Search

Objectives We propose a risk-tailored approach for management of lung cancer screening results. This approach incorporates individual risk factors and low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) image features into calculations of immediate and next-screen (1-y) risks of lung cancer detection, which in turn can recommend short-interval imaging or 1-year or 2-year screening intervals. Methods We first extended the "LCRAT+CT" individualized risk calculator to predict lung cancer risk after either a negative or abnormal LDCT screen result. To develop the abnormal screen portion, we analyzed 18,129 abnormal LDCT results in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), including lung cancers detected immediately (n = 649) or at the next screen (n = 235). We estimated the potential impact of this approach among NLST participants with any screen result (negative or abnormal). Results Applying the draft National Health Service (NHS) England protocol for lung screening to NLST participants referred 76% of participants to a 2-year interval, but delayed diagnosis for 40% of detectable cancers. The Lung Cancer Risk Assessment Tool+Computed Tomography (LCRAT+CT) risk model, with a threshold of less than 0.95% cumulative lung cancer risk, would also refer 76% of participants to a 2-year interval, but would delay diagnosis for only 30% of cancers, a 25% reduction versus the NHS protocol. Alternatively, LCRAT+CT, with a threshold of less than 1.7% cumulative lung cancer risk, would also delay diagnosis for 40% of cancers, but would refer 85% of participants for a 2-year interval, a 38% further reduction in the number of required 1-year screens beyond the NHS protocol. Conclusions Using individualized risk models to determine management in lung cancer screening could substantially reduce the number of screens or increase early detection.

INTRODUCTION: Low-dose CT (LDCT) screening reduces lung cancer specific mortality. Several countries, including the UK, are evaluating the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening using the latest evidence. In this paper we report baseline screening performance from five UK-based lung cancer screening programmes.METHODS: Data was collected at baseline from each screening programme. Measures of performance included prevalence of screen detected lung cancer, rate of surveillance imaging for indeterminate findings and surgical resection rates. Screening related harms were assessed by measuring false positive rates, number of invasive tests with associated complications in individuals without lung cancer and benign surgical resection rates.RESULTS: A total of 11,148 individuals had a baseline LDCT scan during the period of analysis (2011 to 2020). Overall, 84.7% (n = 9,440) of baseline LDCT scans were categorised as negative, 11.1% (n = 1,239) as indeterminate and 4.2% (n = 469) as positive. The prevalence of screen detected lung cancer was 2.2%, ranging between 1.8% and 4.4% for individual programmes. The surgical resection rate was 66% (range 46% to 83%) and post-surgical 90-day mortality for those with lung cancer 1.2% (n = 2/165). The false positive rate was 2% (n = 219/10,898) and of those with a positive result, one in two had lung cancer diagnosed (53.3%). An invasive test was required in 0.6% (n = 61/10,898) of screening attendees without lung cancer; there were no associated major complications or deaths. The benign surgical resection rate was 4.6% (n = 8/173), equating to 0.07% of the screened population.DISCUSSION: The performance of UK-based lung cancer screening programmes, delivered within or aligned to the National Health Service, compares favourably to published clinical trial data. Reported harms, including false positive and benign surgical resection rates are low. Ongoing monitoring of screening performance is vital to ensure standards are maintained and harms minimised.

The concept of cure from cancer is important to patients, but can be difficult to communicate in terms that are meaningful. This is because there are a number of definitions of cure that are applied by clinicians, patients and the public, and by policymakers that have a different meaning and significance. In this article, we provide a narrative review of the evidence concerning cure in lung cancer and show how the different definitions may apply in different settings. A better understanding of the various concepts of cure will improve communication with patients on this important topic. This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, accounting for almost a fifth of all cancer-related deaths. Annual computed tomographic lung cancer screening (CTLS) detects lung cancer at earlier stages and reduces lung cancer-related mortality among high-risk individuals. Many medical organizations, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recommend annual CTLS in high-risk populations. However, fewer than 5% of individuals worldwide at high risk for lung cancer have undergone screening. In large part, this is owing to delayed implementation of CTLS in many countries throughout the world. Factors contributing to low uptake in countries with longstanding CTLS endorsement, such as the United States, include lack of patient and clinician awareness of current recommendations in favor of CTLS and clinician concerns about CTLS-related radiation exposure, false-positive results, overdiagnosis, and cost. This review of the literature serves to address these concerns by evaluating the potential risks and benefits of CTLS. Review of key components of a lung screening program, along with an updated shared decision aid, provides guidance for program development and optimization. Review of studies evaluating the population considered "high-risk" is included as this may affect future guidelines within the United States and other countries considering lung screening implementation.

IntroductionLung cancer has a poor prognosis that varies internationally when assessed by the two major histological subgroups (non-small cell (NSCLC) and small cell (SCLC)).Method236 114 NSCLC and 43 167 SCLC cases diagnosed during 2010–2014 in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the UK were included in the analyses. One-year and 3-year age-standardised net survival (NS) was estimated by sex, histological type, stage and country.ResultsOne-year and 3-year NS was consistently higher for Canada and Norway, and lower for the UK, New Zealand and Ireland, irrespective of stage at diagnosis. Three-year NS for NSCLC ranged from 19.7% for the UK to 27.1% for Canada for men and was consistently higher for women (25.3% in the UK; 35.0% in Canada) partly because men were diagnosed at more advanced stages. International differences in survival for NSCLC were largest for regional stage and smallest at the advanced stage. For SCLC, 3-year NS also showed a clear female advantage with the highest being for Canada (13.8% for women; 9.1% for men) and Norway (12.8% for women; 9.7% for men).ConclusionDistribution of stage at diagnosis among lung cancer cases differed by sex, histological subtype and country, which may partly explain observed survival differences. Yet, survival differences were also observed within stages, suggesting that quality of treatment, healthcare system factors and prevalence of comorbid conditions may also influence survival. Other possible explanations include differences in data collection practice, as well as differences in histological verification, staging and coding across jurisdictions.

Background: Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression on cancer cells is a clinically important biomarker to select patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for treatment with programmed death-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Clinical trials of immunotherapy in patients with NSCLC have required histologic evidence for PD-L1 testing; in clinical practice, cytologic samples commonly are acquired in patients with advanced disease. Research Question: This study aims to investigate whether endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) samples are adequate for PD-L1 testing in NSCLC. Study Design and Methods: This study investigates the sampling adequacy of EBUS-TBNA for PD-L1 testing when compared with other methods. Furthermore, the relationship between clinicopathologic characteristics and PD-L1 expression in the study population have been examined. Five hundred seventy-seven NSCLC specimens were analyzed from consecutive patients with NSCLC across six centers in the United Kingdom and one center in the United States between January 2015 and December 2016. Results: In the EBUS-TBNA group (189 specimens), the overall percentage of patients with successful PD-L1 testing was 94.7%. There was no significant difference in sampling adequacy with other methods of tissue acquisition. Older patients had higher failure rates of PD-L1 testing (OR, 1.06; P =.008). In multivariate analysis, advanced N-stage (P =.048) and presence of brain metastasis (P

The Lung Screen Uptake Trial tested a novel invitation strategy to improve uptake and reduce socioeconomic and smoking-related inequalities in lung cancer screening (LCS) participation. It provides one of the first UK-based ‘real-world’ LCS cohorts. Of 2012 invited, 1058 (52.6%) attended a ‘lung health check’. 768/996 (77.1%) in the present analysis underwent a low-dose CT scan. 92 (11.9%) and 33 (4.3%) participants had indeterminate pulmonary nodules requiring 3-month and 12-month surveillance, respectively; 36 lung cancers (4.7%) were diagnosed (median follow-up: 1044 days). 72.2% of lung cancers were stage I/II and 79.4% of non-small cell lung cancer had curative-intent treatment.

BackgroundEstimation of the risk of malignancy in pulmonary nodules detected by CT is central in clinical management. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) offers an opportunity to improve risk prediction. Here we compare the performance of an AI algorithm, the lung cancer prediction convolutional neural network (LCP-CNN), with that of the Brock University model, recommended in UK guidelines.MethodsA dataset of incidentally detected pulmonary nodules measuring 5–15 mm was collected retrospectively from three UK hospitals for use in a validation study. Ground truth diagnosis for each nodule was based on histology (required for any cancer), resolution, stability or (for pulmonary lymph nodes only) expert opinion. There were 1397 nodules in 1187 patients, of which 234 nodules in 229 (19.3%) patients were cancer. Model discrimination and performance statistics at predefined score thresholds were compared between the Brock model and the LCP-CNN.ResultsThe area under the curve for LCP-CNN was 89.6% (95% CI 87.6 to 91.5), compared with 86.8% (95% CI 84.3 to 89.1) for the Brock model (p≤0.005). Using the LCP-CNN, we found that 24.5% of nodules scored below the lowest cancer nodule score, compared with 10.9% using the Brock score. Using the predefined thresholds, we found that the LCP-CNN gave one false negative (0.4% of cancers), whereas the Brock model gave six (2.5%), while specificity statistics were similar between the two models.ConclusionThe LCP-CNN score has better discrimination and allows a larger proportion of benign nodules to be identified without missing cancers than the Brock model. This has the potential to substantially reduce the proportion of surveillance CT scans required and thus save significant resources.

BackgroundApproximately 15%–20% of all non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases present with stage I disease. Surgical resection traditionally offers the best chance of a cure but some patients will not have this treatment due to older age, comorbidities or personal choice. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has become an established curative intent treatment option for patients who are not selected for or do not choose surgery. The aim of this study is to compare survival at 90 days, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years for patients who received either lobectomy or SABR.MethodsWe used data from the 2015 National Lung Cancer Audit database and linked with Hospital Episode Statistics and the radiotherapy dataset to identify patients with NSCLC stage IA-IB and performance status (PS) 0–2 who underwent surgery or SABR treatment. We assessed the likelihood of death at 90 days, 6 months, 1 year and 2 year after diagnosis and procedure date to observe survival between two patient groups.ResultsWe identified 2373 patients in our cohort, 476 of whom had SABR. The median difference between date of diagnosis and date of treatment for surgery patients was 17 days while for SABR patients it was 73 days. Increasing age and worsening PS were associated with having SABR rather than surgery. Survival between the two treatment modalities was similar early on but by 1-year people who had surgery did better than those who had SABR (adjusted ORs 2.12, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.31). This difference persisted at 2 years and when the analysis was restricted to patients aged ConclusionOur analysis suggests that patients who have lobectomy have a better survival compared with SABR patients; however, we found considerable delays in patients receiving SABR which may contribute to poorer long-term outcomes with this treatment option. Reducing these delays should be a key focus in development and reorganisation of services.

Background The National Health Service England (NHS) classifies individuals as eligible for lung cancer screening using two risk prediction models, PLCOm2012 and Liverpool Lung Project-v2 (LLPv2). However, no study has compared the performance of lung cancer risk models in the UK. Methods We analysed current and former smokers aged 40–80 years in the UK Biobank (N = 217,199), EPIC-UK (N = 30,813), and Generations Study (N = 25,777). We quantified model calibration (ratio of expected to observed cases, E/O) and discrimination (AUC). Results Risk discrimination in UK Biobank was best for the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool (LCDRAT, AUC = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.81–0.84), followed by the LCRAT (AUC = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.79–0.82) and the Bach model (AUC = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.79–0.81). Results were similar in EPIC-UK and the Generations Study. All models overestimated risk in all cohorts, with E/O in UK Biobank ranging from 1.20 for LLPv3 (95% CI = 1.14–1.27) to 2.16 for LLPv2 (95% CI = 2.05–2.28). Overestimation increased with area-level socioeconomic status. In the combined cohorts, USPSTF 2013 criteria classified 50.7% of future cases as screening eligible. The LCDRAT and LCRAT identified 60.9%, followed by PLCOm2012 (58.3%), Bach (58.0%), LLPv3 (56.6%), and LLPv2 (53.7%). Conclusion In UK cohorts, the ability of risk prediction models to classify future lung cancer cases as eligible for screening was best for LCDRAT/LCRAT, very good for PLCOm2012, and lowest for LLPv2. Our results highlight the importance of validating prediction tools in specific countries.

Although there is now strong evidence for the efficacy of low-radiation dose computed\ud tomography in reducing lung cancer mortality, the challenge is to establish screening programmes that have\ud the maximum impact on the disease. In screening programmes, participation rates are a major determinant\ud of the success of the programme. Informed uptake, participation, and adherence (to successive screening\ud rounds) determine the overall impact of the intervention by ensuring the maximum number of people at\ud risk of the disease are screened regularly and therefore have the most chance of benefiting. Existing cancer\ud screening programmes have taught us a great deal about methods that improve participation. Although\ud evidence is emerging for the efficacy of some of those methods in lung cancer screening, there is still much\ud work to do in the specific demographic that is most at risk of lung cancer. This demographic, characterised\ud by higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation, may be less willing to engage with healthcare interventions\ud and present a particular challenge in the process of ensuring informed choice. In this article we review the\ud evidence for improving participation and describe the challenges that need to be addressed to ensure the\ud successful implementation of CT screening programmes.

Lung cancer screening is effective if offered to people at increased risk of the disease. Currently, direct contact with potential participants is required for evaluating risk. A way to reduce the number of ineligible people contacted might be to apply risk-prediction models directly to digital primary care data, but model performance in this setting is unknown.MethodThe Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a computerised, longitudinal primary care database, was used to evaluate the Liverpool Lung Project V.2 (LLPv2) and Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian (modified 2012) (PLCOm2012) models. Lung cancer occurrence over 5–6 years was measured in ever-smokers aged 50–80 years and compared with 5-year (LLPv2) and 6-year (PLCOm2012) predicted risk.ResultsOver 5 and 6 years, 7123 and 7876 lung cancers occurred, respectively, from a cohort of 842 109 ever-smokers. After recalibration, LLPV2 produced a c-statistic of 0.700 (0.694–0.710), but mean predicted risk was over-estimated (predicted: 4.61%, actual: 0.9%). PLCOm2012 showed similar performance (c-statistic: 0.679 (0.673–0.685), predicted risk: 3.76%. Applying risk-thresholds of 1% (LLPv2) and 0.15% (PLCOm2012), would avoid contacting 42.7% and 27.4% of ever-smokers who did not develop lung cancer for screening eligibility assessment, at the cost of missing 15.6% and 11.4% of lung cancers.ConclusionRisk-prediction models showed only moderate discrimination when applied to routinely collected primary care data, which may be explained by quality and completeness of data. However, they may substantially reduce the number of people for initial evaluation of screening eligibility, at the cost of missing some lung cancers. Further work is needed to establish whether newer models have improved performance in primary care data.

Introduction Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer related death globally. Low-dose CT (LDCT) screening of high-risk individuals reduces lung cancer specific mortality. An important requirement for any screening programme is to minimise harms, especially in those who do not have cancer. Data from randomised controlled trials is often used as the primary source from which to extrapolate risks of harm but they do not reflect modern, real-world practice. In this paper we present cumulative data on screening harms from five UK-based lung cancer screening programmes. Methods In the UK, several implementation pilots and research studies have demonstrated that screening can be successfully delivered within or aligned to the NHS. These include: UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial (UKLS), Lung Screen Uptake Trial, Manchester Lung Health Checks, Liverpool Healthy Lung Project and Nottingham Lung Health MOT.Most sites used BTS nodule management guidelines. Positive results were defined as those referred for more than a repeat LDCT. False positives were those positive screens without an eventual diagnosis of lung cancer. Harms were categorised according to the need for further imaging, invasive investigations and/or surgery. Complications were categorised as per the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Results A total of 11,815 screening LDCTs were performed across the five programmes (2016–2020). Overall, 85.5% of screening scans were categorised as negative, 10.5% as indeterminate and 4% as positive. Lung cancer detection was 2.1%, ranging from 1.7% to 4.4% across sites. The surgical resection rate was 66.0%. Details of the cumulative reported harms are summarised in table 1. Discussion This collaborative work provides up-to-date data on lung cancer screening performance and harms. The rate of positive (4%) and false positive (1.9%) screening results were significantly lower than NLST and the majority of European screening trials. Harms from investigation and treatment of non-malignant disease was minimised with no reported major complications or deaths. This provides reassurance that with the use of evidence-based practice and experienced MDTs, harms from false positive results can be minimised within screening. This information is important in the planning of larger scale implementation of lung cancer screening within the UK and beyond.

A high proportion of lung cancer cases are detected at a late cancer stage when they present with symptoms to general practitioners (GP). Early diagnosis is a challenge because many symptoms are also common in other diseases. Therefore, this study aims to assess UK primary care data of patients one, two and three years prior to lung cancer diagnosis to capture trends in clinical features of patients with the goal of early diagnosis and thus potentially curative treatment. This longitudinal study utilises data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) with linked data from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS). A comprehensive list of Read codes is created to select features of interest to establish if a patient has experienced a certain medical condition or not. The comparison of the relative frequencies of the identified predictors associated with cases and controls reveals the importance of the following groups of features: ‘Cough Wheeze’ and ‘Bronchitis unspecified’, ‘Dyspnoea’ and ‘Upper Respiratory Infection’, which are frequent events for lung cancer cases, where a high proportion of cases were also identified using ‘Haemoptysis’ and ‘Peripheral vascular disease’.

Aim Lung cancer screening reduces mortality. We aim to validate the performance of Lung EpiCheck, a six-marker panel methylation-based plasma test, in the detection of lung cancer in European and Chinese samples. Methods A case–control European training set (n=102 lung cancer cases, n=265 controls) was used to define the panel and algorithm. Two cut-offs were selected, low cut-off (LCO) for high sensitivity and high cut-off (HCO) for high specificity. The performance was validated in case–control European and Chinese validation sets (cases/controls 179/137 and 30/15, respectively). Results The European and Chinese validation sets achieved AUCs of 0.882 and 0.899, respectively. The sensitivities/specificities with LCO were 87.2%/64.2% and 76.7%/93.3%, and with HCO they were 74.3%/90.5% and 56.7%/100.0%, respectively. Stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) sensitivity in European and Chinese samples with LCO was 78.4% and 70.0% and with HCO was 62.2% and 30.0%, respectively. Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) was represented only in the European set and sensitivities with LCO and HCO were 100.0% and 93.3%, respectively. In multivariable analyses of the European validation set, the assay's ability to predict lung cancer was independent of established risk factors (age, smoking, COPD), and overall AUC was 0.942. Conclusions Lung EpiCheck demonstrated strong performance in lung cancer prediction in case–control European and Chinese samples, detecting high proportions of early-stage NSCLC and SCLC and significantly improving predictive accuracy when added to established risk factors. Prospective studies are required to confirm these findings. Utilising such a simple and inexpensive blood test has the potential to improve compliance and broaden access to screening for at-risk populations., Lung EpiCheck, a simple blood test, detected 85% of early-stage lung cancers with specificity of 64% in high-risk population, reaching AUC of 0.942 when combined with risk factors. This could improve efficiency of implementing lung cancer screening. https://bit.ly/3jWhLOn

Background The mainstay of treatment for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) involves platinum doublet chemotherapy but the optimal duration, 4 vs. 6 cycles, is not known. Concurrent thoracic radiotherapy followed by prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) is recommended for fit individuals with limited stage. However, outside of clinical trials, the efficacy of sequential thoracic radiotherapy and PCI for extensive stage is uncertain. Methods This retrospective, observational, cohort study used English national lung cancer data to determine the factors associated with survival for all people diagnosed with SCLC. More precisely, for individuals who received chemotherapy, we examined survival by the chemotherapy duration, thoracic radiotherapy dose and the use of PCI. Results In total 6,438 people were diagnosed with SCLC. We identified that male sex (OR 0.7; 95% CI: 0.62-0.80), increasing age (P=0.01) greater comorbidity (P≤0.01), extensive stage (OR 0.21; 95% CI: 0.19-0.25) and worse performance status (PS2 vs. PS0 adjusted OR 0.38 95% CI: 0.31-0.48) were associated with reduced 1-year survival. Receipt of chemotherapy augmented survival. We analysed data for 1,761 people who had received chemotherapy. Thoracic radiotherapy (≥30 Gy for extensive stage and ≥40 Gy for limited stage) and PCI were independently associated with better survival (P≤0.01 for each), but 6 cycles of chemotherapy instead of 4 was not (limited stage adjusted OR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.48-1.97) extensive stage adjusted OR 1.34; 95% CI: 0.81-2.21). Conclusions Extending chemotherapy beyond 4 cycles to 6 does not augment survival. Appropriately prescribed thoracic radiotherapy and PCI can prolong survival in both limited and extensive stage SCLC.

IntroductionLung cancer is the world’s leading cause of cancer death. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening reduced lung cancer mortality by 20% in the US National Lung Screening Trial. Here, we present the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST), which will address key questions of relevance for screening implementation.Methods and analysisUsing a single-consent Zelen’s design, ever-smokers aged 55–80 years registered with a general practice in Leeds will be randomised (1:1) to invitation to a telephone-based risk-assessment for a Lung Health Check or to usual care. The anticipated number randomised by household is 62 980 individuals. Responders at high risk will be invited for LDCT scanning for lung cancer on a mobile van in the community. There will be two rounds of screening at an interval of 2 years. Primary objectives are (1) measure participation rates, (2) compare the performance of PLCOM2012(threshold ≥1.51%), Liverpool Lung Project (V.2) (threshold ≥5%) and US Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria for screening population selection and (3) assess lung cancer outcomes in the intervention and usual care arms. Secondary evaluations include health economics, quality of life, smoking rates according to intervention arm, screening programme performance with ancillary biomarker and smoking cessation studies.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Greater Manchester West research ethics committee (18-NW-0012) and the Health Research Authority following review by the Confidentiality Advisory Group. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals, presentation at conferences and on the YLST website.Trial registration numbersISRCTN42704678andNCT03750110.

IntroductionIntegration of smoking cessation (SC) into lung cancer screening is essential to optimise clinical and cost effectiveness. The most effective way to use this ‘teachable moment’ is unclear. The Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking study will measure the effectiveness of an SC service integrated within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST) and will test the efficacy of a personalised SC intervention, incorporating incidental findings detected on the low-dose CT scan performed as part of YLST.Methods and analysisUnless explicitly declined, all smokers enrolled in YLST will see an SC practitioner at baseline and receive SC support over 4 weeks comprising behavioural support, pharmacotherapy and/or a commercially available e-cigarette. Eligible smokers will be randomised (1:1 in permuted blocks of random size up to size 6) to receive either an enhanced, personalised SC support package, including CT scan images, or continued standard best practice. Anticipated recruitment is 1040 smokers (January 2019–December 2020). The primary objective is to measure 7-day point prevalent carbon monoxide (CO) validated SC after 3 months. Secondary outcomes include CO validated cessation at 4 weeks and 12 months, self-reported continuous cessation at 4 weeks, 3 months and 12 months, attempts to quit smoking and changes in psychological variables, including perceived risk of lung cancer, motivation to quit smoking tobacco, confidence and efficacy beliefs (self and response) at all follow-up points. A process evaluation will explore under which circumstances and on which groups the intervention works best, test intervention fidelity and theory test the mechanisms of intervention impact.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee (18/EM/0199) and the Health Research Authority/Health and Care Research Wales. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals, presentation at conferences and via the YLST website.Trial registration numbersISRCTN63825779,NCT03750110.

Introduction Low-dose CT (LDCT) screening of high-risk smokers reduces lung cancer (LC) specific mortality. Determining screening eligibility using individualised risk may improve screening effectiveness and reduce harm. Here, we compare the performance of two risk prediction models (PLCOM2012 and Liverpool Lung Project model (LLPv2)) and National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) eligibility criteria in a community-based screening programme. Methods Ever-smokers aged 55–74, from deprived areas of Manchester, were invited to a Lung Health Check (LHC). Individuals at higher risk (PLCOM2012 score ≥1.51%) were offered annual LDCT screening over two rounds. LLPv2 score was calculated but not used for screening selection; ≥2.5% and ≥5% thresholds were used for analysis. Results PLCOM2012 ≥1.51% selected 56% (n=1429) of LHC attendees for screening. LLPv2 ≥2.5% also selected 56% (n=1430) whereas NLST (47%, n=1188) and LLPv2 ≥5% (33%, n=826) selected fewer. Over two screening rounds 62 individuals were diagnosed with LC; representing 87% (n=62/71) of 6-year incidence predicted by mean PLCOM2012 score (5.0%). 26% (n=16/62) of individuals with LC were not eligible for screening using LLPv2 ≥5%, 18% (n=11/62) with NLST criteria and 7% (n=5/62) with LLPv2 ≥2.5%. NLST eligible Manchester attendees had 2.5 times the LC detection rate than NLST participants after two annual screens (≈4.3% (n=51/1188) vs 1.7% (n=438/26 309); p

ObjectivesStereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a well-established treatment for medically inoperable peripheral stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Previous nonrandomised evidence supports SABR as an alternative to surgery, but high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence is lacking. The SABRTooth study aimed to establish whether a UK phase III RCT was feasible.Design and methodsSABRTooth was a UK multicentre randomised controlled feasibility study targeting patients with peripheral stage I NSCLC considered to be at higher risk of surgical complications. 54 patients were planned to be randomised 1:1 to SABR or surgery. The primary outcome was monthly average recruitment rates.ResultsBetween July 2015 and January 2017, 318 patients were considered for the study and 205 (64.5%) were deemed ineligible. Out of 106 (33.3%) assessed as eligible, 24 (22.6%) patients were randomised to SABR (n=14) or surgery (n=10). A key theme for nonparticipation was treatment preference, with 43 (41%) preferring nonsurgical treatment and 19 (18%) preferring surgery. The average monthly recruitment rate was 1.7 patients against a target of three. 15 patients underwent their allocated treatment: SABR n=12, surgery n=3.ConclusionsWe conclude that a phase III RCT randomising higher risk patients between SABR and surgery is not feasible in the National Health Service. Patients have pre-existing treatment preferences, which was a barrier to recruitment. A significant proportion of patients randomised to the surgical group declined and chose SABR. SABR remains an alternative to surgery and novel study approaches are needed to define which patients benefit from a nonsurgical approach.

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was demonstrated in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) to reduce mortality from the disease. European mortality data has recently become available from the Nelson randomised controlled trial, which confirmed lung cancer mortality reductions by 26% in men and 39–61% in women. Recent studies in Europe and the USA also showed positive results in screening workers exposed to asbestos. All European experts attending the “Initiative for European Lung Screening (IELS)”—a large international group of physicians and other experts concerned with lung cancer—agreed that LDCT-LCS should be implemented in Europe. However, the economic impact of LDCT-LCS and guidelines for its effective and safe implementation still need to be formulated. To this purpose, the IELS was asked to prepare recommendations to implement LCS and examine outstanding issues. A subgroup carried out a comprehensive literature review on LDCT-LCS and presented findings at a meeting held in Milan in November 2018. The present recommendations reflect that consensus was reached.

IntroductionLung cancer is a common cancer, with over 1.3 million cases worldwide each year. Early diagnosis using computed tomography (CT) screening has been shown to reduce mortality but also detect non-malignant nodules that require follow-up scanning or alternative methods of investigation. Practical and accurate tools that can predict the probability that a lung nodule is benign or malignant will help reduce costs and the risk of morbidity and mortality associated with lung cancer. MethodsRetrospectively collected data from 1500 patients with pulmonary nodule(s) of up to 15 mm detected on routinely performed CT chest scans aged 18 years old or older from three academic centres in the UK will be used to to develop risk stratification models. Radiological, clinical and patient characteristics will be combined in multivariable logistic regression models to predict nodule malignancy. Data from over 1000 participants recruited in a prospective phase of the study will be used to evaluate model performance. Discrimination, calibration and clinical utility measures will be presented.

Background Thirty-day mortality after treatment for lung cancer is a measure of unsuccessful outcome and where treatment should have been avoided. Guidelines recommend offering chemotherapy to individuals with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) who have poorer performance status (PS) because of its high initial response rate. However, this comes with an increased risk of toxicity and early death. We quantified real-world 30-day mortality in SCLC after chemotherapy, established the factors associated with this and compared these with the factors that influence receipt of chemotherapy. Methods We used linked national English data sets to define the factors associated with both receiving chemotherapy and 30-day mortality after chemotherapy. Results We identified 3715 people diagnosed with SCLC, of which 2235 (60.2%) received chemotherapy. There were 174 (7.8%) deaths within 30 days of chemotherapy. The adjusted odds of receiving chemotherapy decreased with older age, worsening PS and increasing comorbidities. Thirty-day mortality was independently associated with poor PS [PS 2 vs PS 0, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.71–8.25] and stage (extensive vs limited adjusted OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.03–2.74) but in contrast was not associated with increasing age. Both chemotherapy administration and 30-day mortality varied by hospital network. Conclusions To reduce variation in chemotherapy administration, predictors of 30-day mortality could be used as an adjunct to improve suboptimal patient selection. We have quantified 30-day mortality risk by the two independently associated factors, PS and stage, so that patients and clinicians can make better informed decisions about the potential risk of early death after chemotherapy.

Historically, the prognosis for individuals diagnosed with lung cancer has been bleak. However, the past 10 years have seen important advances in treatment and diagnosis which have translated into the first improvements seen in lung cancer survival. This review highlights the major advances in treatments with curative intent, systemic targeted therapies, palliative care and early diagnosis in lung cancer. We discuss the pivotal research that underpins these new technologies/strategies and their current position in clinical practice.

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT can save lives. This European Union (EU) position statement presents the available evidence and the major issues that need to be addressed to ensure the successful implementation of low-dose CT lung cancer screening in Europe. This statement identified specific actions required by the European lung cancer screening community to adopt before the implementation of low-dose CT lung cancer screening. This position statement recommends the following actions: a risk stratification approach should be used for future lung cancer low-dose CT programmes; that individuals who enter screening programmes should be provided with information on the benefits and harms of screening, and smoking cessation should be offered to all current smokers; that management of detected solid nodules should use semi-automatically measured volume and volume-doubling time; that national quality assurance boards should be set up to oversee technical standards; that a lung nodule management pathway should be established and incorporated into clinical practice with a tailored screening approach; that non-calcified baseline lung nodules greater than 300 mm(3), and new lung nodules greater than 200 mm(3), should be managed in multidisciplinary teams according to this EU position statement recommendations to ensure that patients receive the most appropriate treatment; and planning for implementation of low-dose CT screening should start throughout Europe as soon as possible. European countries need to set a timeline for implementing lung cancer screening.

BackgroundThe NLST reported a significant 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality with three annual low-dose CT (LDCT) screens and the Dutch-Belgian NELSON trial indicates a similar reduction. We present the results of the UKLS trial.MethodsFrom October 2011 to February 2013, we randomly allocated 4 055 participants to either a single invitation to screening with LDCT or to no screening (usual care). Eligible participants (aged 50-75) had a risk score (LLPv2) ≥ 4.5% of developing lung cancer over five years. Data were collected on lung cancer cases to 31 December 2019 and deaths to 29 February 2020 through linkage to national registries. The primary outcome was mortality due to lung cancer. We included our results in a random-effects meta-analysis to provide a synthesis of the latest randomised trial evidence.Findings1 987 participants in the intervention and 1 981 in the usual care arms were followed for a median of 7.3 years (IQR 7.1-7.6), 86 cancers were diagnosed in the LDCT arm and 75 in the control arm. 30 lung cancer deaths were reported in the screening arm, 46 in the control arm, (relative rate 0.65 [95% CI 0.41-1.02]; p=0.062). The meta-analysis indicated a significant reduction in lung cancer mortality with a pooled overall relative rate of 0.84 (95% CI 0.76-0.92) from nine eligible trials.InterpretationThe UKLS trial of single LDCT indicates a reduction of lung cancer death of similar magnitude to the NELSON and NLST trials and was included in a meta-analysis of nine randomised trials which provides unequivocal support for lung cancer screening in identified risk groups.FundingNIHR Health Technology Assessment programme; NIHR Policy Research programme; Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation.

IntroductionOptimal treatment for ‘potentially resectable’ stage III-N2 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) requires multimodality treatment: local treatment (surgery or radiotherapy) and systemic anticancer therapy. There is no clear evidence of superiority for survival between the two approaches and little research has explored quality of life (QOL). This study will inform the design of a phase III randomised trial of surgery versus no surgery as part of multimodality treatment for stage III-N2 NSCLC with QOL as a primary outcome.Methods and analysisPatient participants will be randomised to receive multimodality treatment (1) with surgery OR (2) without surgery. The Quintet Recruitment Intervention will be used to maximise recruitment. Eligible patients will have ‘potentially resectable’ N2 NSCLC and have received a multidisciplinary team recommendation for multimodality treatment. Sixty-six patients and their carers will be recruited from 8 UK centres. Patient/carer QOL questionnaires will be administered at baseline, weeks 6, 9, 12 and month 6. Semistructured interviews will be conducted. Quantitative data will be analysed descriptively and qualitative data will be analysed using framework analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained. Results will be disseminated via publications, national bodies and networks, and patient and public involvement groups.Trial registrationNCT04540757

BackgroundLung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Around 70% of patients first presenting to specialist care have advanced disease, at which point current treatments have little effect on survival. The issue for primary care is how to recognise patients earlier and investigate appropriately. This requires an assessment of the risk of lung cancer.AimThe aim of this study was to systematically review the existing risk prediction tools for patients presenting in primary care with symptoms that may indicate lung cancerDesign and settingSystematic review of primary care data.MethodMedline, PreMedline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ISI Proceedings (1980 to March 2016) were searched. The final list of included studies was agreed between two of the authors, who also appraised and summarised them.ResultsSeven studies with between 1482 and 2 406 127 patients were included. The tools were all based on UK primary care data, but differed in complexity of development, number/type of variables examined/included, and outcome time frame. There were four multivariable tools with internal validation area under the curves between 0.88 and 0.92. The tools all had a number of limitations, and none have been externally validated, or had their clinical and cost impact examined.ConclusionThere is insufficient evidence for the recommendation of any one of the available risk prediction tools. However, some multivariable tools showed promising discrimination. What is needed to guide clinical practice is both external validation of the existing tools and a comparative study, so that the best tools can be incorporated into clinical decision tools used in primary care.

Introduction The NLST and NELSON studies demonstrated lung cancer mortality reduction from low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening. Local implementation pilots of ‘Lung Health Checks’ indicate feasibility in the NHS. NHS England will now fund 10 aligned projects for a national Lung Health Check pilot as a major centre-piece of the early diagnosis agenda of the NHS Long Term Plan. We report on methodological approaches to deliver this project and progress towards deployment. Methods Sites selected from Clinical Commissioning Groups in 10 Cancer Alliances had highest incidence and mortality from lung cancer, excluding those where screening pilots or research projects were already underway. Approximately 600,000 individuals will be invited with an expected 200,000 scans over the next four years, including baseline and 24 month incident round scanning. To support quality and governance, NHS England published a National Protocol (January 2019), are developing a Quality Assurance Framework, minimum dataset, Incidental Findings Protocol and Research Standard (assisted by CRUK). NHSE are supported by the CT Screening Advisory Committee, a sub-group of the Clinical Expert Group for Lung Cancer, NHSE. Cancer Alliances are being assisted in developing detailed delivery plans by the National Cancer Programme team. Results Detailed delivery plans have been provided by all regions. 47 radiologists will attend a national education program with clearly defined metrics for a national quality assurance training standard including volumetry and computer-aided detection. Standard participant materials are in production and QA evaluator appointed. Data on infrastructure readiness, progress against delivery milestones and final supporting documents relating to quality and governance will be presented. Conclusions The Lung Health Check program will be a major national flagship for respiratory medicine and a key component of the Long Term Plan aspirations to achieve early stage diagnosis in 75% of cancer cases. The program will inform the international literature on implementation of potentially revolutionary lung cancer screening but careful adherence to QA and demonstration of efficacy through appropriate evaluation is critical. Potential barriers include participant uptake; workforce capacity and data flow/information governance. The Standard Protocol is already being used by several European countries as a template for local protocol development. On behalf of the CT Screening Advisory Group, Clinical Expert Group for Lung Cancer and NHS England National Cancer Team.

BackgroundEstimation of the clinical probability of malignancy in patients with pulmonary nodules will facilitate early diagnosis, determine optimum patient management strategies and reduce overall costs.MethodsData from the UK Lung Cancer Screening trial were analysed. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify independent predictors and to develop a parsimonious model to estimate the probability of lung cancer in lung nodules detected at baseline and at 3-month and 12-month repeat screening.ResultsOf 1994 participants who underwent CT scan, 1013 participants had a total of 5063 lung nodules and 52 (2.6%) of the participants developed lung cancer during a median follow-up of 4 years. Covariates that predict lung cancer in our model included female gender, asthma, bronchitis, asbestos exposure, history of cancer, early and late onset of family history of lung cancer, smoking duration, FVC, nodule type (pure ground-glass and part-solid) and volume as measured by semiautomated volumetry. The final model incorporating all predictors had excellent discrimination: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC 0.885, 95% CI 0.880 to 0.889). Internal validation suggested that the model will discriminate well when applied to new data (optimism-corrected AUC 0.882, 95% CI 0.848 to 0.907). The risk model had a good calibration (goodness-of-fit χ[8] 8.13, p=0.42).ConclusionsOur model may be used in estimating the probability of lung cancer in nodules detected at baseline and at 3 months and 12 months from baseline, allowing more efficient stratification of follow-up in population-based lung cancer screening programmes.Trial registration number78513845.

IntroductionLung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose CT has been shown to improve mortality, but individuals must consider the potential benefits and harms before making an informed decision about taking part. Shared decision-making is required for LCS in USA, though screening-eligible individuals’ specific views of these harms, and their preferences for accessing this information, are not well described.MethodsIn this qualitative study, we aimed to explore knowledge and perceptions around lung cancer and LCS with a focus on harms. We carried out seven focus groups with screening-eligible individuals, which were divided into current versus former smokers and lower versus higher educational backgrounds; and 16 interviews with health professionals including general practitioners, respiratory physicians, lung cancer nurse specialists and public health consultants. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were coded inductively and analysed using the framework method.ResultsFatalistic views about lung cancer as an incurable disease dominated, particularly among current smokers, and participants were often unaware of curative treatment options. Despite this, beliefs that screening is sensible and worthwhile were expressed. Generally participants felt they had the ‘right’ to an informed decision, though some cautioned against information overload. The potential harms of LCS were poorly understood, particularly overdiagnosis and radiation exposure, but participants were unlikely to be deterred by them. Strong concerns about false-negative results were expressed, while false-positive results and indeterminate nodules were also reported as concerning.ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate the need for LCS information materials to highlight information on the benefits of early detection and options for curative treatment, while accurately presenting the possible harms. Information needs are likely to vary between individuals and we recommend simple information materials to be made available to all individuals considering participating in LCS, with signposting to more detailed information for those who require it.

Screening for lung cancer with low radiation dose CT has been shown to be effective in reducing lung cancer mortality by two major randomised controlled trials. Lung cancer screening is set to become the largest targeted cancer screening programme globally, but the effectiveness of the programme is dependent on many different factors. This article describes the key evidence for lung cancer screening, the key factors important for optimisation and the progress towards implementation.

In lung cancer, outcome measurement has been mostly limited to survival. Proper assessment of the value of lung cancer treatments, and the performance of institutions delivering care, requires more comprehensive measurement of standardised outcomes. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement convened an international, multidisciplinary working group of patient representatives, medical oncologists, surgeons, radiation oncologists, pulmonologists, palliative care specialists, registry experts and specialist nurses to review existing data and practices. Using a modified Delphi method, the group developed a consensus recommendation (“the set”) on the outcomes most essential to track for patients with lung cancer, along with baseline demographic, clinical and tumour characteristics (case-mix variables) for risk adjustment. The set applies to patients diagnosed with nonsmall cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer. Our working group recommends the collection of the following outcomes: survival, complications during or within 6 months of treatment and patient-reported domains of health-related quality of life including pain, fatigue, cough and dyspnoea. Case-mix variables were defined to improve interpretation of comparisons. We defined an international consensus recommendation of the most important outcomes for lung cancer patients, along with relevant case-mix variables, and are working to support adoption and reporting of these measures globally., ICHOM Lung Cancer Standard Set of patient-centred outcomes: aligning global efforts to improve lung cancer care http://ow.ly/bFDR300EhY7

In the modern lung cancer service, the first visit to hospital is where the initial investigation pathway is formulated to ensure that as much diagnostic and staging information is obtained with least risk and discomfort for the patient. It is of over-riding importance to ensure that this is in line with the patient’s wishes and appropriate to the fitness of the individual as well as the potential treatment. To do this a contrast-enhanced computed tomogram (CT) of the lower neck, chest and upper abdomen should be available at the time of the first clinical assessment. At this time, performance status is recorded, and blood tests and spirometry obtained. The most effective next test (usually a biopsy) can then be selected. Clear information should be given to the patient, who must have access to support from a lung cancer nurse specialist. Clinical assessment and spirometry will identify the need for further tests to assess fitness. The exact sequence of investigations will vary according to the clinical and CT findings, but to ensure the most accurate stage and therefore most effective treatment, pathological confirmation of findings on imaging is usually sought, with samples provided that are adequate for sub-classification of tumours.

The prevailing questions at this time in both the public mind and the clinical establishment is, do we have sufficient evidence to implement lung cancer Computed Tomography (CT) screening in Europe? If not, what is outstanding? This review addresses the twelve major areas, which are critical to any decision to implement CT screening and where we need to assess whether we have sufficient evidence to proceed to a recommendation for implementation in Europe. The readiness level of these twelve categories in 2015 have been with colour coded, where green indicates we have sufficient evidence, amber is borderline evidence and red requires further evidence. Recruitment from the 'Hard to Reach' community still remains at red, while mortality data, cost effectiveness and screening interval are all categorised as amber. The integration of smoking cessation into CT screening programmes is still considered to be category amber. The US Preventive Services Task Force have recommended that CT screening is implemented in the USA utilising the NLST criteria, apart from continuing screening to 80 years of age. The cost effectiveness of the NLST was calculated to be $81,000/QALY, however, its well recognised that the costs of medical care in the USA, is far higher than that of Europe. Medicare have agreed to cover the cost of screening but have stipulated a number of stringent requirements for inclusion. To date we do not have good CT screening mortality data available in Europe and eagerly await the publication of the NELSON trial data in 2016 and then the pooled UKLS and NELSON data thereafter. However in the meantime we should start planning for implementation in Europe, especially in the areas of the radiological service provision and accreditation, as well as identifying novel mechanisms to recruit from the hardest to reach communities.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening using low-dose CT (LDCT) was shown to reduce lung cancer mortality by 20% in the National Lung Screening Trial.METHODS: The pilot UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) is a randomised controlled trial of LDCT screening for lung cancer versus usual care. A population-based questionnaire was used to identify high-risk individuals. CT screen-detected nodules were managed by a pre-specified protocol. Cost effectiveness was modelled with reference to the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial mortality reduction.RESULTS: 247 354 individuals aged 50-75 years were approached; 30.7% expressed an interest, 8729 (11.5%) were eligible and 4055 were randomised, 2028 into the CT arm (1994 underwent a CT). Forty-two participants (2.1%) had confirmed lung cancer, 34 (1.7%) at baseline and 8 (0.4%) at the 12-month scan. 28/42 (66.7%) had stage I disease, 36/42 (85.7%) had stage I or II disease. 35/42 (83.3%) had surgical resection. 536 subjects had nodules greater than 50 mm(3) or 5 mm diameter and 41/536 were found to have lung cancer. One further cancer was detected by follow-up of nodules between 15 and 50 mm(3) at 12 months. The baseline estimate for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of once-only CT screening, under the UKLS protocol, was £8466 per quality adjusted life year gained (CI £5542 to £12 569).CONCLUSIONS: The UKLS pilot trial demonstrated that it is possible to detect lung cancer at an early stage and deliver potentially curative treatment in over 80% of cases. Health economic analysis suggests that the intervention would be cost effective-this needs to be confirmed using data on observed lung cancer mortality reduction.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 78513845.

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in the UK, and survival from the disease is persistently poor. Efforts to improve outcomes for patients have focused on ways of reducing late diagnosis of the disease, and access to optimal treatment. Research on lung cancer screening has so far provided some evidence of an impact on lung cancer mortality, but there is some debate about whether implementation of a national screening programme should await further trial data, principally that from the NELSON trial. The ongoing poor outcomes and the belief amongst some clinicians that there is sufficient evidence has prompted several local projects testing out lung screening in their communities, sometimes referred to as lung health checks or proactive approaches to high-risk individuals. Funding from NHS England has been forthcoming to support this. Acknowledging roll-out of such activities, which effectively constitute local lung screening in the absence of a NSC recommendation, it was timely to bring key national stakeholders together with academic and clinical experts, to agree a way forward. Cancer Research UK therefore convened a closed workshop in March 2018, involving national and international expertise. This paper outlines the proceedings, key discussion points, highlighted research gaps, and areas of consensus and next steps.

IntroductionLung cancer outcomes in England are inferior to comparable countries. Patient or disease characteristics, healthcare-seeking behaviour, diagnostic pathways, and oncology service provision may contribute. We aimed to quantify associations between geographic variations in treatment and survival of patients in England.MethodsWe retrieved detailed cancer registration data to analyse the variation in survival of 176,225 lung cancer patients, diagnosed 2010-2014. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression to investigate survival in the two-year period following diagnosis.ResultsSurvival improved over the period studied. The use of active treatment varied between geographical areas, with inter-quintile ranges of 9%–17% for surgical resection, 4%–13% for radical radiotherapy, and 22%–35% for chemotherapy. At 2 years, there were 188 potentially avoidable deaths annually for surgical resection, and 373 for radical radiotherapy, if all treated proportions were the same as in the highest quintiles. At the 6 month time-point, 318 deaths per year could be postponed if chemotherapy use for all patients was as in the highest quintile. The results were robust to statistical adjustments for age, sex, socio-economic status, performance status and co-morbidity.ConclusionThe extent of use of different treatment modalities varies between geographical areas in England. These variations are not attributable to measurable patient and tumour characteristics, and more likely reflect differences in clinical management between local multi-disciplinary teams. The data suggest improvement over time, but there is potential for further survival gains if the use of active treatments in all areas could be increased towards the highest current regional rates.

Successful implementation of low dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening, depends on a number of well-researched factors that improve the balance between benefits and harms. One of the most important is the identification of individuals at high risk of developing and dying from lung cancer. There is debate about the threshold that defines high enough risk and the method for estimating risk, with several multivariable risk models available. The findings from the PanCan study shed further light on this topic.

Publisher’s Note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations., Background: A minority of European countries have participated in international comparisons with high level data on lung cancer. However, the nature and extent of data collection across the continent is simply unknown, and without accurate data collection it is not possible to compare practice and set benchmarks to which lung cancer services can aspire. Methods: Using an established network of lung cancer specialists in 37 European countries, a survey was distributed in December 2014. The results relate to current practice in each country at the time, early 2015. The results were compiled and then verified with co-authors over the following months. Results: Thirty-five completed surveys were received which describe a range of current practice for lung cancer data collection. Thirty countries have data collection at the national level, but this is not so in Albania, BosniaHerzegovina, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. Data collection varied from paper records with no survival analysis, to well-established electronic databases with links to census data and survival analyses. Conclusion: Using a network of committed clinicians, we have gathered validated comparative data reporting an observed difference in data collection mechanisms across Europe. We have identified the need to develop a welldesigned dataset, whilst acknowledging what is feasible within each country, and aspiring to collect high quality data for clinical research., No research funding was received.

The European Position Statement (EUPS) expert group comprised of individuals who have been actively involved in the planning and execution of all the low dose CT (LDCT) randomised controlled European screening trials. They have argued that as lung cancer screening with LDCT saves lives, planning for implementation needs to be started by the national health organisations throughout Europe. The EUPS examined the current evidence which supports the planning for the implementation of lung cancer screening, as well as areas which require further work. One of the major areas the EUPS focused on was the management of prevalent lung nodules in CT-screening programmes, lung nodules at incident screening (newly detected) and CT-detected lung nodules in clinical practice should be managed with different protocols, due to different pre-test lung cancer probability. The EUPS provides nine recommendations and a "Call to Action" for implementation, which is naturally dependent on the outcome of the NELSON trial. Clearly, the issue is how Europe can take this forward as part of the political agenda of individual countries, as well as that of the EU Commission. An EU policy document has been developed, which focuses on the key steps in the implementation of cost effective lung cancer screening in Europe.

Lung cancer screening is receiving increasing attention worldwide, both in the medical community and the general public. Multiple randomised trials — including the US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), the Multicentric Italian Lung Detection trial, and preliminary results from the Dutch-Belgian NELSON trial — have provided definitive evidence that low-dose CT screening can reduce lung cancer mortality. However, any screening programme is associated with both benefits and harms, and accurately communicating these to patients and the general public is a complex challenge. Given the complexity of the debate, it is difficult for primary care providers to understand and explain the benefits and harms of screening to their patients. Multiple graphical tools have been developed and published to aid this conversation, each based on the NLST, and other bespoke graphics have been used in pilot studies. However, some of the published graphics can be misleading, and all represent outcomes based on the NLST protocol, which is now nearly 20 years old. We engaged an international group of lung screening experts with the goal of assembling and providing accurate and balanced information on the benefits and harms of NLST-like low-dose CT screening. We compiled these results into an infographic, along with a full-page version with explanatory text. Our new infographic represents a contemporary interpretation of the findings of NLST using a modern protocol.

Background Mortality in early stage, resectable lung cancer is sufficiently high to warrant consideration of post-surgical treatment. Novel markers to stratify resectable lung cancer patients may help with the selection of treatment to improve outcome. Methods Primary tumour tissue from 485 patients, surgically treated for stage I–II lung adenocarcinoma, was analysed for the RNA expression of 31 cell cycle progression (CCP) genes by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The expression average, the CCP score, was combined with pathological stage into a prognostic score (PS). Cox proportional hazards regression assessed prediction of 5-year lung cancer mortality above clinical variables. The PS threshold was tested for risk discrimination by the Mantel–Cox log-rank test. Results The CCP score added significant information above clinical markers (all patients, P = 0.0029; stage I patients, P = 0.013). The prognostic score was a superior predictor of outcome compared to pathological stage alone (PS, P = 0.00084; stage, P = 0.24). Five-year lung cancer mortality was significantly different between the low-risk (90%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 81–95%), and high-risk groups (65%, 95% CI 57–72%), P = 4.2 × 10–6). Conclusions The CCP score is an independent prognostic marker in early stage lung adenocarcinoma. The prognostic score provides superior risk estimates than stage alone. The threefold higher risk in the high-risk group defines a subset of patients that should consider therapeutic choices to improve outcome.