subjects undergoing CT screening. However, important questions about the benefit-harm balance and the details of a screening program and its cost-effectiveness remain unanswered. A panel of specialists in chest radiology, respiratory medicine, epidemiology, and thoracic surgery representing all Swiss university hospitals prepared this joint statement following several meetings. The panel argues that premature and uncontrolled introduction of a lung cancer screening program may cause substantial harm that may remain undetected without rigorous quality control. This position paper focuses on the requirements of running such a program with the objective of harmonizing efforts across the involved specialties and institutions and defining quality standards. The underlying statement includes information on current evidence for a reduction in mortality with lung cancer screening and the potential epidemiologic implications of such a program in Switzerland. Furthermore, requirements for lung cancer screening centers are defined, and recommendations for both the CT technique and the algorithm for lung nodule assessment are provided. In addition, related issues such as patient management, registry, and funding are addressed. Based on the current state of the knowledge, the panel concludes that lung cancer screening in Switzerland should be undertaken exclusively within a national observational study in order to provide answers to several critical questions before considering broad population-based screening for lung cancer.

Why and how would we implement a lung cancer screening program?

For decades, lung cancer has been the most common cancer in terms of both incidence and mortality. There has been very little improvement in the prognosis of lung cancer. Early treatment following early diagnosis is considered to have potential for development. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a large, well-designed randomized controlled trial, evaluated low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) as a screening tool for lung cancer. Compared with chest X-ray, annual LDCT screening reduced death from lung cancer and overall mortality by 20 and 6.7 %, respectively, in high-risk people aged 55-74 years. Several smaller trials of LDCT screening are under way, but none are sufficiently powered to detect a 20 % reduction in lung cancer death. Thus, it is very unlikely that the NLST results will be replicated. In addition, the NLST raises several issues related to screening, such as the high false-positive rate, overdiagnosis and cost. Healthcare providers and systems are now left with the question of whether the available findings should be translated into practice. We present the main reasons for implementing lung cancer screening in high-risk adults and discuss the main issues related to lung cancer screening. We stress the importance of eligibility criteria, smoking cessation programs, primary care physicians, and informed-decision making should lung cancer screening be implemented. Seven years ago, we were waiting for the results of trials. Such evidence is now available. Similar to almost all other cancer screens, uncertainties exist and persist even after recent scientific efforts and data. We believe that by staying within the characteristics of the original trial and appropriately sharing the evidence as well as the uncertainties, it is reasonable to implement a LDCT lung cancer screening program for smokers and former smokers.

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.

Lung cancer screening with CT: evaluation of radiologists and different computer assisted detection software (CAD) as first and second readers for lung nodule detection at different dose levels

OBJECTIVES To find the best pairing of first and second reader at highest sensitivity for detecting lung nodules with CT at various dose levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS An anthropomorphic lung phantom and artificial lung nodules were used to simulate screening CT-examination at standard dose (100 mAs, 120 kVp) and 8 different low dose levels, using 120, 100 and 80 kVp combined with 100, 50 and 25 mAs. At each dose level 40 phantoms were randomly filled with 75 solid and 25 ground glass nodules (5-12 mm). Two radiologists and 3 different computer aided detection softwares (CAD) were paired to find the highest sensitivity. RESULTS Sensitivities at standard dose were 92%, 90%, 84%, 79% and 73% for reader 1, 2, CAD1, CAD2, CAD3, respectively. Combined sensitivity for human readers 1 and 2 improved to 97%, (p1=0.063, p2=0.016). Highest sensitivities--between 97% and 99.0%--were achieved by combining any radiologist with any CAD at any dose level. Combining any two CADs, sensitivities between 85% and 88% were significantly lower than for radiologists combined with CAD (p<0.03). CONCLUSIONS Combination of a human observer with any of the tested CAD systems provide optimal sensitivity for lung nodule detection even at reduced dose at 25 mAs/80 kVp.

Early detection of lung cancer: a statement from an expert panel of the Swiss university hospitals on lung cancer screening.

The discussion about setting up a program for lung cancer screening was launched with the publication of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial, which suggested reduced mortality in high-risk subjects undergoing CT screening. However, important questions about the benefit-harm balance and the details of a screening program and its cost-effectiveness remain unanswered. A panel of specialists in chest radiology, respiratory medicine, epidemiology, and thoracic surgery representing all Swiss university hospitals prepared this joint statement following several meetings. The panel argues that premature and uncontrolled introduction of a lung cancer screening program may cause substantial harm that may remain undetected without rigorous quality control. This position paper focuses on the requirements of running such a program with the objective of harmonizing efforts across the involved specialties and institutions and defining quality standards. The underlying statement includes information on current evidence for a reduction in mortality with lung cancer screening and the potential epidemiologic implications of such a program in Switzerland. Furthermore, requirements for lung cancer screening centers are defined, and recommendations for both the CT technique and the algorithm for lung nodule assessment are provided. In addition, related issues such as patient management, registry, and funding are addressed. Based on the current state of the knowledge, the panel concludes that lung cancer screening in Switzerland should be undertaken exclusively within a national observational study in order to provide answers to several critical questions before considering broad population-based screening for lung cancer.

Systems Modeling of Lung Cancer Screening Programs to Improve Quality

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2016-08

ESR/ERS white paper on lung cancer screening

Lung cancer is the most frequently fatal cancer, with poor survival once the disease is advanced. Annual low-dose computed tomography has shown a survival benefit in screening individuals at high risk for lung cancer. Based on the available evidence, the European Society of Radiology and the European Respiratory Society recommend lung cancer screening in comprehensive, quality-assured, longitudinal programmes within a clinical trial or in routine clinical practice at certified multidisciplinary medical centres. Minimum requirements include: standardised operating procedures for low-dose image acquisition, computer-assisted nodule evaluation, and positive screening results and their management; inclusion/exclusion criteria; expectation management; and smoking cessation programmes. Further refinements are recommended to increase quality, outcome and cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening: inclusion of risk models, reduction of effective radiation dose, computer-assisted volumetric measurements and assessment of comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and vascular calcification). All these requirements should be adjusted to the regional infrastructure and healthcare system, in order to exactly define eligibility using a risk model, nodule management and a quality assurance plan. The establishment of a central registry, including a biobank and an image bank, and preferably on a European level, is strongly encouraged. Key points: • Lung cancer screening using low dose computed tomography reduces mortality. • Leading US medical societies recommend large scale screening for high-risk individuals. • There are no lung cancer screening recommendations or reimbursed screening programmes in Europe as of yet. • The European Society of Radiology and the European Respiratory Society recommend lung cancer screening within a clinical trial or in routine clinical practice at certified multidisciplinary medical centres. • High risk, eligible individuals should be enrolled in comprehensive, quality-controlled longitudinal programmes.

Dépistage du cancer pulmonaire par scanner thoracique [Computed tomography screening for lung cancer].

Lung cancer screening has been the focus of intense interest since the publication in 2011 of the NLST trial (National Lung Screening Trial) showing a mortality reduction in smokers undergoing 3-year screening by chest computed tomography. Although these data appear promising, many issues remain to be resolved, such as high rate of false positive cases, risk of overdiagnosis, optimal intervals between screens, duration of the screening process, feasibility, and cost. Structured screening programs appear crucial to guarantee patient information, technical quality, and multidisciplinary management. Despite these uncertainties, several guidelines already state that screening should be performed in patients at risk, whereas investigators stress that more data are needed. How should the primary care physician deal with individual patients requests? This review provides some clues on this complex issue.

Establishing an EGFR mutation screening service for non-small cell lung cancer - sample quality criteria and candidate histological predictors.

INTRODUCTION: EGFR screening requires good quality tissue, sensitivity and turn-around time (TAT). We report our experience of routine screening, describing sample type, TAT, specimen quality (cellularity and DNA yield), histopathological description, mutation result and clinical outcome. METHODS: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) sections were screened for EGFR mutations (M+) in exons 18-21. Clinical, pathological and screening outcome data were collected for year 1 of testing. Screening outcome alone was collected for year 2. RESULTS: In year 1, 152 samples were tested, most (72%) were diagnostic. TAT was 4.9 days (95%confidence interval (CI)=4.5-5.5). EGFR-M+ prevalence was 11% and higher (20%) among never-smoking women with adenocarcinomas (ADCs), but 30% of mutations occurred in current/ex-smoking men. EGFR-M+ tumours were non-mucinous ADCs and 100% thyroid transcription factor (TTF1+). No mutations were detected in poorly differentiated NSCLC-not otherwise specified (NOS). There was a trend for improved overall survival (OS) among EGFR-M+ versus EGFR-M- patients (median OS=78 versus 17 months). In year 1, test failure rate was 19%, and associated with scant cellularity and low DNA concentrations. However 75% of samples with poor cellularity but representative of tumour were informative and mutation prevalence was 9%. In year 2, 755 samples were tested; mutation prevalence was 13% and test failure only 5.4%. Although samples with low DNA concentration (2.2 ng/μL), the mutation rate was 9.2%. CONCLUSION: Routine epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) screening using diagnostic samples is fast and feasible even on samples with poor cellularity and DNA content. Mutations tend to occur in better-differentiated non-mucinous TTF1+ ADCs. Whether these histological criteria may be useful to select patients for EGFR testing merits further investigation.

A Validation Study for the Use of ROS1 Immunohistochemical Staining in Screening for ROS1 Translocations in Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION: The presence of ROS proto-oncogene 1, receptor tyrosine kinase gene (ROS1) rearrangements in lung cancers confers sensitivity to ROS kinase inhibitors, including crizotinib. However, they are rare abnormalities (in ∼1% of non-small cell lung carcinomas) that are typically identified by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and so screening using immunohistochemical (IHC) staining would be both cost- and time-efficient.

METHODS: A cohort of lung tumors negative for other common mutations related to targeted therapies were screened to assess the sensitivity and specificity of IHC staining in detecting ROS1 gene rearrangements, enriched by four other cases first identified by FISH. A review of published data was also undertaken.

RESULTS: IHC staining was 100% sensitive (95% confidence interval: 48-100) and 83% specific (95% confidence interval: 86-100) overall when an h-score higher than 100 was used. Patients with ROS1 gene rearrangements were younger and typically never-smokers, with the tumors all being adenocarcinomas with higher-grade architectural features and focal signet ring morphologic features (two of five). Four patients treated with crizotinib showed a partial response, with three also showing a partial response to pemetrexed. Three of four patients remain alive at 13, 27, and 31 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION: IHC staining can be used to screen for ROS1 gene rearrangements, with patients herein showing a response to crizotinib. Patients with tumors that test positive according to IHC staining but negative according to FISH were also identified, which may have implications for treatment selection.

Lung Cancer That Harbors an HER2 Mutation: Epidemiologic Characteristics and Therapeutic Perspectives.

PURPOSE HER2 mutations are identified in approximately 2%of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC). There are few data available that describe the clinical course of patients with HER2-mutated NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS We retrospectively identified 65 NSCLC, diagnosed with a HER2 in-frame insertion in exon 20. We collected clinicopathologic characteristics, patients' outcomes, and treatments. Results HER2 mutation was identified in 65 (1.7%) of 3,800 patients tested and was almost an exclusive driver, except for one single case with a concomitant KRAS mutation. Our population presented with a median age of 60 years (range, 31 to 86 years), a high proportion of women (45 women v 20 men; 69%), and a high proportion of never-smokers (n= 34; 52.3%). All tumors were adenocarcinomas and 50% were stage IV at diagnosis. For these latter cases, 22 anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) treatments were administered after conventional chemotherapy in 16 patients. Subsequently, four patients experienced progressive disease, seven experienced disease stabilizations, and 11 experienced partial responses (overall response rate, 50%; disease control rate [DCR], 82%). Specifically, we observed a DCR of 93% for trastuzumab-based therapies (n = 15) and a DCR of 100% for afatinib (n = 3) but no response to other HER2-targeted drugs (n = 3). Progression-free survival for patients with HER2 therapies was 5.1 months. Median survival was of 89.6 and 22.9 months for early-stage and stage IV patients, respectively. CONCLUSION This study, the largest to date dedicated to HER2-mutated NSCLC, reinforces the importance of screening for HER2 mutations in lung adenocarcinomas and suggests the potential efficacy of HER2-targeted drugs in this population.

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.

Optimal dose levels in screening chest CT for unimpaired detection and volumetry of lung nodules, with and without computer assisted detection at minimal patient radiation

OBJECTIVES The aim of this phantom study was to minimize the radiation dose by finding the best combination of low tube current and low voltage that would result in accurate volume measurements when compared to standard CT imaging without significantly decreasing the sensitivity of detecting lung nodules both with and without the assistance of CAD. METHODS An anthropomorphic chest phantom containing artificial solid and ground glass nodules (GGNs, 5-12 mm) was examined with a 64-row multi-detector CT scanner with three tube currents of 100, 50 and 25 mAs in combination with three tube voltages of 120, 100 and 80 kVp. This resulted in eight different protocols that were then compared to standard CT sensitivity (100 mAs/120 kVp). For each protocol, at least 127 different nodules were scanned in 21-25 phantoms. The nodules were analyzed in two separate sessions by three independent, blinded radiologists and computer-aided detection (CAD) software. RESULTS The mean sensitivity of the radiologists for identifying solid lung nodules on a standard CT was 89.7% ± 4.9%. The sensitivity was not significantly impaired when the tube and current voltage were lowered at the same time, except at the lowest exposure level of 25 mAs/80 kVp [80.6% ± 4.3% (p = 0.031)]. Compared to the standard CT, the sensitivity for detecting GGNs was significantly lower at all dose levels when the voltage was 80 kVp; this result was independent of the tube current. The CAD significantly increased the radiologists' sensitivity for detecting solid nodules at all dose levels (5-11%). No significant volume measurement errors (VMEs) were documented for the radiologists or the CAD software at any dose level. CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest a CT protocol with 25 mAs and 100 kVp is optimal for detecting solid and ground glass nodules in lung cancer screening. The use of CAD software is highly recommended at all dose levels.

SABR for early-stage lung cancer: Early-adoption and future directions

Early-stage lung cancer incidence among older adults is expected to increase due to demographic trends and CT-based screening, yet optimal treatment of lung cancer in the elderly remains controversial. There are several accepted strategies for treating lung cancer including surgery, conventional radiation, and stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR). However, there are currently no randomized controlled trials to help distinguish the comparative effectiveness of these various strategies. This is an unfortunate omission as lung cancer causes the most deaths among all cancers in the United States (as well as the entire world). SABR holds particular promise as it is a completely non-invasive, ambulatory technique for achieving cure without an operation, thus avoiding the risks of surgery and the associated pre-operative and post-operative costs. To provide fair view of the potential effect on SABR on controlling lung cancer in the United States, a systematic review of SABR with a focus on its achieved outcomes, toxicities, and comparison to conventional radiation and surgical options is presented. ^