Validation of the psychosocial consequences of screening in lung cancer questionnaire in the international lung screen trial Australian cohort.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of psychosocial consequences of lung cancer screening with LDCT in high-risk populations has generally been performed using generic psychometric instruments. Such generic instruments have low coverage and low power to detect screening impacts. This study aims to validate an established lung cancer screening-specific questionnaire, Consequences Of Screening Lung Cancer (COS-LC), in Australian-English and describe early results from the baseline LDCT round of the International Lung Screen Trial (ILST). METHODS: The Danish-version COS-LC was translated to Australian-English using the double panel method and field tested in Australian-ILST participants to examine content validity. A random sample of 200 participants were used to assess construct validity using Rasch item response theory models. Reliability was assessed using classical test theory. The COS-LC was administered to ILST participants at prespecified timepoints including at enrolment, dependent of screening results. RESULTS: Minor linguistic alterations were made after initial translation of COS-LC to English. The COS-LC demonstrated good content validity and adequate construct validity using psychometric analysis. The four core scales fit the Rasch model, with only minor issues in five non-core scales which resolved with modification. 1129 Australian-ILST participants were included in the analysis, with minimal psychosocial impact observed shortly after baseline LDCT results. CONCLUSION: COS-LC is the first lung cancer screening-specific questionnaire to be validated in Australia and has demonstrated excellent psychometric properties. Early results did not demonstrate significant psychosocial impacts of screening. Longer-term follow-up is awaited and will be particularly pertinent given the announcement of an Australian National Lung Cancer Screening Program. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02871856.

Prevalence of subclinical lung cancer detected at autopsy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening in high-risk populations with low-dose computed tomography is supported by international associations and recommendations. Overdiagnosis is considered a risk of screening with associated harms. The aim of this paper is to determine the prevalence of subclinical lung cancer diagnosed post-mortem to better understand the reservoir of subclinical lung cancer. METHODS: We searched EMBASE, PubMed, and MEDLINE databases from inception until March 2022 with no language restrictions. We considered all studies with ≥100 autopsies in adults. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility of studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We performed a meta-analysis using a random-effects model for prevalence of subclinical lung cancer diagnosed post-mortem with sensitivity and subgroup analyses. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies with 16 730 autopsies were included. Pooled prevalence was 0.4% (95% CI 0.20 to 0.82%, I2 = 84%, tau2 = 1.19, low certainty evidence,16 730 autopsies). We performed a sensitivity analysis excluding studies which did not specify exclusion of children in their cohort, with a pooled prevalence of subclinical lung cancer of 0.87% (95% CI 0.48 to 1.57%, I2 = 71%, tau2 = 0.38, 6998 autopsies, 8 studies). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first published systematic review to evaluate the prevalence of post-mortem subclinical lung cancer. Compared to autopsy systematic reviews in breast, prostate and thyroid cancers, the pooled prevalence is lower in lung cancer for subclinical cancer. This result should be interpreted with caution due to the included studies risk of bias and heterogeneity, with further high-quality studies required in target screening populations.

An Australian COVID-19 respiratory care unit experience.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with a heterogeneous presentation ranging from severe pneumonitis to asymptomatic infection. International studies have demonstrated the utility of respiratory care units (RCUs) to facilitate the delivery of non-invasive ventilation techniques to patients with COVID-19 pneumonitis. AIMS: This study aims to describe the patient characteristics, flow and outcomes of admissions to the Royal Melbourne Hospital (RMH) COVID-19 RCU (CRCU) during its initial period of operation. METHODS: Single-centre retrospective cohort study, all patients admitted to CRCU between 17 September and 10 December 2021 were included in this study. Patient demographics, including comorbidities and limitations of medical treatment, were analysed. Admission source and discharge destination were reviewed. Length of stay was recorded. Finally, in-hospital and CRCU mortality were analysed. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients, comprising 111 admissions, occurred during the study period with median age of 65 years (48% female). Most patients were admitted from and discharged to the ward. Twenty patients died in hospital (21%), with age, 4C score, comorbidity and presence of obstructive lung disease predicting mortality (area under the curve (AUC) 0.85, P < 0.001). Mortality was significantly higher in those over 65 years of age compared to those under 65 (P < 0.001), or those deemed not for intubation compared to those for intubation (P = 0.0019). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the feasibility of operating a CRCU within an Australian tertiary healthcare setting.

USPSTF2013 versus PLCOm2012 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria (International Lung Screening Trial): interim analysis of a prospective cohort study.

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.

Targeted therapy for advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapies directed at specific driver oncogenes have improved outcomes for individuals with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Approximately 5% of lung adenocarcinomas, the most common histologic subtype of NSCLC, harbour rearrangements in the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene leading to constitutive activity of the ALK kinase. Crizotinib was the first tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) demonstrated to be effective in advanced NSCLC. Next-generation ALK TKIs have since been developed including ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, ensartinib, and lorlatinib, and have been compared with crizotinib or chemotherapy in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These ALK-targeted therapies are currently used in clinical practice and are endorsed in multiple clinical oncology guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ALK inhibitors given as monotherapy to treat advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted electronic searches in the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched conference proceedings from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) World Conference on Lung Cancer, as well as the reference lists of retrieved articles. All searches were conducted from 2007 until 7 January 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing ALK inhibitors with cytotoxic chemotherapy or another ALK inhibitor in individuals with incurable locally advanced or metastatic pathologically confirmed ALK-rearranged NSCLC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted study characteristics and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for each included study. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AE); secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), OS at one year, overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours) criteria, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We performed a meta-analysis for all outcomes, where appropriate, using the fixed-effect model. We reported hazard ratios (HR) for PFS, OS, and a composite HRQoL of life outcome (time to deterioration), and risk ratios (RR) for AE, ORR, and one-year OS. We presented 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and used the I² statistic to investigate heterogeneity. We planned comparisons of 'ALK inhibitor versus chemotherapy' and 'next-generation ALK inhibitor versus crizotinib' with subgroup analysis by type of ALK inhibitor, line of treatment, and baseline central nervous system involvement. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies (2874 participants) met our inclusion criteria: six studies compared an ALK inhibitor (crizotinib, ceritinib, and alectinib) to chemotherapy, and five studies compared a next-generation ALK inhibitor (alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib) to crizotinib. We assessed the evidence for most outcomes as of moderate to high certainty. Most studies were at low risk for selection, attrition, and reporting bias; however, no RCTs were blinded, resulting in a high risk of performance and detection bias for outcomes reliant on subjective measurement. ALK inhibitor versus chemotherapy Treatment with ALK inhibitors resulted in a large increase in PFS compared to chemotherapy (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.52, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, high-certainty evidence). This was found regardless of line of treatment. ALK inhibitors may result in no difference in overall AE rate when compared to chemotherapy (RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.03, 5 RCTs, 1404 participants, low-certainty evidence). ALK inhibitors slightly improved OS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, high-certainty evidence), despite most included studies having a significant number of participants crossing over from chemotherapy to receive an ALK inhibitor after the study period. ALK inhibitors likely increase ORR (RR 2.43, 95% CI 2.16 to 2.75, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) including in measurable baseline brain metastases (RR 4.88, 95% CI 2.18 to 10.95, 3 RCTs, 108 participants) when compared to chemotherapy. ALK inhibitors result in a large increase in the HRQoL measure, time to deterioration (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.60, 5 RCTs, 1504 participants, high-certainty evidence) when compared to chemotherapy. Next-generation ALK inhibitor versus crizotinib Next-generation ALK inhibitors resulted in a large increase in PFS (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.46, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, high-certainty evidence), particularly in participants with baseline brain metastases. Next-generation ALK inhibitors likely result in no difference in overall AE (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) when compared to crizotinib. Next-generation ALK inhibitors likely increase OS (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.90, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and slightly increase ORR (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.25, 5 RCTs, 1229 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) including a response in measurable brain metastases (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.7 to 3.54, 4 RCTs, 138 participants) when compared to crizotinib. Studies comparing ALK inhibitors were conducted exclusively or partly in the first-line setting. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Next-generation ALK inhibitors including alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib are the preferred first systemic treatment for individuals with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. Further trials are ongoing including investigation of first-line ensartinib. Next-generation inhibitors have not been compared to each other, and it is unknown which should be used first and what subsequent treatment sequence is optimal.

Impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening on lung cancer-related mortality.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death in the world, however lung cancer screening has not been implemented in most countries at a population level. A previous Cochrane Review found limited evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening with chest radiography (CXR) or sputum cytology in reducing lung cancer-related mortality, however there has been increasing evidence supporting screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).  OBJECTIVES: To determine whether screening for lung cancer using LDCT of the chest reduces lung cancer-related mortality and to evaluate the possible harms of LDCT screening. SEARCH METHODS: We performed the search in collaboration with the Information Specialist of the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group and included the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Trial Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library, current issue), MEDLINE (accessed via PubMed) and Embase in our search. We also searched the clinical trial registries to identify unpublished and ongoing trials. We did not impose any restriction on language of publication. The search was performed up to 31 July 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of lung cancer screening using LDCT and reporting mortality or harm outcomes.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors were involved in independently assessing trials for eligibility, extraction of trial data and characteristics, and assessing risk of bias of the included trials using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were lung cancer-related mortality and harms of screening. We performed a meta-analysis, where appropriate, for all outcomes using a random-effects model. We only included trials in the analysis of mortality outcomes if they had at least 5 years of follow-up. We reported risk ratios (RRs) and hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and used the I2 statistic to investigate heterogeneity.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 trials in this review with a total of 94,445 participants. Trials were conducted in Europe and the USA in people aged 40 years or older, with most trials having an entry requirement of ≥ 20 pack-year smoking history (e.g. 1 pack of cigarettes/day for 20 years or 2 packs/day for 10 years etc.). One trial included male participants only. Eight trials were phase three RCTs, with two feasibility RCTs and one pilot RCT. Seven of the included trials had no screening as a comparison, and four trials had CXR screening as a comparator. Screening frequency included annual, biennial and incrementing intervals. The duration of screening ranged from 1 year to 10 years. Mortality follow-up was from 5 years to approximately 12 years.  None of the included trials were at low risk of bias across all domains. The certainty of evidence was moderate to low across different outcomes, as assessed by GRADE. In the meta-analysis of trials assessing lung cancer-related mortality, we included eight trials (91,122 participants), and there was a reduction in mortality of 21% with LDCT screening compared to control groups of no screening or CXR screening (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87; 8 trials, 91,122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were probably no differences in subgroups for analyses by control type, sex, geographical region, and nodule management algorithm. Females appeared to have a larger lung cancer-related mortality benefit compared to males with LDCT screening. There was also a reduction in all-cause mortality (including lung cancer-related) of 5% (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99; 8 trials, 91,107 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  Invasive tests occurred more frequently in the LDCT group (RR 2.60, 95% CI 2.41 to 2.80; 3 trials, 60,003 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, analysis of 60-day postoperative mortality was not significant between groups (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.94; 2 trials, 409 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  False-positive results and recall rates were higher with LDCT screening compared to screening with CXR, however there was low-certainty evidence in the meta-analyses due to heterogeneity and risk of bias concerns. Estimated overdiagnosis with LDCT screening was 18%, however the 95% CI was 0 to 36% (risk difference (RD) 0.18, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.36; 5 trials, 28,656 participants; low-certainty evidence). Four trials compared different aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using various measures. Anxiety was pooled from three trials, with participants in LDCT screening reporting lower anxiety scores than in the control group (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.43, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.27; 3 trials, 8153 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data to comment on the impact of LDCT screening on smoking behaviour.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence supports a reduction in lung cancer-related mortality with the use of LDCT for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations (those over the age of 40 with a significant smoking exposure). However, there are limited data on harms and further trials are required to determine participant selection and optimal frequency and duration of screening, with potential for significant overdiagnosis of lung cancer. Trials are ongoing for lung cancer screening in non-smokers.

Pulmonary function testing for the early detection of drug-induced lung disease: a systematic review in adults treated with drugs associated with pulmonary toxicity.

Pulmonary function tests (PFT) are sometimes monitored during treatment with known pulmonary toxic drugs to detect asymptomatic drug-induced interstitial lung disease (DILD). We conducted a systematic review to assess the accuracy of PFT, including the diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), for early detection of DILD in a range of drugs. Using a pre-specified, registered review protocol, OvidMEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 1946 to February 2018. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and reviewed full-text articles for inclusion. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using adapted QUADAS-2 domains and primary outcome data were extracted and entered into RevMan5 to estimate sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The search identified 4065 citations and included 42 studies. The most commonly studied drugs were bleomycin and amiodarone. Due to clinical heterogeneity between studies, a pooled analysis was not performed. Sensitivity of monitoring with DLCO varied between 0 and 100%, with the majority of studies finding a sensitivity of <80%. CI were wide for the majority of studies. Specificity was less than 90% in all studies. Risk of bias was high for the majority of studies for the quality domain of reference standard. The findings of this review do not support routine PFT for early detection of DILD. Due to methodological limitations, the relatively small number of participants and the low prevalence of DILD in the included studies, there remains significant uncertainty about the sensitivity of PFT to screen for DILD.

Surgery for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Current treatment guidelines for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) recommend concomitant platinum-based chemo-radiotherapy plus prophylactic cranial irradiation, based on the premise that SCLC disseminates early, and is chemosensitive. However, although there is usually a favourable initial response, relapse is common and the cure rate for limited-stage SCLC remains relatively poor. Some recent clinical practice guidelines have recommended surgery for stage 1 (limited) SCLC followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, but this recommendation is largely based on the findings of observational studies. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether, in patients with limited-stage SCLC, surgical resection of cancer improves overall survival and treatment-related deaths compared with radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or a combination of radiotherapy and chemotherapy, or best supportive care. SEARCH METHODS: We performed searches on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science up to 11 January 2017. We handsearched review articles, clinical trial registries, and reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with adults diagnosed with limited-stage SCLC, confirmed by cytology or histology, and radiological assessment, considered medically suitable for resection and radical radiotherapy, which randomised participants to surgery versus any other intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We imported studies identified by the search into a reference manager database. We retrieved the full-text version of relevant studies, and two review authors independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were overall survival and treatment-related deaths; and secondary outcome measures included loco-regional progression, quality of life, and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials with 330 participants. We judged the quality of the evidence as very low for all the outcomes. The quality of the data was limited by the lack of complete outcome reporting, unclear risk of bias in the methods in which the studies were conducted, and the age of the studies (> 20 years). The methods of cancer staging and types of surgical procedures, which do not reflect current practice, reduced our confidence in the estimation of the effect.Two studies compared surgery to radiation therapy, and in one study chemotherapy was administered to both arms. One study administered initial chemotherapy, then responders were randomised to surgery versus control; following, both groups underwent chest and whole brain irradiation.Due to the clinical heterogeneity of the trials, we were unable to pool results for meta-analysis.All three studies reported overall survival. One study reported a mean overall survival of 199 days in the surgical arm, compared to 300 days in the radiotherapy arm (P = 0.04). One study reported overall survival as 4% in the surgical arm, compared to 10% in the radiotherapy arm at two years. Conversely, one study reported overall survival at two years as 52% in the surgical arm, compared to 18% in the radiotherapy arm. However this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.12).One study reported early postoperative mortality as 7% for the surgical arm, compared to 0% mortality in the radiotherapy arm. One study reported the difference in mean degree of dyspnoea as -1.2 comparing surgical intervention to radiotherapy, indicating that participants undergoing radiotherapy are likely to experience more dyspnoea. This was measured using a non-validated scale. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from currently available RCTs does not support a role for surgical resection in the management of limited-stage small-cell lung cancer; however our conclusions are limited by the quality of the available evidence and the lack of contemporary data. The results of the trials included in this review may not be generalisable to patients with clinical stage 1 small-cell lung cancer carefully staged using contemporary staging methods. Although some guidelines currently recommend surgical resection in clinical stage 1 small-cell lung cancer, prospective randomised controlled trials are needed to determine if there is any benefit in terms of short- and long-term mortality and quality of life compared with chemo-radiotherapy alone.

Venous thromboembolism management practices and knowledge of guidelines: a survey of Australian haematologists and respiratory physicians.

BACKGROUND: Current international clinical practice guidelines do not adequately address all clinical scenarios in the management of venous thromboembolism (VTE), and no comprehensive Australian guidelines exist. AIMS: To identify areas of uncertainty in VTE management and whether self-reported practice is consistent with guidelines. METHODS: We conducted an Australian cross-sectional online survey consisting of 53 questions to investigate doctors' VTE management practices. The survey was distributed to consultant and trainee/registrar haematologists and respiratory physicians with the aid of participating medical societies. RESULTS: A total of 71 haematologists and 110 respiratory physicians responded to the survey. The majority of survey respondents were 31-50-years old and worked in teaching hospitals and in the acute care setting. Under-treatment was reported for high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) and duration of anticoagulation for first-episode unprovoked PE (32 and 83% respectively). Over-treatment was reported in areas of thrombolysis for intermediate-risk PE (16%) and duration of anticoagulation for first-episode provoked PE (41%). Uncertainty and variations in doctors' management approaches were also found. CONCLUSION: This survey demonstrated significant over-treatment, under-treatment and variability in the practice of VTE management. The findings highlight the need for the development and implementation of national guidelines for the management of VTE in Australia.

Opioids for the palliation of refractory breathlessness in adults with advanced disease and terminal illness.

BACKGROUND: Breathlessness is a common and disabling symptom which affects many people with advanced cardiorespiratory disease and cancer. The most effective treatments are aimed at treating the underlying disease. However, this may not always be possible, and symptomatic treatment is often required in addition to maximal disease-directed therapy. Opioids are increasingly being used to treat breathlessness, although their mechanism of action is still not completely known. A few good sized, high quality trials have been conducted in this area. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of opioid drugs in relieving the symptom of breathlessness in people with advanced disease due to malignancy, respiratory or cardiovascular disease, or receiving palliative care for any other disease. SEARCH METHODS: We performed searches on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science up to 19 October 2015. We handsearched review articles, clinical trial registries, and reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised double-blind controlled trials that compared the use of any opioid drug against placebo or any other intervention for the relief of breathlessness. The intervention was any opioid, given by any route, in any dose. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We imported studies identified by the search into a reference manager database. We retrieved the full-text version of relevant studies, and two review authors independently extracted data. The primary outcome measure was breathlessness and secondary outcome measures included exercise tolerance, oxygen saturations, adverse events, and mortality. We analysed all studies together and also performed subgroup analyses, by route of administration, type of opioid administered, and cause of breathlessness. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis. We assessed the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and created three 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 studies with 526 participants. We assessed the studies as being at high or unclear risk of bias overall. We only included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), although the description of randomisation was incomplete in some included studies. We aimed to include double blind RCTs, but two studies were only single blinded. There was inconsistency in the reporting of outcome measures. We analysed the data using a fixed-effect model, and for some outcomes heterogeneity was high. There was a risk of imprecise results due to the low numbers of participants in the included studies. For these reasons we downgraded the quality of the evidence from high to either low or very low.For the primary outcome of breathlessness, the mean change from baseline dyspnoea score was 0.09 points better in the opioids group compared to the placebo group (ranging from a 0.36 point reduction to a 0.19 point increase) (seven RCTs, 117 participants, very low quality evidence). A lower score indicates an improvement in breathlessness. The mean post-treatment dyspnoea score was 0.28 points better in the opioid group compared to the placebo group (ranging from a 0.5 point reduction to a 0.05 point increase) (11 RCTs, 159 participants, low quality evidence).The evidence for the six-minute walk test (6MWT) was conflicting. The total distance in 6MWT was 28 metres (m) better in the opioids group compared to placebo (ranging from 113 m to 58 m) (one RCT, 11 participants, very low quality evidence). However, the change in baseline was 48 m worse in the opioids group (ranging from 36 m to 60 m) (two RCTs, 26 participants, very low quality evidence).The adverse effects reported included drowsiness, nausea and vomiting, and constipation. In those studies, participants were 4.73 times more likely to experience nausea and vomiting compared to placebo, three times more likely to experience constipation, and 2.86 times more likely to experience drowsiness (nine studies, 162 participants, very low quality evidence).Only four studies assessed quality of life, and none demonstrated any significant change. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some low quality evidence that shows benefit for the use of oral or parenteral opioids to palliate breathlessness, although the number of included participants was small. We found no evidence to support the use of nebulised opioids. Further research with larger numbers of participants, using standardised protocols and with quality of life measures included, is needed.

Utility of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid galactomannan alone or in combination with PCR for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis in adult hematology patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The clinical utility of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid galactomannan (GM) for the early diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis (IA) varies widely across studies mainly due to heterogeneity of the studied populations. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies involving 783 adults with hematological malignancies to derive summary estimates of the overall accuracy of BAL-GM for diagnosing IA. FINDINGS: Summary estimates of BAL-GM using an optical density (OD) index cutoff value of 1.5 for proven and probable IA were: sensitivity 0.92 (95% CI = 0.48-0.99), specificity 0.98 (95% CI = 0.78-1.00), positive likelihood ratio 53.7 (95% CI = 3.7-771.8), and negative likelihood ratio 0.08 (95% CI = 0.01-0.83). Comparing serum GM and Aspergillus PCR testing on BAL fluid, BAL-GM conferred greater sensitivity, but lower specificity than the serum GM test, and similar specificity as the PCR assay. The use of BAL-GM with serum GM or BAL-PCR tests increased the sensitivity moderately when a positive result was defined by either assay. INTERPRETATION: GM quantification in BAL fluid at an OD index cutoff value of 1.5 has excellent sensitivity and specificity to assist clinical decision-making in confirming or excluding a diagnosis of IA when results are interpreted with clinical findings. Additional research investigating the effects of antifungal agents, optimal timing and processing of BAL sampling are needed to improve the diagnostic accuracy of BAL-GM testing.

A Prospective Observational Study of Physical Activity Levels and Physical Fitness of People at High Risk for Lung Cancer.

Introduction: Physical activity (PA) is a potentially modifiable risk factor for lung cancer, with previous research revealing that people who engage in more PA have lower risk of developing lung cancer. PA levels of lung cancer screening participants have not previously been explored. Methods: Participants at a single Australian International Lung Screen Trial site were eligible for assessment of self-reported PA levels (International Physical Activity Questionnaire and Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly) and physical assessments (6-min walk distance, hand grip muscle strength, daily step count, and body composition) at a single time point during lung cancer screening. Statistics were predominantly descriptive, with parametric data presented as mean and SD and nonparametric data presented as median and interquartile range (IQR). Results: A total of 178 participants were enrolled in this study, with a median age of 61 years. Of the participants, 61% were men and 51% were people who currently smoke. The median total International Physical Activity Questionnaire score was 1756 MET/min/wk (IQR 689, 4049). Mean total Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly score was 160 (SD 72), higher than described in healthy sedentary adults. The median daily step count was 7237 steps (IQR 5353, 10,038) and mean 6-minute walk distance was 545 m (SD 92). Median grip strengths were within predicted normal range, with an elevated median percentage body fat and low skeletal muscle mass found on body composition. Conclusion: Almost a quarter of International Lung Screen Trial participants assessed reported low levels of PA and have a potentially modifiable risk factor to improve health outcomes. Larger studies are needed to characterize the burden of inactivity among high-risk lung cancer screening populations.

Screening for lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original review published in The Cochrane Library in 1999 and updated in 2004 and 2010. Population-based screening for lung cancer has not been adopted in the majority of countries. However it is not clear whether sputum examinations, chest radiography or newer methods such as computed tomography (CT) are effective in reducing mortality from lung cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether screening for lung cancer, using regular sputum examinations, chest radiography or CT scanning of the chest, reduces lung cancer mortality. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1966 to 2012), PREMEDLINE and EMBASE (to 2012) and bibliographies. We handsearched the journal Lung Cancer (to 2000) and contacted experts in the field to identify published and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Controlled trials of screening for lung cancer using sputum examinations, chest radiography or chest CT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed an intention-to-screen analysis. Where there was significant statistical heterogeneity, we reported risk ratios (RRs) using the random-effects model. For other outcomes we used the fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials in the review (eight randomised controlled studies and one controlled trial) with a total of 453,965 subjects. In one large study that included both smokers and non-smokers comparing annual chest x-ray screening with usual care there was no reduction in lung cancer mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.07). In a meta-analysis of studies comparing different frequencies of chest x-ray screening, frequent screening with chest x-rays was associated with an 11% relative increase in mortality from lung cancer compared with less frequent screening (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23); however several of the trials included in this meta-analysis had potential methodological weaknesses. We observed a non-statistically significant trend to reduced mortality from lung cancer when screening with chest x-ray and sputum cytology was compared with chest x-ray alone (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03). There was one large methodologically rigorous trial in high-risk smokers and ex-smokers (those aged 55 to 74 years with ≥ 30 pack-years of smoking and who quit ≤ 15 years prior to entry if ex-smokers) comparing annual low-dose CT screening with annual chest x-ray screening; in this study the relative risk of death from lung cancer was significantly reduced in the low-dose CT group (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.92). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence does not support screening for lung cancer with chest radiography or sputum cytology. Annual low-dose CT screening is associated with a reduction in lung cancer mortality in high-risk smokers but further data are required on the cost effectiveness of screening and the relative harms and benefits of screening across a range of different risk groups and settings.

Economic impact of using risk models for eligibility selection to the International lung screening Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Using risk models as eligibility criteria for lung screening can reduce race and sex-based disparities. We used data from the International Lung Screening Trial(ILST; NCT02871856) to compare the economic impact of using the PLCOm2012 risk model or the US Preventative Services' categorical age-smoking history-based criteria (USPSTF-2013). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of using PLCOm2012 versus USPSTF-2013 was evaluated with a decision analytic model based on the ILST and other screening trials. The primary outcomes were costs in 2020 International Dollars ($), quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental net benefit (INB, in $ per QALY). Secondary outcomes were selection characteristics and cancer detection rates (CDR). RESULTS: Compared with the USPSTF-2013 criteria, the PLCOm2012 risk model resulted in $355 of cost savings per 0.2 QALYs gained (INB=$4294 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $20 000/QALY (95 %CI: $4205-$4383). Using the risk model was more cost-effective in females at both a 1.5 % and 1.7 % 6-year risk threshold (INB=$6616 and $6112, respectively), compared with males ($5221 and $695). The PLCOm2012 model selected more females, more individuals with fewer years of formal education, and more people with other respiratory illnesses in the ILST. The CDR with the risk model was higher in females compared with the USPSTF-2013 criteria (Risk Ratio = 7.67, 95 % CI: 1.87-31.38). CONCLUSION: The PLCOm2012 model saved costs, increased QALYs and mitigated socioeconomic and sex-based disparities in access to screening.

Strategies for the Management of Solitary Pulmonary Nodules: A Survey of Patient Preferences.

BACKGROUND: Guideline-based strategies for evaluation of solitary pulmonary nodules are tailored to the likelihood of malignancy. Surveillance, biopsy, and resection are all reasonable approaches in fit individuals when the likelihood of malignancy is intermediate. Given the paucity of data demonstrating superior outcomes and important trade-offs among strategies, guidelines emphasize the importance of eliciting patient preferences and engaging in shared decision making; however, there is little literature on what patient preferences actually are. METHODS: This study conducted a cross-sectional, interview-administered questionnaire survey in 100 adults recruited from a metropolitan teaching hospital (The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia). The questionnaire used a hypothetical scenario designed to elicit patient preferences for different management strategies of solitary pulmonary nodules with a probability of malignancy between 10% and 70%. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 62 years (range, 45 to 80 years), 56% were male, and 94% were current smokers or ex-smokers. Ninety-four percent completed all questions. At 10% probability of malignancy, 36.3% preferred surveillance, 42.4% preferred needle biopsy, and 21.2% preferred surgical resection. Preference for surgical resection increased to 53.5% and 86.2% when the probability of malignancy was 30% and 70%, respectively. Changes in the diagnostic yield of computed tomography biopsy significantly altered preferences when the probability of malignancy was 10% or 30%. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of participants surveyed expressed a preference for some type of biopsy over observation at all levels of solitary pulmonary nodule probability of malignancy evaluated. In an era of increasing solitary pulmonary nodule detection and patient-centered care, if confirmed in broader studies, these findings have considerable implications for processes of care and resource allocation.

The knowns & unknowns of pulmonary toxicity following immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies: a narrative review.

Since their discovery immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have dramatically changed the treatment landscape for many cancers. In addition to their efficacy they are generally well tolerated, however, they have led to a new range of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) including pneumonitis. While not the most frequently reported immune-related adverse event in the clinical trial setting, recent real-world data suggests a significantly higher rate of pneumonitis leading to treatment suspension or cessation. It also appears to disproportionately contribute to immune-related mortality, particularly with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment. While indicators have emerged regarding risk factors, incomplete prospective recording of patient characteristics hampers strong conclusions. Presenting symptoms are non-specific and the differential diagnosis is broad, made more complex by concomitant treatment with traditional chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Radiological findings are diverse and inconsistent terminology makes comparison and more complete characterization difficult. Further, little is known about the role of baseline testing or surveillance for early detection of pneumonitis, or the real-world role of bronchoscopy or biopsy in assessment. Scant literature exists to direct these complex decisions, so treatment guidelines have been published based on expert consensus. Here we provide a narrative review of what is known about ICI pneumonitis and propose key questions to enhance our understanding into the future.

Adverse respiratory outcomes following conventional long-course radiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer in patients with pre-existing pulmonary fibrosis: A comparative retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: There is some evidence to suggest that patients with underlying pulmonary fibrosis (PF) have increased risk of adverse respiratory and survival outcomes, when treated with conventional, long-course radiotherapy (RT) for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We performed a retrospective analysis to determine the size of these risks. METHODS: Data from 21 patients with PF (cases) were retrospectively analysed for respiratory toxicity and mortality outcomes, and compared with 84 patients without PF (non-cases). Age and mean lung dose were included as covariates in regression analyses. The additional predictive value of other patient, disease and treatment characteristics on radiation pneumonitis (RP) risk and severity was explored. RESULTS: There was a numerical (though not statistically significant) increase in grade ≥ 2 RP among PF cases (OR 2.74, P = 0.074). Cases were significantly more likely to discontinue radical treatment early (OR 6.10, P = 0.015). There was a significant association between increased RP severity and underlying PF (P = 0.039), with RP strongly implicated in the death in 3 of 21 cases (14.3%) compared to 1 non-case (1.2%). Cases experienced increased grade ≥ 2 respiratory toxicity otherwise (OR 4.35, P = 0.020) and poorer median overall survival (0.6 versus 1.7 years, P < 0.001). Two cases, and no non-cases, died during the proposed RT period. None of the analysed patient, disease or treatment factors, was a significant additional predictor of RP risk/severity. CONCLUSION: Patients with PF are at increased risk of treatment discontinuation, respiratory morbidity and mortality, and poor survival following conventional RT for NSCLC. Caution should be exercised when offering high-dose RT to these patients.

The impact of perceived risk, screening eligibility and worry on preference for lung cancer screening: a cross-sectional survey.

Lung cancer screening is effective at reducing lung cancer deaths when individuals at greatest risk are screened. Recruitment initiatives target all current and former smokers, of whom only some are eligible for screening, potentially leading to discordance between screening preference and eligibility in ineligible individuals. The objective of the present study was to identify factors associated with preference for screening among ever-smokers. Ever-smokers aged 55-80 years attending outpatient clinics at three Australian hospitals were invited. The survey recorded: 1) demographics; 2) objective lung cancer risk and screening eligibility using the Prostate Lung Colon Ovarian 2012 risk model; and 3) perceived lung cancer risk, worry about and seriousness of lung cancer using a validated questionnaire. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression identified predictors of screening preference. The survey was completed by 283 individuals (response rate 27%). Preference for screening was high (72%) with no significant difference between low-dose computed tomography screening-eligible and -ineligible individuals (77% versus 68%, p=0.11). Worry about lung cancer (adjusted-proportional odds ratio (adj-OR) 1.31, 95% CI 1.08-1.58; p=0.007) and perceived seriousness of lung cancer (adj-OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.05-1.64; p=0.02) were associated with higher preference for lung cancer screening while screening eligibility was not. The concept of "early detection" was the most important driver to have screening while practical obstacles like difficulty travelling to the scan or taking time off work were the least important barriers to screening. Most current or former smokers prefer to undergo screening. Worry about lung cancer and perceived seriousness of the diagnosis are more important drivers for screening preference than eligibility status.

Protocol and Rationale for the International Lung Screening Trial.

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 PLCOm2012 (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 PLCOm2012 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 PLCOm2012 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).