Search

Background Bronchiectasis is associated with loss of lung function, substantial use of health care resources, and increased morbidity and mortality in people with cardiopulmonary diseases. Purpose To assess the frequency and severity of bronchiectasis and related clinical findings of participants in a low-dose CT (LDCT) screening program. Materials and Methods The Early Lung and Cardiac Action Program (ELCAP) bronchiectasis score (range, 0-42; higher values indicate more severe bronchiectasis) was developed to facilitate bronchiectasis assessment. This quantitative scoring system screened participants based on accumulated knowledge and improved CT imaging capabilities. Secondary review of LDCT studies from smokers aged 40-90 years was performed when they were initially enrolled in the prospective Mount Sinai ELCAP screening study between 2010 and 2019. Medical records were reviewed to identify associated respiratory symptoms and acute respiratory events during the 2 years after LDCT. Logistic regression analysis was performed to examine factors associated with bronchiectasis. Results LDCT studies of 2191 screening participants (mean age, 65 years ± 9; 1140 [52%] women) were obtained, and bronchiectasis was identified in 504 (23%) participants. Median ELCAP bronchiectasis score was 12 (interquartile range, 9-16). Bronchiectasis was most common in the lower lobes for all participants, and lower lobe prevalence was greater with higher ELCAP score (eg, 91% prevalence with an ELCAP score of 16-42). In the fourth quartile, however, midlung involvement was higher compared with lower lung involvement (128 of 131 participants [98%] vs 122 of 131 participants [93%]). Bronchiectasis was more frequent with greater age (odds ratio [OR] = 2.0 per decade; 95% CI: 1.7, 2.4); being a former smoker (OR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.73); and having self-reported chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.88), an elevated hemidiaphragm (OR = 4; 95% CI: 2, 11), or consolidation (OR = 5; 95% CI: 3, 11). It was less frequent in overweight (OR = 0.7; 95% CI: 0.5, 0.9) or obese (OR = 0.6; 95% CI: 0.4, 0.8) participants. Two years after baseline LDCT, respiratory symptoms, acute respiratory events, and respiratory events that required hospitalization were more frequent with increasing severity of the ELCAP bronchiectasis score (

Patients with lung cancer are especially vulnerable to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with a greater than sevenfold higher rate of becoming infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) COVID-19, a greater than threefold higher hospitalization rate with high complication rates, and an estimated case fatality rate of more than 30%. The reasons for the increased vulnerability are not known. In addition, beyond the direct impact of the pandemic on morbidity and mortality among patients with lung cancer, COVID-19, with its disruption of patient care, has also resulted in substantial impact on lung cancer screening and treatment/management.COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in people with lung cancer. On the basis of the available data, patients with lung cancer should continue their course of cancer treatment and get vaccinated against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. For unknown reasons, some patients with lung cancer mount poor antibody responses to vaccination. Thus, boosting vaccination seems urgently indicated in this subgroup of vulnerable patients with lung cancer. Nevertheless, many unanswered questions regarding vaccination in this population remain, including the magnitude, quality, and duration of antibody response and the role of innate and acquired cellular immunities for clinical protection. Additional important knowledge gaps also remain, including the following: how can we best protect patients with lung cancer from developing COVID-19, including managing care in patient with lung cancer and the home environment of patients with lung cancer; are there clinical/treatment demographics and tumor molecular demographics that affect severity of COVID-19 disease in patients with lung cancer; does anticancer treatment affect antibody production and protection; does SARS-CoV-2 infection affect the development/progression of lung cancer; and are special measures and vaccine strategies needed for patients with lung cancer as viral variants of concern emerge.

Background Osteoporotic fractures are a major contributor to late life morbidity and mortality, and impose a substantial societal cost, yet osteoporosis remains substantially underdiagnosed and undertreated. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the pooled diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of computed tomography (CT) images for diagnosing osteoporosis in patients who meet WHO dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) osteoporosis criteria using specific Hounsfield unit (HU) values as a threshold. Methods Systematic literature searches in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar were performed from the earliest available date through 1 July 2018, restricted to publications in English. Participants in all studies underwent CT scans that included the lumbar and/or thoracic spine for different indications and HU measurements were used to identify osteoporosis. DXA scans served as the reference standard. Results Ten eligible studies were identified. The mean area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for diagnosis osteoporosis was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.87). The pooled diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of CT images to identify osteoporosis were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.73, 0.90) and 0.74 (95% CI: 0.69, 0.79). The positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-), and diagnostic odds ratio were 3.4 (95% CI: 2.7, 4.5), 0.21 (95% CI: 0.12, 0.36), and 16.4 (95% CI: 7.8, 34.3), respectively. The bias-adjusted sensitivity and specificity of CT were 0.73 and 0.71. Meta-regression demonstrated that country of study, DXA criteria and scanner manufacturer were significant factors associated with the sensitivity of CT in detecting osteoporosis while scanner manufacturer was the only factor associated with specificity of CT. Conclusions This meta-analysis showed reasonable pooled sensitivity and specificity for using threshold values measured on CT scans to identify osteoporosis opportunistically.

Introduction Computed tomography (CT) and fluorodeoxyglucose-positron-emission-tomography (FDG-PET) measurements of mediastinal lymph nodes (MLNs) of patients with non-small-cell-lung-cancers (NSCLCs) ≤ 30 mm in maximum diameter are recommended for pre-surgical prediction of MLN metastases. Methods We reviewed all patients at Mount Sinai Health System enrolled in the Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research on Treatment (IELCART), prospective cohort between 2016 and 2020, who had pre-surgical FDG-PET and underwent surgery with MLN resection and/or pre-operative endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) for a first primary NSCLC ≤ 30 mm in maximum diameter on pre-surgical CT. Results Among 470 patients, none with part-solid (n = 63) or nonsolid (n = 23) NSCLCs had MLN metastases. Solid NSCLCs were identified in 384 patients, none in typical carcinoid (n = 48) or NSCLC ≤ 10 mm in maximum diameter (n = 47, including 8 typical carcinoids) had MLN metastases. Among the remaining 297 patients with solid NSCLCs 10.1–30.0 mm, 7 (2.4%) had MLN metastases. Area-under-the-curve (AUC) for predicting MLN metastases in solid NSCLCs 10.1–30.0 mm, using the CT maximum short-axis MLN diameter was 0.62 (95% CI:0.44–0.81, p = 0.18) and using the highest SUVmax of any MLN, AUC was 0.58 (95% CI:0.39–0.78,p = 0.41). Neither AUCs were significantly different from chance alone. Optimal cutoff for prediction of MLN metastases was ≥ 18.9 mm for CT maximum short-axis diameter [sensitivity 14.3% (95%CI:0.0%–57.9%); specificity 100.0% (95%CI:98.9%-100.0%)] and for highest SUVmax was ≥ 11.7 [sensitivity 14.3% (95%CI:0.0%-57.9%) and specificity 99.7% (95%CI:98.3%-100.0%)]. Conclusions CT and SUVmax had low sensitivity but high specificity for predicting MLN metastases in solid NSCLCs 10.1–30.0 mm. Clinical Stage IA NSCLCs ≤ 30 mm should be based on CT maximum tumor diameter and MLN maximum short-axis diameter ≤ 20 mm.

Background: Lung cancer screening includes identification of eligible individuals, shared decision-making inclusive of tobacco cessation, and management of screening results. Adaptations to the implemented processes for lung cancer screening in situ are understudied and underreported, with potential loss of important considerations for improved implementation. The Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Expanded (FRAME) allows for systematic enumeration of adaptations to implementations of evidence-based practices. We used FRAME to study adaptations in lung cancer screening processes that were implemented as part of a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Enterprise-Wide Initiative.Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews at baseline and 1-year intervals with lung cancer screening program navigators at 10 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMC) between 2019-2021. Using this data, we developed baseline (1st) process maps for each program. In subsequent years (year 1 and year 2), each program navigator reviewed the process maps. Adaptations in screening processes were identified, recorded and mapped to FRAME categories. Results: A total of 14 program navigators across 10 VHA lung cancer screening programs participated in 20 interviews. In year 1 (2019-2020), seven programs were operational and of these, three reported adaptations to their screening process that were either planned and in response to COVID-19. In year 2 (2020-2021), all 10 programs were operational. Programs reported 14 adaptations in year 2. These adaptations were both planned and unplanned and often triggered by increased workload; 57% of year 2 adaptations were related to identification and eligibility of Veterans and 43% were related to follow-up with Veterans for screening results. Throughout the 2 years, adaptations related to data management and patient tracking occurred in 6 of 10 programs to improve the data collection and tracking of Veterans in the screening process. Conclusions: Using FRAME, we found that adaptations occurred throughout the lung cancer screening process but primarily in the areas of patient identification and communication of results. These findings highlight considerations for lung cancer screening implementation and potential areas for future intervention.

Margin distance contributes to survival and recurrence during wedge resections for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. The Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research on Treatment sought to standardize a surgeon-measured margin intraoperatively.Lung cancer patients who underwent wedge resection were reviewed. Margins were measured by the surgeon twice as per a standardized protocol. Intraobserver variability as well as surgeon-pathologist variability were compared.Forty-five patients underwent wedge resection. Same-surgeon measurement analysis indicated good reliability with a small mean difference and narrow limit of agreement for the two measures. The median surgeon-measured margin was 18.0 mm, median pathologist-measured margin was 16.0 mm and the median difference between the surgeon-pathologist margin was -1.0 mm, ranging from -18.0 to 12.0 mm. Bland-Altman analysis for margin measurements demonstrated a mean difference of 0.65 mm. The limit of agreement for the two approaches were wide, with the difference lying between -16.25 and 14.96 mm.A novel protocol of surgeon-measured margin was evaluated and compared with pathologist-measured margin. High intraobserver agreement for repeat surgeon measurements yet low-to-moderate correlation or directionality between surgeon and pathologic measurements were found.A standardized protocol may reduce variability in pathologic assessment. These findings have critical implications considering the impact of margin distance on outcomes.

As the COVID-19 pandemic impacts global populations, computed tomography (CT) lung imaging is being used in many countries to help manage patient care as well as to rapidly identify potentially useful quantitative COVID-19 CT imaging biomarkers. Quantitative COVID-19 CT imaging applications, typically based on computer vision modeling and artificial intelligence algorithms, include the potential for better methods to assess COVID-19 extent and severity, assist with differential diagnosis of COVID-19 versus other respiratory conditions, and predict disease trajectory. To help accelerate the development of robust quantitative imaging algorithms and tools, it is critical that CT imaging is obtained following best practices of the quantitative lung CT imaging community. Toward this end, the Radiological Society of North America's (RSNA) Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) CT Lung Density Profile Committee and CT Small Lung Nodule Profile Committee developed a set of best practices to guide clinical sites using quantitative imaging solutions and to accelerate the international development of quantitative CT algorithms for COVID-19. This guidance document provides quantitative CT lung imaging recommendations for COVID-19 CT imaging, including recommended CT image acquisition settings for contemporary CT scanners. Additional best practice guidance is provided on scientific publication reporting of quantitative CT imaging methods and the importance of contributing COVID-19 CT imaging datasets to open science research databases.

There have been hundreds of publications about overdiagnosis during the past decade describing concern regarding its potential for harms in lung cancer screening. However, the definition and frequency with which it occurs in screening trials remains unclear. This lack of clarity stems from its current definition which is not based on a clinical grounds but instead on an epidemiologic definition that depends on the cause of death. Thus, with the current definition an overdiagnosed cancer can only be diagnosed if the person does not die from the cancer, regardless of whether or not the cancer is aggressive or the treatment successful. Using a definition based on epidemiology rather than the clinical presentation is highly unusual. Furthermore, the frequency of overdiagnosis has also been a cause of great confusion. Prior to the results from the National Lung Screening trial (NLST), concerns were expressed that virtually all CT screen detected cancers would be overdiagnosed, yet the extended follow-up study of the National Lung Screening Trial shows that in essence there were virtually no overdiagnosis. Even more confusing is that it was previously suspected that there was a high rate of overdiagnosis when using chest radiographic screening and therefore as CT is a more sensitive imaging test and finds cancers even earlier, it would be presumed that the overdiagnosis rate for CT would be even be higher. A proposed change in the definition would focus more on the clinical manifestation of the cancer as to its aggressiveness as this can be diagnosed while the patient is alive. Using a definition that is based on clinical features, a cancer that manifests as a nonsolid nodule would be considered overdiagnosed if instead of being recognized as relatively indolent was instead thought to be an aggressive cancer. The concept of overtreatment arises if this nonaggressive cancer were treated aggressively.

Low-dose CT screening for lung cancer provides images of the entire chest and upper abdomen. While the focus of screening is on finding early lung cancer, radiology leadership has embraced the fact that the information contained in the images presents a new challenge to the radiology profession. Other findings in the chest and upper abdomen were not the reason for obtaining the screening CT scan, nor symptom-prompted, but still need to be reported. Reporting these findings and making recommendations for further workup requires careful consideration to avoid unnecessary workup or interventions while still maximizing the benefit that early identification of these other diseases provided. Other potential findings, such as cardiovascular disease and chronic pulmonary obstructive diseases actually cause more deaths than lung cancer. Existing recommendations for workup of abnormal CT findings are based on symptom-prompted indications for imaging. These recommendations may be different when the abnormalities are identified in asymptomatic people undergoing CT screening for lung cancer. I-ELCAP, a large prospectively collected multi-institutional and multi-national database of screenings, was used to analyze CT findings identified in screening for lung cancer. These analyses and recommendations were made by radiologists in collaboration with clinicians in different medical specialties.

Smoking is a major risk factor for both cardiovascular disease (CVD) and lung cancer. Aortic valve calcification (AVC) and coronary artery calcification (CAC) are both due to atherosclerotic disease. We aim to investigate whether AVC on low-dose CT (LDCT) predicts death from CVD in smokers beyond that provided by CAC. We reviewed a prospective cohort of 8618 smokers enrolled in LDCT screening for lung cancer in New York State between June 2000 and December 2005. As of December 2009, 169 of the 643 deaths were due to CVD; median follow-up time was 96.4 months. Visual AVC was assessed as being absent (AVC = 0) or present (AVC > 0). CAC ordinal scores of 0–12 were categorized into three validated prognostic categories (0, 1–3, and 4–12). Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to assess whether AVC > 0 increased the risk of CVD death, after adjustment for CAC categories and other risk factors. The prevalence of AVC significantly increased (p 0 and CAC ≥ 4, the hazard ratio was 2.35 (95%CI 1.57–3.50) compared with the reference group of AVC = 0 and CAC 0 and CAC ≥ 4 had more than a 2-fold increased risk of CVD death than the group with AVC = 0 and CAC

Background Few studies have examined the differential impact of sublobar resection (SL) and lobectomy (L) on quality of life (QoL) during the first postoperative year. Methods We used a prospective cohort of Stage IA lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) from the Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research on Treatment. QoL was measured before surgery, and within 4, 6, and 12 months post-surgery using three validated instruments: SF-12 [physical (PCS) and mental health (MCS)], FACT-LCS (lung-cancer-symptoms), and the PHQ-4 (anxiety and depression subscales). Locally weighted smoothing curve (LOWESS) was fitted to identify the best interval knot for the change in the QoL trend post-surgery. After adjusting for demographic and clinical variables, an adjusted piecewise linear mixed effects model was developed to estimate differences in baseline and 12-month scores, and rates of change for each QoL measure. Results SL resection was performed in 127 (63.2%) and L in 74 (36.8%) patients. LOWESS plots suggested that the shift of QoL (interval knot) was at 2 months post-surgery. Decreases in PCS scores were less severe for SL than L patients 2 months post-surgery (-0.18 vs. -2.30, P=0.02); while subsequent improvements were observed for both groups (SL: +0.29 vs. L: +0.74, P=0.06). SL patients reported significantly better scores a year post-surgery compared to baseline (P=0.003), while L patients did not. Anxiety decreased at similar rates for both SL and L patients within 2 months post-surgery (P=0.18), then stabilized for the remaining months. MCS and depression scores remained stable in both groups throughout. QoL scores were lower for women than for men, but only significantly worse for the lung-cancer-symptoms (P=0.003) and anxiety (P=0.04). Conclusions SL patients fared better in physical health and lung cancer symptoms than L patients. The first two postoperative months showed the most significant change which suggests targeting postoperative intervention during that time.

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a progressive, potentially fatal disease, difficult to diagnose early due to non-specific nature of symptoms. PH is associated with increased morbidity and death in many respiratory and cardiac disorders, and with all-cause mortality, independent of age and cardiopulmonary disease. The main pulmonary artery diameter (MPA), and ratio of MPA to adjacent ascending aorta (AA), MPA:AA, on Chest CT are strong indicators of suspected PH. Our goal was to determine the prevalence of abnormally high values of these indicators of PH in asymptomatic low-dose CT (LDCT) screening participants at risk of lung cancer, and determine the associated risk factors.We reviewed consecutive baseline LDCT scans of 1949 smokers in an IRB-approved study. We measured the MPA and AA diameter and calculated MPA:AA ratio. We defined abnormally high values as being more than two standard deviations above the average (MPA ≥ 34 mm and MPA:AA ≥ 1.0). Regression analyses were used to identify risk factors and CT findings of participants associated with high values.The prevalence of MPA ≥ 34 mm and MPA:AA ≥ 1.0 was 4.2% and 6.9%, respectively. Multivariable regression demonstrated that BMI was a significant risk factor, both for MPA ≥ 34 mm (OR = 1.07, p 0.0001) and MPA:AA ≥ 1.0 (OR = 1.04, p = 0.003). Emphysema was significant in the univariate but not in the multivariate analysis.We determined that the possible prevalence of PH as defined by abnormally high values of MPA and of MPA:AA was greater than previously described in the general population and that pulmonary consultation be recommended for these participants, in view of the significance of PH.

We learned many unanticipated and valuable lessons since we started planning our study of low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening for lung cancer in 1991. The publication of the baseline results of the Early Lung Cancer Action Project (ELCAP) in Lancet 1999 showed that CT screening could identify a high proportion of early, curable lung cancers. This stimulated large national screening studies to be quickly started. The ELCAP design, which provided evidence about screening in the context of a clinical program, was able to rapidly expand to a 12-institution study in New York State (NY-ELCAP) and to many international institutions (International-ELCAP), ultimately working with 82 institutions, all using the common I-ELCAP protocol. This expansion was possible because the investigators had developed the ELCAP Management System for screening, capturing data and CT images, and providing for quality assurance. This advanced registry and its rapid accumulation of data and images allowed continual assessment and updating of the regimen of screening as advances in knowledge and new technology emerged. For example, in the initial ELCAP study, introduction of helical CT scanners had allowed imaging of the entire lungs in a single breath, but the images were obtained in 10 mm increments resulting in about 30 images per person. Today, images are obtained in submillimeter slice thickness, resulting in around 700 images per person, which are viewed on high-resolution monitors. The regimen provides the imaging acquisition parameters, imaging interpretation, definition of positive result, and the recommendations for further workup, which now include identification of emphysema and coronary artery calcifications. Continual updating is critical to maximize the benefit of screening and to minimize potential harms. Insights were gained about the natural history of lung cancers, identification and management of nodule subtypes, increased understanding of nodule imaging and pathologic features, and measurement variability inherent in CT scanners. The registry also provides the foundation for assessment of new statistical techniques, including artificial intelligence, and integration of effective genomic and blood-based biomarkers, as they are developed.

Background Self-reported smoking behavior is widely used in identifying the eligibility for lung cancer screening (LCS). In clinical trials, self-reported smoking status was shown to be a reliable measure, while its effectiveness outside of trial settings remains to be clarified. We aimed to verify self-reported smoking status with serum cotinine levels among LCS-eligible adults from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Methods From the combined 1999-2018 NHANES data, we selected adults (aged ≥18 years) with complete data on serum cotinine and smoking behavior, and determined their LCS eligibility according to the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Using established race/ethnicity specific cotinine cutpoints as the gold standard, we verified self-reported current smoking status with five measures: sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and reliability Kappa. We also compared these performance measures in subgroups stratified by sex, race/ethnicity, education, family income to poverty ratio, health insurance, and secondhand smoking exposure (SHS) at home. All analyses took into account the complex survey design. Results Approximately 9.3% (n = 2335, equivalent to 8.82 million weighted population) of all adults who currently smoke or formerly smoked were eligible for LCS. The prevalence of current smoking was 52.6% and 60.8% based on self-report and cotinine, respectively. The Se and Sp were 86.4% (95%CI: 83.9%-88.9%) and 99.7% (95%CI: 99.4%-100%), respectively; PPV and NPV were 99.8% (95%CI: 99.6%-100%) and 82.6% (95%CI: 79.4%-85.7%), respectively; and Kappa was 0.83 (95%CI: 0.80-0.86). The reliability Kappa was higher among females than males (0.87 (95%CI: 0.82-0.93)) vs 0.80 (95%CI: 0.77-0.84), the lowest among non-Hispanic white (0.82 (95%CI: 0.78-0.86)), and higher among those with SHS (0.72 (95%CI: 0.63-0.80) vs (0.68 (95%CI: 0.61-0.76)). Conclusion Self-reported smoking status is reasonably reliable among adults with high risk for developing lung cancer in the general population.

Background Lung cancer screening (LCS) is an important secondary prevention measure to reduce lung cancer mortality. The goal of this study was to assess state-level variations in LCS among the US elderly during the first 3 years since Medicare began its LCS reimbursement policy in 2015. Methods This ecological study examined the relations between LCS utilization density, defined as the number of low-dose CT (LDCT) or shared decision-making and counseling (SDMC) services per 1,000 Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries derived from the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier public use file, and state-level factors from several publicly available data sources. The study included Kruskal-Wallis tests and a cluster analysis. Results In 2017, the median utilization density per 1,000 Medicare FFS beneficiaries was 3.32 for LDCT and 0.46 for SDMC, which was 24 and 13 times the 2015 level, respectively. From 2015 to 2017, the total number of unique providers billed for LCS increased from 222 to 3,444 for LDCT imaging and from 20 to 523 for SDMC. Higher utilizations for both LDCT and SDMC services tended to concentrate in the northeastern and upper Midwest states than in the southwest states. The cluster of states with high utilization density did not include those states with the most lung cancer mortality and/or smoking prevalence. Conclusions A steady increase was noted in LCS utilization since Medicare began its reimbursement policy. The utilization and its growth varied across the United States and differed between LDCT imaging and SDMC, indicating large growth potentials for LCS and for states with high lung cancer mortality and smoking prevalence.

To evaluate risk factors for prevalence and progression of aortic valve calcification (AVC) in lung cancer screening participants and also to assess the sensitivity and reliability of visual AVCs on low-dose CT (LDCT) for predicting aortic stenosis (AS) in high-risk smokers. We reviewed 1225 consecutive participants in annual LDCT screening for lung cancer at the Mount Sinai Hospital between 2010 and 2017. Sensitivity and specificity of moderate/severe AVC score on LDCT to identify AS on echocardiogram were calculated for 126 participants who had both within 12 months. Using regression analyses, risk factors for AVC at baseline, for progression, and for new AVC on annual rounds of screening were identified. Reliability of AVC assessment on LDCT was assessed by comparing visual AVC scores (1) with standard-dose, electrocardiography (ECG)-gated CT for 31 participants who had both within 12 months and (2) with Agatston scores of 1225 participants and by determining (3) the intra-reader agreement of 1225 participants. Visual AVC scores on LDCT had substantial agreement with the severity of AS on echocardiography and substantial inter-observer and excellent intra-observer agreement. Sensitivity and specificity of moderate/severe visual AVC scores for moderate/severe AS on echocardiogram were 100% and 94%, respectively. Significant predictors for baseline AVC were male sex (OR = 2.52), age (OR10 years = 2.87), and coronary artery calcification score (OR = 1.18), the significant predictor for AVC progression after baseline was pack-years of smoking (HR10 packyears = 1.14), and significant predictors for new AVC on annual LDCT were male sex (HR = 1.51), age (HR10 years = 2.17), CAC (HR = 1.09) and BMI (HR = 1.06). AVC scores on LDCT should be documented, especially in lung cancer screening program. • LDCT screening for lung cancer provides an opportunity to identify lung cancer and cardiovascular disease in asymptomatic smokers. • Visual aortic valve calcification scores could be reliably evaluated on LDCT and had substantial agreement with the severity of aortic valve stenosis on echocardiography. • Sensitivity and specificity of moderate/severe visual AVC scores on LDCT for moderate/severe AS on echocardiogram were 100% and 94%, respectively.

To determine whether radiographic measures of tumor aggressiveness differ by smoking status.All patients diagnosed with non-small-cell lung cancer(NSCLC) ≤ 30 mm in maximum diameter, without clinical evidence of metastasis who had both pre-treatment PET scans and two CT scans at least 90 days apart in a prospective cohort, the Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research on Treatment(IELCART) at Mount Sinai between 2016 and 2020 were identified. Comparison of two measures of tumor aggressiveness, positron emission tomography(PET) SUVmax and tumor volume doubling time(VDT) by smoking status was performed.Of 417 patients identified, 158 patients had pre-treatment PET scans and at least two CT scans available. The two measures of tumor aggressiveness, SUVmax and VDT values were significantly different between patients who had never smoked and those who smoked: patients who never smoked had lower median SUVmax[2.5(IQR: 1.1-4.8) vs. 4.2(IQR:2.1-9.2),p = 0.002] and longer median VDT[(372.6 days vs. 225.6 days,p = 0.001)] compared to those who smoked. Using multivariable analyses, when adjusting for age and sex alone, SUVmax(p = 0.004) and VDT(p = 0.0001) remained significantly different by smoking status. The final multivariable analysis, adjusted for all three co-variates(sex, age and tumor histology) showed no significant difference in SUVmax and VDT by smoking status [SUVmax(p = 0.25) and VDT(p = 0.06)].Smoking history does not influence VDT or PET SUVmax measures of lung cancer aggressiveness.

Rationale: Lung cancer surgical morbidity has been decreasing, increasing attention to quality-of-life measures. A chronic sequela of lung cancer surgery is use of postoperative oxygen at home afte...

Background Solid costal pleura-attached noncalcified nodules (CP-NCNs) less than 10.0 mm with lentiform, oval, or semicircular (LOS) or triangular shapes and smooth margins on baseline low-dose CT scans from the Mount Sinai Early Lung and Cardiac Action Program (MS-ELCAP) were reviewed, and it was determined that they can be followed up at the first annual screening rather than having a shorter-term work-up. Purpose To determine whether the same criteria could be used for solid CP-NCNs newly identified at annual screening examinations. Materials and Methods With use of the same MS-ELCAP database, all new solid CP-NCNs measuring 30.0 mm or less were identified at 4425 annual screening examinations between 2010 and 2019. In addition, to ensure that no malignant CP-NCNs met the criteria, all solid malignant CP-NCNs of 30.0 mm or less in the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program, or I-ELCAP, database of 111 102 annual screening examinations from the 76 participating institutions between 1992 and 2019 were identified; Mount Sinai is one of these institutions. All identified solid CP-NCNs were reviewed-with the radiologists blinded to diagnosis-for shape (triangular, LOS, polygonal, round, or irregular), margin (smooth or nonsmooth), pleural attachment (broad or narrow), and the presence of emphysema and/or fibrosis within 10.0 mm of each CP-NCN. Intra- and interreader readings were performed, and agreements were determined by using the B-statistic. Results Of the 76 new solid CP-NCNs, 21 were lung cancers. Benign CP-NCNs were smaller than malignant ones (median diameter, 4.2 mm vs 11 mm

Patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have high survival rates, but patients often say they did not anticipate the effect of the surgery on their postsurgical quality of life (QoL). This study adds to the literature regarding patient and surgeon interactions and highlights the areas where the current approach is not providing good communication.Since its start in 2016, the Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research on Treatment (IELCART), a prospective cohort study, has enrolled 543 patients who underwent surgery for stage I NSCLC within the Mount Sinai Health System. Presurgical patient and surgeon surveys were available for 314 patients, postsurgical surveys for 420, and both pre- and postsurgical surveys for 285.Of patients with presurgical surveys, 31.2% said that their surgeon recommended multiple types of treatment. Of patients with postsurgical surveys, 85.0% felt very well prepared and 11.4% moderately well prepared for their postsurgical recovery. The median Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung Cancer score and social support score of the patients who felt very well prepared was significantly higher than those moderately or not well prepared (24.0 v. 22.0,This study provides insight into the areas where surgeons are communicating well with their patients as well as the areas where patients still feel uninformed. Most surgeons feel that they prepare their patients well or very well for surgical recovery, whereas some patients still feel that their surgeons did not prepare them well for postsurgical recovery. Surgeons may want to spend additional time emphasizing postsurgical recovery and QoL with their patients or provide their patients with additional avenues to get their questions and concerns addressed.Pretreatment discussions could help surgeons understand patient priorities and patients understand the anticipated outcomes for their surgeries.There is an association between feeling prepared for surgery and higher quality of life and social support scores after adjustment for confounders.Despite these pretreatment discussions, patients still feel that they are not well prepared about what to expect during their postsurgical recovery.

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer incidence and mortality worldwide. Approximately 60% of the world’s new cases of lung cancer and deaths from it are expected in Asia in 2018. Currently, lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is recommended for heavy smokers in North America, Europe and some countries in Asia. Tobacco smoking being the major risk factor for lung cancer, but in Asia, lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS) is also a concern. This paper reviews on lung cancer incidence, mortality, etiology, smoking in Asia, and systematic reviews on LDCT lung cancer screening studies, including ongoing projects and recommendation on lung cancer screening in Asia. Some of the earliest studies of LDCT lung cancer screening worldwide were in Asia. Many countries in Asia have developed LDCT screening studies in various high-risk participants. Currently, there are several ongoing large-scale lung cancer screening trials to evaluate the efficacy of LDCT screening for never-smokers and light smokers, as well as heavy smokers, and to evaluate the feasibility of population-based LDCT lung cancer screening.

PURPOSE To improve outcomes for lung cancer through low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) early lung cancer detection. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer is developing the Early Lung Imaging Confederation (ELIC) to serve as an open-source, international, universally accessible environment to analyze large collections of quality-controlled LDCT images and associated biomedical data for research and routine screening care. METHODS ELIC is an international confederation that allows access to efficiently analyze large numbers of high-quality computed tomography (CT) images with associated de-identified clinical information without moving primary imaging/clinical or imaging data from its local or regional site of origin. Rather, ELIC uses a cloud-based infrastructure to distribute analysis tools to the local site of the stored imaging and clinical data, thereby allowing for research and quality studies to proceed in a vendor-neutral, collaborative environment. ELIC’s hub-and-spoke architecture will be deployed to permit analysis of CT images and associated data in a secure environment, without any requirement to reveal the data itself (ie, privacy protecting). Identifiable data remain under local control, so the resulting environment complies with national regulations and mitigates against privacy or data disclosure risk. RESULTS The goal of pilot experiments is to connect image collections of LDCT scans that can be accurately analyzed in a fashion to support a global network using methodologies that can be readily scaled to accrued databases of sufficient size to develop and validate robust quantitative imaging tools. CONCLUSION This initiative can rapidly accelerate improvements to the multidisciplinary management of early, curable lung cancer and other major thoracic diseases (eg, coronary artery disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) visualized on a screening LDCT scan. The addition of a facile, quantitative CT scanner image quality conformance process is a unique step toward improving the reliability of clinical decision support with CT screening worldwide.