Search

Background: Recent therapeutic advances and screening technologies have improved survival among patients with lung cancer, who are now at high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). Recently, an SPLC risk‐prediction model (called SPLC‐RAT) was developed and validated using data from population‐based epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials, but real‐world validation has been lacking. The predictive performance of SPLC‐RAT was evaluated in a hospital‐based cohort of lung cancer survivors. Methods: The authors analyzed data from 8448 ever‐smoking patients diagnosed with initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) in 1997–2006 at Mayo Clinic, with each patient followed for SPLC through 2018. The predictive performance of SPLC‐RAT and further explored the potential of improving SPLC detection through risk model‐based surveillance using SPLC‐RAT versus existing clinical surveillance guidelines. Results: Of 8448 IPLC patients, 483 (5.7%) developed SPLC over 26,470 person‐years. The application of SPLC‐RAT showed high discrimination area under the receiver operating characteristics curve: 0.81). When the cohort was stratified by a 10‐year risk threshold of ≥5.6% (i.e., 80th percentile from the SPLC‐RAT development cohort), the observed SPLC incidence was significantly elevated in the high‐risk versus low‐risk subgroup (13.1% vs. 1.1%, p < 1 × 10–6). The risk‐based surveillance through SPLC‐RAT (≥5.6% threshold) outperformed the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines with higher sensitivity (86.4% vs. 79.4%) and specificity (38.9% vs. 30.4%) and required 20% fewer computed tomography follow‐ups needed to detect one SPLC (162 vs. 202). Conclusion: In a large, hospital‐based cohort, the authors validated the predictive performance of SPLC‐RAT in identifying high‐risk survivors of SPLC and showed its potential to improve SPLC detection through risk‐based surveillance. Plain Language Summary: Lung cancer survivors have a high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC).However, no evidence‐based guidelines for SPLC surveillance are available for lung cancer survivors.Recently, an SPLC risk‐prediction model was developed and validated using data from population‐based epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials, but real‐world validation has been lacking.Using a large, real‐world cohort of lung cancer survivors, we showed the high predictive accuracy and risk‐stratification ability of the SPLC risk‐prediction model.Furthermore, we demonstrated the potential to enhance efficiency in detecting SPLC using risk model‐based surveillance strategies compared to the existing consensus‐based clinical guidelines, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Given the rapidly growing number of lung cancer survivors who are now at high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC), previous studies have identified SPLC risk factors and developed SPLC risk‐prediction models, but they lack insight into real‐world validation to help improve clinical decision‐making in SPLC surveillance for lung cancer survivors. Using a large, hospital‐based real‐world cohort of lung cancer survivors, the authors validated the predictive accuracy of an SPLC risk‐prediction model (area under the curve of 0.81), that can identify high‐risk lung cancer survivors for SPLC and can be incorporated into clinical decision‐making for SPLC surveillance to improve the systematic management of lung cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Selection of candidates for lung cancer screening based on individual risk has been proposed as an alternative to criteria based on age and cumulative smoking exposure (pack-years). Nine previously established risk models were assessed for their ability to identify those most likely to develop or die from lung cancer. All models considered age and various aspects of smoking exposure (smoking status, smoking duration, cigarettes per day, pack-years smoked, time since smoking cessation) as risk predictors. In addition, some models considered factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, education, body mass index, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, personal history of cancer, personal history of pneumonia, and family history of lung cancer. Methods and findings Retrospective analyses were performed on 53,452 National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants (1,925 lung cancer cases and 884 lung cancer deaths) and 80,672 Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) ever-smoking participants (1,463 lung cancer cases and 915 lung cancer deaths). Six-year lung cancer incidence and mortality risk predictions were assessed for (1) calibration (graphically) by comparing the agreement between the predicted and the observed risks, (2) discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]) between individuals with and without lung cancer (death), and (3) clinical usefulness (net benefit in decision curve analysis) by identifying risk thresholds at which applying risk-based eligibility would improve lung cancer screening efficacy. To further assess performance, risk model sensitivities and specificities in the PLCO were compared to those based on the NLST eligibility criteria. Calibration was satisfactory, but discrimination ranged widely (AUCs from 0.61 to 0.81). The models outperformed the NLST eligibility criteria over a substantial range of risk thresholds in decision curve analysis, with a higher sensitivity for all models and a slightly higher specificity for some models. The PLCOm2012, Bach, and Two-Stage Clonal Expansion incidence models had the best overall performance, with AUCs >0.68 in the NLST and >0.77 in the PLCO. These three models had the highest sensitivity and specificity for predicting 6-y lung cancer incidence in the PLCO chest radiography arm, with sensitivities >79.8% and specificities >62.3%. In contrast, the NLST eligibility criteria yielded a sensitivity of 71.4% and a specificity of 62.2%. Limitations of this study include the lack of identification of optimal risk thresholds, as this requires additional information on the long-term benefits (e.g., life-years gained and mortality reduction) and harms (e.g., overdiagnosis) of risk-based screening strategies using these models. In addition, information on some predictor variables included in the risk prediction models was not available. Conclusions Selection of individuals for lung cancer screening using individual risk is superior to selection criteria based on age and pack-years alone. The benefits, harms, and feasibility of implementing lung cancer screening policies based on risk prediction models should be assessed and compared with those of current recommendations., Author(s): Kevin ten Haaf 1,*, Jihyoun Jeon 2, Martin C. Tammemägi 3, Summer S. Han 4,5, Chung Yin Kong 6, Sylvia K. Plevritis 4, Eric J. Feuer 7, Harry J. [...]

Background The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) results indicate that computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening for current and former smokers with three annual screens can be cost-effective in a trial setting. However, the cost-effectiveness in a population-based setting with >3 screening rounds is uncertain. Therefore, the objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening in a population-based setting in Ontario, Canada, and evaluate the effects of screening eligibility criteria. Methods and Findings This study used microsimulation modeling informed by various data sources, including the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP), Ontario Cancer Registry, smoking behavior surveys, and the NLST. Persons, born between 1940 and 1969, were examined from a third-party health care payer perspective across a lifetime horizon. Starting in 2015, 576 CT screening scenarios were examined, varying by age to start and end screening, smoking eligibility criteria, and screening interval. Among the examined outcome measures were lung cancer deaths averted, life-years gained, percentage ever screened, costs (in 2015 Canadian dollars), and overdiagnosis. The results of the base-case analysis indicated that annual screening was more cost-effective than biennial screening. Scenarios with eligibility criteria that required as few as 20 pack-years were dominated by scenarios that required higher numbers of accumulated pack-years. In general, scenarios that applied stringent smoking eligibility criteria (i.e., requiring higher levels of accumulated smoking exposure) were more cost-effective than scenarios with less stringent smoking eligibility criteria, with modest differences in life-years gained. Annual screening between ages 55-75 for persons who smoked [greater than or equal to]40 pack-years and who currently smoke or quit [less than or equal to]10 y ago yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $41,136 Canadian dollars ($33,825 in May 1, 2015, United States dollars) per life-year gained (compared to annual screening between ages 60-75 for persons who smoked [greater than or equal to]40 pack-years and who currently smoke or quit [less than or equal to]10 y ago), which was considered optimal at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000 Canadian dollars ($41,114 May 1, 2015, US dollars). If 50% lower or higher attributable costs were assumed, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of this scenario was estimated to be $38,240 ($31,444 May 1, 2015, US dollars) or $48,525 ($39,901 May 1, 2015, US dollars), respectively. If 50% lower or higher costs for CT examinations were assumed, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of this scenario was estimated to be $28,630 ($23,542 May 1, 2015, US dollars) or $73,507 ($60,443 May 1, 2015, US dollars), respectively. This scenario would screen 9.56% (499,261 individuals) of the total population (ever- and never-smokers) at least once, which would require 4,788,523 CT examinations, and reduce lung cancer mortality in the total population by 9.05% (preventing 13,108 lung cancer deaths), while 12.53% of screen-detected cancers would be overdiagnosed (4,282 overdiagnosed cases). Sensitivity analyses indicated that the overall results were most sensitive to variations in CT examination costs. Quality of life was not incorporated in the analyses, and assumptions for follow-up procedures were based on data from the NLST, which may not be generalizable to a population-based setting. Conclusions Lung cancer screening with stringent smoking eligibility criteria can be cost-effective in a population-based setting., Author(s): Kevin ten Haaf 1,*, Martin C. Tammemägi 2, Susan J. Bondy 3,4, Carlijn M. van der Aalst 1, Sumei Gu 5, S. Elizabeth McGregor 6, Garth Nicholas 7, Harry [...]

Background: With advancing therapeutics, lung cancer (LC) survivors are rapidly increasing in number. Although mounting evidence suggests LC survivors have high risk of second primary lung cancer (SPLC), there is no validated prediction model available for clinical use to identify high-risk LC survivors for SPLC.Methods: Using data from 6325 ever-smokers in the Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) study diagnosed with initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) in 1993-2017, we developed a prediction model for 10-year SPLC risk after IPLC diagnosis using cause-specific Cox regression. We evaluated the model's clinical utility using decision curve analysis and externally validated it using 2 population-based data-Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) and National Lung Screening Trial (NLST)-that included 2963 and 2844 IPLC (101 and 93 SPLC cases), respectively.Results: Over 14 063 person-years, 145 (2.3%) ever-smoking IPLC patients developed SPLC in MEC. Our prediction model demonstrated a high predictive accuracy (Brier score = 2.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.4 to 3.3) and discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristics [AUC] = 81.9%, 95% CI = 78.2% to 85.5%) based on bootstrap validation in MEC. Stratification by the estimated risk quartiles showed that the observed SPLC incidence was statistically significantly higher in the 4th vs 1st quartile (9.5% vs 0.2%; P < .001). Decision curve analysis indicated that in a wide range of 10-year risk thresholds from 1% to 20%, the model yielded a larger net-benefit vs hypothetical all-screening or no-screening scenarios. External validation using PLCO and NLST showed an AUC of 78.8% (95% CI = 74.6% to 82.9%) and 72.7% (95% CI = 67.7% to 77.7%), respectively.Conclusions: We developed and validated a SPLC prediction model based on large population-based cohorts. The proposed prediction model can help identify high-risk LC patients for SPLC and can be incorporated into clinical decision making for SPLC surveillance and screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Incidental pulmonary nodules (IPN) are common radiologic findings, yet management of IPNs is inconsistent across Canada. This study aims to improve IPN management based on multidisciplinary expert consensus and provides recommendations to overcome patient and system-level barriers. Methods: A modified Delphi consensus technique was conducted. Multidisciplinary experts with extensive experience in lung nodule management in Canada were recruited to participate in the panel. A survey was administered in 3 rounds, using a 5-point Likert scale to determine the level of agreement (1 = extremely agree, 5 = extremely disagree). Results: Eleven experts agreed to participate in the panel; 10 completed all 3 rounds. Consensus was achieved for 183/217 (84.3%) statements. Panellists agreed that radiology reports should include a standardized summary of findings and follow-up recommendations for all nodule sizes (ie, <6, 6-8, and >8 mm). There was strong consensus regarding the importance of an automated system for patient follow-up and that leadership support for organizational change at the administrative level is of utmost importance in improving IPN management. There was no consensus on the need for standardized national referral pathways, development of new guidelines, or establishing a uniform picture archiving and communication system. Conclusion: Canadian IPN experts agree that improved IPN management should include standardized radiology reporting of IPNs, standardized and automated follow-up of patients with IPNs, guideline adherence and implementation, and leadership support for organizational change. Future research should focus on the implementation and long-term effectiveness of these recommendations in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Randomised clinical trials have shown the efficacy of computed tomography lung cancer screening, initiating discussions on whether and how to implement population‐based screening programs. Due to smoking behaviour being the primary risk‐factor for lung cancer and part of the criteria for determining screening eligibility, lung cancer screening is inherently risk‐based. In fact, the selection of high‐risk individuals has been shown to be essential in implementing lung cancer screening in a cost‐effective manner. Furthermore, studies have shown that further risk‐stratification may improve screening efficiency, allow personalisation of the screening interval and reduce health disparities. However, implementing risk‐based lung cancer screening programs also requires overcoming a number of challenges. There are indications that risk‐based approaches can negatively influence the trade‐off between individual benefits and harms if not applied thoughtfully. Large‐scale implementation of targeted, risk‐based screening programs has been limited thus far. Consequently, questions remain on how to efficiently identify and invite high‐risk individuals from the general population. Finally, while risk‐based approaches may increase screening program efficiency, efficiency should be balanced with the overall impact of the screening program. In this review, we will address the opportunities and challenges in applying risk‐stratification in different aspects of lung cancer screening programs, as well as the balance between screening program efficiency and impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]