Search

Background: Among randomized trials evaluating flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSG) for its effect on colorectal cancer mortality, only the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial screened its participants more than one time. We report outcomes from the PLCO screening FSG program and evaluate the increased yield produced by a second FSG.Methods: Participants were screened by 60-cm FSG in 10 regional screening centers at study entry and 3 or 5 years later, depending on the time of random assignment. Results from subsequent diagnostic intervention were tracked and recorded in a standardized fashion, and outcomes were compared according to sex and age. The protocol discouraged repeat FSG in persons with colorectal cancer or adenoma diagnosed after the initial FSG.Results: Of 77 447 enrollees, 67 073 (86.6%) had at least one FSG and 39 443 (50.9%) had two FSGs. Diagnostic intervention occurred in 74.9% after a positive first FSG and in 78.7% after a positive repeat FSG. The second FSG increased the screening yield by 32%: Colorectal cancer or advanced adenoma was detected in 37.8 per 1000 persons after first screening and in 49.8 per 1000 persons after all screenings. The second FSG increased the yield of cancer or advanced adenoma by 26% in women and by 34% in men. Of 223 subjects who received a diagnosis of colorectal carcinoma within 1 year of a positive FSG, 64.6% had stage I and 17.5% had stage II disease.Conclusions: Repeat FSG increased the detection of colorectal cancer or advanced adenoma in women by one-fourth and in men by one-third. Screen-detected carcinomas were early stage (stage I or II) in greater than 80% of screened persons. Colorectal cancer mortality data from the PLCO, as the definitive endpoint, will follow in later publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Study Aim: Inadequate colorectal cancer screening wastes limited endoscopic resources. We examined patients factors associated with inadequate flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSG) screening at baseline screening and repeat screening 3-5 years later in 10 geographically-dispersed screening centers participating in the ongoing Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.Methods: A total of 64,554 participants (aged 55-74) completed baseline questionnaires and underwent FSG at baseline. Of these, 39,385 participants returned for repeat screening. We used logistic regression models to assess factors that are associated with inadequate FSG (defined as a study in which the depth of insertion of FSG was <50 cm or visual inspection was limited to <90% of the mucosal surface but without detection of a polyp or mass).Results: Of 7084 (11%) participants with inadequate FSG at baseline, 6496 (91.7%) had <50 cm depth of insertion (75.3% due to patient discomfort) and 500 (7.1%) participants had adequate depth of insertion but suboptimal bowel preparation. Compared to 55-59 year age group, advancing age in 5-year increments (odds ratios (OR) from 1.08 to 1.51) and female sex (OR = 2.40; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.27-2.54) were associated with inadequate FSG. Obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m(2)) was associated with reduced odds (OR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.62-0.72). Inadequate FSG screening at baseline was associated with inadequate FSG at repeat screening (OR = 6.24; 95% CI: 5.78-6.75).Conclusions: Sedation should be considered for patients with inadequate FSG or an alternative colorectal cancer screening method should be recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally, remains a pressing health issue despite significant medical advances. The New York Lung Cancer Foundation brought together experts from academia, the pharmaceutical and biotech industries as well as organizational leaders and patient advocates, to thoroughly examine the current state of lung cancer diagnosis, treatment, and research. The goal was to identify areas where our understanding is incomplete and to develop collaborative public health and scientific strategies to generate better patient outcomes, as highlighted in our "Calls to Action." The consortium prioritized 8 different calls to action. These include (1) develop strategies to cure more patients with early-stage lung cancer, (2) investigate carcinogenesis leading to lung cancers in patients without a history of smoking, (3) harness precision medicine for disease interception and prevention, (4) implement solutions to deliver prevention measures and effective therapies to individuals in under-resourced countries, (5) facilitate collaborations with industry to collect and share data and samples, (6) create and maintain open access to big data repositories, (7) develop new immunotherapeutic agents for lung cancer treatment and prevention, and (8) invest in research in both the academic and community settings. These calls to action provide guidance to representatives from academia, the pharmaceutical and biotech industries, organizational and regulatory leaders, and patient advocates to guide ongoing and planned initiatives., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Competing Interests: I declare no competing interests. I have retired from the National Cancer Institute.

Introduction: The second leading cause of lung cancer is air pollution. Air pollution and smoking are synergistic. Air pollution can worsen lung cancer survival., Methods: The Early Detection and Screening Committee of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer formed a working group to better understand issues in air pollution and lung cancer. These included identification of air pollutants, their measurement, and proposed mechanisms of carcinogenesis. The burden of disease and the underlying epidemiologic evidence linking air pollution to lung cancer in individuals who never and ever smoked were summarized to quantify the problem, assess risk prediction models, and develop recommended actions., Results: The number of estimated attributable lung cancer deaths has increased by nearly 30% since 2007 as smoking has decreased and air pollution has increased. In 2013, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified outdoor air pollution and particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns in outdoor air pollution as carcinogenic to humans (International Agency for Research on Cancer group 1) and as a cause of lung cancer. Lung cancer risk models reviewed do not include air pollution. Estimation of cumulative exposure to air pollution exposure is complex which poses major challenges with accurately collecting long-term exposure to ambient air pollution for incorporation into risk prediction models in clinical practice., Conclusions: Worldwide air pollution levels vary widely, and the exposed populations also differ. Advocacy to lower sources of exposure is important. Health care can lower its environmental footprint, becoming more sustainable and resilient. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer community can engage broadly on this topic., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A complete understanding of how exposure to environmental substances promotes cancer formation is lacking. More than 70 years ago, tumorigenesis was proposed to occur in a two-step process: an initiating step that induces mutations in healthy cells, followed by a promoter step that triggers cancer development 1 . Here we propose that environmental particulate matter measuring ≤2.5 μm (PM 2.5 ), known to be associated with lung cancer risk, promotes lung cancer by acting on cells that harbour pre-existing oncogenic mutations in healthy lung tissue. Focusing on EGFR-driven lung cancer, which is more common in never-smokers or light smokers, we found a significant association between PM 2.5 levels and the incidence of lung cancer for 32,957 EGFR-driven lung cancer cases in four within-country cohorts. Functional mouse models revealed that air pollutants cause an influx of macrophages into the lung and release of interleukin-1β. This process results in a progenitor-like cell state within EGFR mutant lung alveolar type II epithelial cells that fuels tumorigenesis. Ultradeep mutational profiling of histologically normal lung tissue from 295 individuals across 3 clinical cohorts revealed oncogenic EGFR and KRAS driver mutations in 18% and 53% of healthy tissue samples, respectively. These findings collectively support a tumour-promoting role for  PM 2.5 air pollutants  and provide impetus for public health policy initiatives to address air pollution to reduce disease burden., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

The Integrative Analysis of Lung Cancer Etiology and Risk (INTEGRAL) program is an NCI-funded initiative with an objective to develop tools to optimize low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening. Here, we describe the rationale and design for the Risk Biomarker and Nodule Malignancy projects within INTEGRAL. The overarching goal of these projects is to systematically investigate circulating protein markers to include on a panel for use (i) pre-LDCT, to identify people likely to benefit from screening, and (ii) post-LDCT, to differentiate benign versus malignant nodules. To identify informative proteins, the Risk Biomarker project measured 1161 proteins in a nested-case control study within 2 prospective cohorts (n = 252 lung cancer cases and 252 controls) and replicated associations for a subset of proteins in 4 cohorts (n = 479 cases and 479 controls). Eligible participants had a current or former history of smoking and cases were diagnosed up to 3 years following blood draw. The Nodule Malignancy project measured 1078 proteins among participants with a heavy smoking history within four LDCT screening studies (n = 425 cases diagnosed up to 5 years following blood draw, 430 benign-nodule controls, and 398 nodule-free controls). The INTEGRAL panel will enable absolute quantification of 21 proteins. We will evaluate its performance in the Risk Biomarker project using a case-cohort study including 14 cohorts (n = 1696 cases and 2926 subcohort representatives), and in the Nodule Malignancy project within five LDCT screening studies (n = 675 cases, 680 benign-nodule controls, and 648 nodule-free controls). Future progress to advance lung cancer early detection biomarkers will require carefully designed validation, translational, and comparative studies., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Climate change is a public health crisis that amplifies exposure to known carcinogens, leading to increased cases of cancer and other diseases. This clear link is a powerful reason for all oncology nurses concerned with cancer prevention and treatment to be involved in climate change solutions. The purpose of this review is to bring awareness to the consequences climate change has on the incidence and mortality of cancer, how it affects people living with cancer, and how oncology nurses can help mitigate these suboptimal outcomes.&nbsp.

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., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Lung cancer is a major health problem. CT lung screening can reduce lung cancer mortality through early diagnosis by at least 20%. Screening high-risk individuals is most effective. Retrospective analyses suggest that identifying individuals for screening by accurate prediction models is more efficient than using categorical age-smoking criteria, such as the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria. This study prospectively compared the effectiveness of the USPSTF2013 and PLCOm2012 model eligibility criteria., Methods: In this prospective cohort study, participants from the International Lung Screening Trial (ILST), aged 55-80 years, who were current or former smokers (ie, had ≥30 pack-years smoking history or ≤15 quit-years since last permanently quitting), and who met USPSTF2013 criteria or a PLCOm2012 risk threshold of at least 1·51% within 6 years of screening, were recruited from nine screening sites in Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, and the UK. After enrolment, patients were assessed with the USPSTF2013 criteria and the PLCOm2012 risk model with a threshold of at least 1·70% at 6 years. Data were collected locally and centralised. Main outcomes were the comparison of lung cancer detection rates and cumulative life expectancies in patients with lung cancer between USPSTF2013 criteria and the PLCOm2012 model. In this Article, we present data from an interim analysis. To estimate the incidence of lung cancers in individuals who were USPSTF2013-negative and had PLCOm2012 of less than 1·51% at 6 years, ever-smokers in the Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) who met these criteria and their lung cancer incidence were applied to the ILST sample size for the mean follow-up occurring in the ILST. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02871856. Study enrolment is almost complete., Findings: Between June 17, 2015, and Dec 29, 2020, 5819 participants from the International Lung Screening Trial (ILST) were enrolled on the basis of meeting USPSTF2013 criteria or the PLCOm2012 risk threshold of at least 1·51% at 6 years. The same number of individuals was selected for the PLCOm2012 model as for the USPSTF2013 criteria (4540 [78%] of 5819). After a mean follow-up of 2·3 years (SD 1·0), 135 lung cancers occurred in 4540 USPSTF2013-positive participants and 162 in 4540 participants included in the PLCOm2012 of at least 1·70% at 6 years group (cancer sensitivity difference 15·8%, 95% CI 10·7-22·1%; absolute odds ratio 4·00, 95% CI 1·89-9·44; p<0·0001). Compared to USPSTF2013-positive individuals, PLCOm2012-selected participants were older (mean age 65·7 years [SD 5·9] vs 63·3 years [5·7]; p<0·0001), had more comorbidities (median 2 [IQR 1-3] vs 1 [1-2]; p<0·0001), and shorter life expectancy (13·9 years [95% CI 12·8-14·9] vs 14·8 [13·6-16·0] years). Model-based difference in cumulative life expectancies for those diagnosed with lung cancer were higher in those who had PLCOm2012 risk of at least 1·70% at 6 years than individuals who were USPSTF2013-positive (2248·6 years [95% CI 2089·6-2425·9] vs 2000·7 years [1841·2-2160·3]; difference 247·9 years, p=0·015)., Interpretation: PLCOm2012 appears to be more efficient than the USPSTF2013 criteria for selecting individuals to enrol into lung cancer screening programmes and should be used for identifying high-risk individuals who benefit from the inclusion in these programmes., Funding: Terry Fox Research Institute, The UBC-VGH Hospital Foundation and the BC Cancer Foundation, the Alberta Cancer Foundation, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK and a consortium of funders, and the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation for the UK Lung Screen Uptake Trial., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MCT developed the PLCOm2012 lung cancer risk prediction models, which is used in this study. The model is open access and is available free of charge to non-commercial users. For commercial users, licensing has been assigned to Brock University. MCT has not received any money for use of the PLCOm2012 model and does not anticipate any payments in the future. AM received travel or accommodation support for meetings by Roche, Olympus, and the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. JE received travel or accommodation support for meetings by Terry Fox Research Institute. MR received travel support from Takeda and American Thoracic Society. KF received travel support from various medical or scientific meeting organisers for participating or being a speaker (or both) and received additional grants or contracts from Olympus and Australian MRFF Next Generation Clinical Researchers Program and MeVis Medical Solutions AG/HealthInc; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, and speaker's bureaus from Willey Cochrane Clinical Answers and is the Chair for Lung Cancer Consultative Group (unpaid) and a Council member. AT received consultancy fees from Olympus Respiratory America and additional grants or contracts from Biodesix Inc and Arch Biomedical Inc. CDB received consultancy fees from Mercy BioAnalytics, Grail, and Lucid Diagnostics and participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for the International Lung Screening Trial. MR, DP, and DS received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, and speaker's bureaus by AstraZeneca. DS further received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, and speaker's bureaus from Bronchus Medical. MR further received additional grants or contracts provided by Grail. SL is an expert advisor and chair for Pan-Canadian Lung Cancer Screening Network and the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

We examined whether draft 2020 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung cancer screening recommendations "partially ameliorate racial disparities in screening eligibility" compared with the 2013 guidelines, as claimed. Using data from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey, USPSTF-2020 increased eligibility by similar proportions for minorities (97.1%) and Whites (78.3%). Contrary to the intent of USPSTF-2020, the relative disparity (differences in percentages of model-estimated gainable life-years from National Lung Screening Trial-like screening by eligible Whites vs minorities) actually increased from USPSTF-2013 to USPSTF-2020 (African Americans: 48.3%-33.4% = 15.0% to 64.5%-48.5% = 16.0%; Asian Americans: 48.3%-35.6% = 12.7% to 64.5%-45.2% = 19.3%; Hispanic Americans: 48.3%-24.8% = 23.5% to 64.5%-37.0% = 27.5%). However, augmenting USPSTF-2020 with high-benefit individuals selected by the Life-Years From Screening with Computed Tomography (LYFS-CT) model nearly eliminated disparities for African Americans (76.8%-75.5% = 1.2%) and improved screening efficiency for Asian and Hispanic Americans, although disparities were reduced only slightly (Hispanic Americans) or unchanged (Asian Americans). The draft USPSTF-2020 guidelines increased the number of eligible minorities vs USPSTF-2013 but may inadvertently increase racial and ethnic disparities. LYFS-CT could reduce disparities in screening eligibility by identifying ineligible people with high predicted benefit regardless of race and ethnicity., (Published by Oxford University Press 2021. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.)

Competing Interests: AH is an investigator for an academic study (SUMMIT) sponsored by University College London that is funded by GRAIL; has received one honorarium for an advisory board meeting for GRAIL; received a consulting fee from Evidera Inc (for a GRAIL-initiated project); and has previously owned shares in Illumina. CDB consults for Mercy BioAnalytics and for GRAIL.

Background: Cancer is the second leading cause of death globally, with many cases detected at a late stage when prognosis is poor. New technologies enabling multi-cancer early detection (MCED) may make "universal cancer screening" possible. We extend single-cancer models to understand the potential public health effects of adding a MCED test to usual care., Methods: We obtained data on stage-specific incidence and survival of all invasive cancers diagnosed in persons aged 50-79 between 2006 and 2015 from the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, and combined this with published performance of a MCED test in a state transition model (interception model) to predict diagnostic yield, stage shift, and potential mortality reductions. We model long-term (incident) performance, accou.

Early detection of clinical outcomes such as cancer may be predicted using longitudinal biomarker measurements. Tracking longitudinal biomarkers as a way to identify early disease onset may help to reduce mortality from diseases like ovarian cancer that are more treatable if detected early. Two disease risk prediction frameworks, the shared random effects model (SREM) and the pattern mixture model (PMM) could be used to assess longitudinal biomarkers on disease early detection. In this article, we studied the discrimination and calibration performances of SREM and PMM on disease early detection through an application to ovarian cancer, where early detection using the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm (ROCA) has been evaluated. Comparisons of the above three approaches were performed via analyses of the ovarian cancer data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. Discrimination was evaluated by the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve and its area, while calibration was assessed using calibration plot and the ratio of observed to expected number of diseased subjects. The out-of-sample performances were calculated via using leave-one-out cross-validation, aiming to minimize potential model overfitting. A careful analysis of using the biomarker cancer antigen 125 for ovarian cancer early detection showed significantly improved discrimination performance of PMM as compared with SREM and ROCA, nevertheless all approaches were generally well calibrated. Robustness of all approaches was further investigated in extensive simulation studies. The improved performance of PMM relative to ROCA is in part due to the fact that the biomarker measurements were taken at a yearly interval, which is not frequent enough to reliably estimate the changepoint or the slope after changepoint in cases under ROCA., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Rationale : The NLST (National Lung Screening Trial) reported a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomography screening; however, important questions on how to optimize screening remain, including which selection criteria are most accurate at detecting lung cancers and what nodule management protocol is most efficient. The PLCO m2012 (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian) Cancer Screening Trial 6-year and PanCan (Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer) nodule malignancy risk models are two of the better validated risk prediction models for screenee selection and nodule management, respectively. Combined use of these models for participant selection and nodule management could significantly improve screening efficiency. Objectives : The ILST (International Lung Screening Trial) is a prospective cohort study with two primary aims: 1 ) Compare the accuracy of the PLCO m2012 model against U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for detecting lung cancers and 2 ) evaluate nodule management efficiency using the PanCan nodule probability calculator-based protocol versus Lung-RADS. Methods : ILST will recruit 4,500 participants who meet USPSTF and/or PLCO m2012 risk ≥1.51%/6-year selection criteria. Participants will undergo baseline and 2-year low-dose computed tomography screening. Baseline nodules are managed according to PanCan probability score. Participants will be followed up for a minimum of 5 years. Primary outcomes for aim 1 are the proportion of individuals selected for screening, proportion of lung cancers detected, and positive predictive values of either selection criteria, and outcomes for aim 2 include comparing distributions of individuals and the proportion of lung cancers in each of three management groups: next surveillance scan, early recall scan, or diagnostic evaluation recommended. Statistical powers to detect differences in the four components of primary study aims were ≥82%. Conclusions : ILST will prospectively evaluate the comparative accuracy and effectiveness of two promising multivariable risk models for screenee selection and nodule management in lung cancer screening.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02871856).

Longer-than-annual screening intervals have been suggested to improve the balance of benefits and harms in prostate cancer screening. Many researchers, societies, and guideline committees have suggested that screening intervals could depend on the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) result. We analyzed data from men ( N = 33,897) ages 55-74 years with a baseline PSA test in the intervention arm of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening trial (United States, 1993-2001). We estimated 5- and 10-year risks of aggressive cancer (Gleason ≥8 and/or stage III/IV) and 15-year risks of prostate cancer-related mortality for men with baseline PSA ≤ 0.5 ng/mL ( N = 4,862), ≤1 ng/mL ( N = 15,110), and 1.01-2.5 ng/mL ( N = 12,422). A total of 217 men died from prostate cancer through 15 years, although no men with PSA ≤ 1 ng/mL died from prostate cancer within 5 years [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.00%-0.03%]. The 5-year incidence of aggressive disease was low (0.08%; 95% CI, 0.03%-0.12%) for men with PSA ≤ 1 ng/mL, and higher for men with baseline PSA 1.01-2.5 ng/mL (0.51%; 95% CI, 0.38%-0.74%). No men aged ≥65 years with PSA ≤ 0.5 ng/mL died from prostate cancer within 15 years (95% CI, 0.00%-0.32%), and their 10-year incidence of aggressive disease was low (0.25%; 95% CI, 0.00%-0.53%). Compared with white men, black men with PSA ≤ 1 ng/mL had higher 10-year rates of aggressive disease (1.6% vs. 0.4%; P < 0.01). Five-year screening intervals may be appropriate for the 45% of men with PSA ≤ 1 ng/mL. Men ages ≥65 years with PSA ≤ 0.5 ng/mL could consider stopping screening. Substantial risk disparities suggest appropriate screening intervals could depend on race/ethnicity., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Although risk-based selection of ever-smokers for screening could prevent more lung cancer deaths than screening according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines, it preferentially selects older ever-smokers with shorter life expectancies due to comorbidities., Objective: To compare selection of ever-smokers for screening based on gains in life expectancy versus lung cancer risk., Design: Cohort analyses and model-based projections., Setting: U.S. population of ever-smokers aged 40 to 84 years., Participants: 130 964 National Health Interview Survey participants, representing about 60 million U.S. ever-smokers during 1997 to 2015., Intervention: Annual computed tomography (CT) screening for 3 years versus no screening., Measurements: Estimated number of lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained after development of a mortality model., Results: Using the calibrated and validated mortality model in U.S. ever-smokers aged 40 to 84 years and selecting 8.3 million ever-smokers to match the number selected by the USPSTF criteria in 2013 to 2015, the analysis estimated that life-gained-based selection would increase the total life expectancy from CT screening (633 400 vs. 607 800 years) but prevent fewer lung cancer deaths (52 600 vs. 55 000) compared with risk-based selection. The 1.56 million persons selected by the life-gained-based strategy but not the risk-based strategy were younger (mean age, 59 vs. 75 years) and had fewer comorbidities (mean, 0.75 vs. 3.7)., Limitation: Estimates are model-based and assume implementation of lung cancer screening with short-term effectiveness similar to that from trials., Conclusion: Life-gained-based selection could maximize the benefits of lung cancer screening in the U.S. population by including ever-smokers who have both high lung cancer risk and long life expectancy., Primary Funding Source: Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health.

Introduction: A broad range of stakeholders have called for randomised evidence on the potential clinical benefits and harms of proton therapy, a type of radiation therapy, for patients with breast cancer. Radiation therapy is an important component of curative treatment, reducing cancer recurrence and extending survival. Compared with photon therapy, the international treatment standard, proton therapy reduces incidental radiation to the heart. Our overall objective is to evaluate whether the differences between proton and photon therapy cardiac radiation dose distributions lead to meaningful reductions in cardiac morbidity and mortality after treatment for breast cancer., Methods: We are conducting a large scale, multicentre pragmatic randomised clinical trial for patients with breast cancer who will be followed longitudinally for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, health-related quality of life and cancer control outcomes. A total of 1278 patients with non-metastatic breast cancer will be randomly allocated to receive either photon or proton therapy. The primary outcomes are major cardiovascular events, defined as myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation, cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for unstable angina, heart failure, valvular disease, arrhythmia or pericardial disease. Secondary endpoints are urgent or unanticipated outpatient or emergency room visits for heart failure, arrhythmia, valvular disease or pericardial disease. The Radiotherapy Comparative Effectiveness (RadComp) Clinical Events Centre will conduct centralised, blinded adjudication of primary outcome events., Ethics and Dissemination: The RadComp trial has been approved by the institutional review boards of all participating sites. Recruitment began in February 2016. Current version of the protocol is A3, dated 08 November 2018. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, stakeholder engagement efforts and presentation to the public via lay media outlets., Trial Registration Number: NCT02603341., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JEB, SE, CDM and BK report grants from PCORI, during the conduct of the study. SNP, WB, L-MF, BGH, CK, MVM, RWM, FWP, SMM and OC report grants from University of Pennsylvania subcontracts as study investigator, during the conduct of the study., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: In the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), screen-detected cancers that would not have been identified by the Lung Computed Tomographic Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) nodule management guidelines were frequently ground-glass opacities (GGOs). Lung-RADS suggests that GGOs with diameter less than 20 mm return for annual screening, and GGOs greater than or equal to 20 mm receive 6-month follow-up. We examined whether this 20-mm threshold gives consistent management of GGOs compared with solid nodules., Methods: First, we calculated diameter-specific malignancy probabilities for GGOs and solid nodules in the NLST. Using the solid-nodule malignancy risks as benchmarks, we suggested risk-based management categories for GGOs based on their probability of malignancy. Second, we compared lung-cancer mortality between GGOs and solid nodules in the same risk-based category., Results: Using the Lung-RADS v1.0 classifications, malignancy probability is higher for GGOs than solid nodules within the same category. A risk-based classification of GGOs would assign annual screening for GGOs 4 to 5 mm (0.4% malignancy risk); 6-month follow-up for GGOs 6 to 7 mm (1.1%), 8 to 14 mm (3.0%), and 15 to 19 mm (5.2%); and 3-month follow-up for greater than or equal to 20 mm (10.9%). This reclassification would have assigned similarly fatal cancers to 3-month follow-up (hazard ratio = 2.0 for lung-cancer death in GGOs versus solid-nodule cancers, 95% confidence interval: 0.4-8.7), but for 6-month follow-up, mortality was lower in GGO cancers (hazard ratio = 0.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.05-0.67)., Conclusions: If Lung-RADS categories for GGOs were based on malignancy probability, then 6- to 19-mm GGOs would receive 6-month follow-up and greater than or equal to 20-mm GGOs would receive 3-month follow-up. Such risk-based management for GGOs could improve the sensitivity of Lung-RADS, especially for large GGO cancers. However, small GGO cancers were less aggressive than their solid-nodule counterparts., (Copyright © 2019 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Lengthening the annual low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening interval for individuals at lowest risk of lung cancer could reduce harms and improve efficiency. We analyzed 23 328 participants in the National Lung Screening Trial who had a negative CT screen (no ≥4-mm nodules) to develop an individualized model for lung cancer risk after a negative CT. The Lung Cancer Risk Assessment Tool + CT (LCRAT+CT) updates "prescreening risk" (calculated using traditional risk factors) with selected CT features. At the next annual screen following a negative CT, risk of cancer detection was reduced among the 70% of participants with neither CT-detected emphysema nor consolidation (median risk = 0.2%, interquartile range [IQR] = 0.1%-0.3%). However, risk increased for the 30% with CT emphysema (median risk = 0.5%, IQR = 0.3%-0.8%) and the 0.6% with consolidation (median = 1.6%, IQR = 1.0%-2.5%). As one example, a threshold of next-screen risk lower than 0.3% would lengthen the interval for 57.8% of screen-negatives, thus averting 49.8% of next-screen false-positives among screen-negatives but delaying diagnosis for 23.9% of cancers. Our results support that many, but not all, screen-negatives might reasonably lengthen their CT screening interval., (© World Health Organization, 2019. All rights reserved. The World Health Organization has granted the Publisher permission for the reproduction of this article.)

Background: Lung cancer screening guidelines recommend using individualized risk models to refer ever-smokers for screening. However, different models select different screening populations. The performance of each model in selecting ever-smokers for screening is unknown., Objective: To compare the U.S. screening populations selected by 9 lung cancer risk models (the Bach model; the Spitz model; the Liverpool Lung Project [LLP] model; the LLP Incidence Risk Model [LLPi]; the Hoggart model; the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Model 2012 [PLCOM2012]; the Pittsburgh Predictor; the Lung Cancer Risk Assessment Tool [LCRAT]; and the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool [LCDRAT]) and to examine their predictive performance in 2 cohorts., Design: Population-based prospective studies., Setting: United States., Participants: Models selected U.S. screening populations by using data from the National Health Interview Survey from 2010 to 2012. Model performance was evaluated using data from 337 388 ever-smokers in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study and 72 338 ever-smokers in the CPS-II (Cancer Prevention Study II) Nutrition Survey cohort., Measurements: Model calibration (ratio of model-predicted to observed cases [expected-observed ratio]) and discrimination (area under the curve [AUC])., Results: At a 5-year risk threshold of 2.0%, the models chose U.S. screening populations ranging from 7.6 million to 26 million ever-smokers. These disagreements occurred because, in both validation cohorts, 4 models (the Bach model, PLCOM2012, LCRAT, and LCDRAT) were well-calibrated (expected-observed ratio range, 0.92 to 1.12) and had higher AUCs (range, 0.75 to 0.79) than 5 models that generally overestimated risk (expected-observed ratio range, 0.83 to 3.69) and had lower AUCs (range, 0.62 to 0.75). The 4 best-performing models also had the highest sensitivity at a fixed specificity (and vice versa) and similar discrimination at a fixed risk threshold. These models showed better agreement on size of the screening population (7.6 million to 10.9 million) and achieved consensus on 73% of persons chosen., Limitation: No consensus on risk thresholds for screening., Conclusion: The 9 lung cancer risk models chose widely differing U.S. screening populations. However, 4 models (the Bach model, PLCOM2012, LCRAT, and LCDRAT) most accurately predicted risk and performed best in selecting ever-smokers for screening., Primary Funding Source: Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute.

Background: The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) demonstrated that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening significantly reduced prostate cancer mortality (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.91). The US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) trial indicated no such reduction but had a wide 95% CI (rate ratio for prostate cancer mortality, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.87-1.36). Standard meta-analyses are unable to account for key differences between the trials that can impact the estimated effects of screening and the trials' point estimates., Methods: The authors calibrated 2 microsimulation models to individual-level incidence and mortality data from 238,936 men participating in the ERSPC and PLCO trials. A cure parameter for the underlying efficacy of screening was estimated by the models separately for each trial. The authors changed step-by-step major known differences in trial settings, including enrollment and attendance patterns, screening intervals, PSA thresholds, biopsy receipt, control arm contamination, and primary treatment, to reflect a more ideal protocol situation and differences between the trials., Results: Using the cure parameter estimated for the ERSPC, the models projected 19% to 21% and 6% to 8%, respectively, prostate cancer mortality reductions in the ERSPC and PLCO settings. Using this cure parameter, the models projected a reduction of 37% to 43% under annual screening with 100% attendance and biopsy compliance and no contamination. The cure parameter estimated for the PLCO trial was 0., Conclusions: The observed cancer mortality reduction in screening trials appears to be highly sensitive to trial protocol and practice settings. Accounting for these differences, the efficacy of PSA screening in the PLCO setting is not necessarily inconsistent with ERSPC results. Cancer 2018;124:1197-206. © 2017 American Cancer Society., (© 2017 American Cancer Society.)

Background: A small proportion of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) have been observed to spread to distant lymph nodes (N3) or metastasize (M1) or both, while the primary tumor is small (≤3 cm, T1). These small aggressive NSCLCs (SA-NSLSC) are important as they are clinically significant, may identify unique biologic pathways, and warrant aggressive follow-up and treatment. This study identifies factors associated with SA-NSCLC and attempts to validate a previous finding that women with a family history of lung cancer are at particularly elevated risk of SA-NSCLC., Methods: This study used a case-case design within the National Cancer Institute's National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) cohort. Case patients and "control" patients were selected based on TNM staging parameters. Case patients (n = 64) had T1 NSCLCs that were N3 or M1 or both, while "control" patients (n = 206) had T2 or T3, N0 to N2, and M0 NSCLCs. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used to identify factors associated with SA-NSCLC., Results: In bootstrap bias-corrected multivariable logistic regression models, small aggressive adenocarcinomas were associated with a positive history of emphysema (odds ratio [OR] = 5.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.63 to 23.00) and the interaction of female sex and a positive family history of lung cancer (OR = 6.55, 95% CI = 1.06 to 50.80)., Conclusions: Emphysema may play a role in early lung cancer progression. Females with a family history of lung cancer are at increased risk of having small aggressive lung adenocarcinomas. These results validate previous findings and encourage research on the role of female hormones interacting with family history and genetic factors in lung carcinogenesis and progression.

Background: Screening tests are typically evaluated for a single disease, but multiple tests for multiple diseases are performed in practice. The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial assessed testing for four cancers simultaneously and can be viewed as a multiphasic cancer intervention. This paper presents overall and multiphasic findings of this trial., Methods: The PLCO trial was a randomized multi-center trial conducted at ten screening centers in the US. Participants were 76,682 men and 78,215 women ages 55 - 74 and free of the target cancers at trial entry. Screening tests were PSA and digital rectal examination for prostate cancer, chest x-ray for lung cancer, flexible sigmoidoscopy for colorectal cancer, CA125 and transvaginal ultrasound for ovarian cancer. Outcomes and harms of screening were assessed including compliance, test results, incidence, mortality, false positives and overdiagnosis., Results: Screening compliance was 82%, 72,820 (8%) of 906,064 exams were positive, the overall PPV was 4.2% and the cancer detection rate was 3.38/1000. A mortality reduction was observed only for colorectal cancer (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 - 0.85) with no effect on all-cause mortality. Ninety-six percent of positive exams were falsely positive and there was a suggestion of overdiagnosis of prostate and possibly ovarian cancers. Multiphasic testing resulted in 7374 men and 2748 women experiencing multiple false positive results from multiple types of tests., Conclusion: Multiphasic cancer screening led to reduced mortality for one target cancer and imposed a burden on the health care system that included substantial false positives and likely overdiagnosis., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.org.)

Aim: A mortality benefit from screening for ovarian cancer has never been demonstrated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the screening outcomes for different histologic subtypes of ovarian cancers., Methods: Women in the screening arm of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Screening Trial underwent CA-125 and transvaginal ultrasound annually for 3-5 years. We compared screening test characteristics (including overdiagnosis) and outcomes by tumour type (type II versus other) and study arm (screening versus usual care)., Results: Of 78,215 women randomised, 496 women were diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Of the tumours that were characterised (n = 413; 83%), 74% (n = 305) were type II versus 26% other (n = 108). Among screened patients, 70% of tumours were type II compared to 78% in usual care (p = 0.09). Within the screening arm, 29% of type II tumours were screen detected compared to 54% of the others (p < 0.01). The sensitivity of screening was 65% for type II tumours versus 86% for other types (p = 0.02). 15% of type II screen-detected tumours were stage I/II, compared to 81% of other tumours (p < 0.01). The overdiagnosis rate was lower for type II compared to other tumours (28.2% versus 72.2%; p < 0.01). Ovarian cancer-specific survival was worse for type II tumours compared to others (p < 0.01). Survival was similar for type II (p = 0.74) or other types (p = 0.32) regardless of study arm., Conclusions: Test characteristics of screening for ovarian cancer differed for type II tumours compared to other ovarian tumours. Type II tumours were less likely to be screen diagnosed, early stage at diagnosis or overdiagnosed., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)