Diagnosis and treatment outcomes from prebronchodilator spirometry performed alongside lung cancer screening in a Lung Health Check programme.

INTRODUCTION: Incorporating spirometry into low-dose CT (LDCT) screening for lung cancer may help identify people with undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), although the downstream impacts are not well described. METHODS: Participants attending a Lung Health Check (LHC) as part of the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial were offered spirometry alongside LDCT screening. Results were communicated to the general practitioner (GP), and those with unexplained symptomatic airflow obstruction (AO) fulfilling agreed criteria were referred to the Leeds Community Respiratory Team (CRT) for assessment and treatment. Primary care records were reviewed to determine changes to diagnostic coding and pharmacotherapy. RESULTS: Of 2391 LHC participants undergoing prebronchodilator spirometry, 201 (8.4%) fulfilled the CRT referral criteria of which 151 were invited for further assessment. Ninety seven participants were subsequently reviewed by the CRT, 46 declined assessment and 8 had already been seen by their GP at the time of CRT contact. Overall 70 participants had postbronchodilator spirometry checked, of whom 20 (29%) did not have AO. Considering the whole cohort referred to the CRT (but excluding those without AO postbronchodilation), 59 had a new GP COPD code, 56 commenced new pharmacotherapy and 5 were underwent pulmonary rehabilitation (comprising 2.5%, 2.3% and 0.2% of the 2391 participants undergoing LHC spirometry). CONCLUSIONS: Delivering spirometry alongside lung cancer screening may facilitate earlier diagnosis of COPD. However, this study highlights the importance of confirming AO by postbronchodilator spirometry prior to diagnosing and treating patients with COPD and illustrates some downstream challenges in acting on spirometry collected during an LHC.

Surgery or radiotherapy for stage I lung cancer? An intention-to-treat analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery is the standard of care for early-stage lung cancer, with stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) a lower morbidity alternative for patients with limited physiological reserve. Comparisons of outcomes between these treatment options are limited by competing comorbidities and differences in pre-treatment pathological information. This study aims to address these issues by assessing both overall and cancer-specific survival for presumed stage I lung cancer on an intention-to-treat basis. METHODS: This retrospective intention-to-treat analysis identified all patients treated for presumed stage I lung cancer within a single large UK centre. Overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and combined cancer and treatment-related survival were assessed with adjustment for confounding variables using Cox proportional hazards and Fine-Gray competing risks analyses. RESULTS: 468 patients (including 316 surgery and 99 SABR) were included in the study population. Compared with surgery, SABR was associated with inferior overall survival on multivariable Cox modelling (SABR HR 1.84 (95% CI 1.32-2.57)), but there was no difference in cancer-specific survival (SABR HR 1.47 (95% CI 0.80-2.69)) or combined cancer and treatment-related survival (SABR HR 1.27 (95% CI 0.74-2.17)). Combined cancer and treatment-related death was no different between SABR and surgery on Fine-Gray competing risks multivariable modelling (subdistribution hazard 1.03 (95% CI 0.59-1.81)). Non-cancer-related death was significantly higher in SABR than surgery (subdistribution hazard 2.16 (95% CI 1.41-3.32)). CONCLUSION: In this analysis, no difference in cancer-specific survival was observed between SABR and surgery. Further work is needed to define predictors of outcome and help inform treatment decisions.

Predicting survival following surgical resection of lung cancer using clinical and pathological variables: The development and validation of the LNC-PATH score.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a simple prognostic scoring system using readily available clinical and pathological variables that could stratify patients according to the risk of death following lung cancer resection. We hypothesized that by using additional pathological variables not accounted for by pathological stage alone coupled with markers of overall fitness a new prognostic tool could be developed. METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression analysis of pathological and other clinical variables from patients undergoing surgical resection of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were used to determine factors independently associated with 2-year overall survival and so derive the scoring system. The model was then validated in an external multi-centre dataset. RESULTS: Using multivariable logistic regression on a large dataset (n = 1,421) the 'LNC-PATH' (Lymphovascular invasion, N-stage, adjuvant Chemotherapy, Performance status, Age, T-stage, Histology) prognostic score was devised and then validated using an external dataset (n = 402). This can be used to risk stratify patients into low, moderate and high-risk groups with a statistically significant difference between the three groups in their survival distributions. 83.8% of patients in the low-risk group survived two years after surgery compared to 55.6% in the moderate-risk group and 26.2% in the high-risk group. The score was shown to perform moderately well with an Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) value of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.73-0.79) and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.64-0.76) in the derivation and validation cohorts respectively. DISCUSSION: The LNC-PATH score predicts 2-year overall survival after surgery for NSCLC. This may allow the development of risk stratified follow-up protocols in survivorship clinics which could be the subject of future prospective studies.