Increasing power in screening trials by testing control-arm specimens: Application to multicancer detection screening.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening trials have required large sample-sizes and long time-horizons to demonstrate cancer mortality reductions, the primary goal of cancer screening. We examine assumptions and potential power gains from exploiting information from testing control-arm specimens, which we call the "Intended Effect" (IE) analysis that we explain in detail herein. The IE analysis is particularly suited to tests that can be conducted on stored specimens in the control-arm, such as stored blood for multicancer detection (MCD) tests. METHODS: We simulated hypothetical MCD screening trials to compare power and sample-size for the standard vs IE analysis. Under two assumptions that we detail herein, we projected the IE analysis for 3 existing screening trials (National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study (MINN-FOBT-A), and Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial-colorectal component (PLCO-CRC)). RESULTS: Compared to the standard analysis for the 3 existing trials, the IE design could have reduced cancer-specific mortality p-values 5-fold (NLST), 33-fold (MINN-FOBT-A), or 14,160-fold (PLCO-CRC), or alternately, reduced sample-size (90% power) by 26% (NLST), 48% (MINN-FOBT-A), or 59% (PLCO-CRC). For potential MCD trial designs requiring 100,000 subjects per-arm to achieve 90% power for multi-cancer mortality for the standard analysis, the IE analysis achieves 90% power for only 37,500-50,000 per arm, depending on assumptions concerning control-arm test-positives. CONCLUSIONS: Testing stored specimens in the control arm of screening trials to conduct the IE analysis could substantially increase power to reduce sample-size or accelerate trials, and provide particularly strong power gains for MCD tests.

Cancer screening with multicancer detection tests: A translational science review.

Multicancer detection (MCD) tests use a single, easily obtainable biospecimen, such as blood, to screen for more than one cancer concurrently. MCD tests can potentially be used to improve early cancer detection, including cancers that currently lack effective screening methods. However, these tests have unknown and unquantified benefits and harms. MCD tests differ from conventional cancer screening tests in that the organ responsible for a positive test is unknown, and a broad diagnostic workup may be necessary to confirm the location and type of underlying cancer. Among two prospective studies involving greater than 16,000 individuals, MCD tests identified those who had some cancers without currently recommended screening tests, including pancreas, ovary, liver, uterus, small intestine, oropharyngeal, bone, thyroid, and hematologic malignancies, at early stages. Reported MCD test sensitivities range from 27% to 95% but differ by organ and are lower for early stage cancers, for which treatment toxicity would be lowest and the potential for cure might be highest. False reassurance from a negative MCD result may reduce screening adherence, risking a loss in proven public health benefits from standard-of-care screening. Prospective clinical trials are needed to address uncertainties about MCD accuracy to detect different cancers in asymptomatic individuals, whether these tests can detect cancer sufficiently early for effective treatment and mortality reduction, the degree to which these tests may contribute to cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment, whether MCD tests work equally well across all populations, and the appropriate diagnostic evaluation and follow-up for patients with a positive test.

Effectiveness of Colonoscopy Screening vs Sigmoidoscopy Screening in Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: Randomized clinical screening trials have shown that sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy has largely replaced sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening, but long-term results from randomized trials on colonoscopy screening are still lacking. Objective: To estimate the additional screening benefit of colonoscopy compared with sigmoidoscopy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness simulation study pooled data on 358 204 men and women randomly assigned to sigmoidoscopy screening or usual care in 4 randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials conducted in Norway, Italy, the US, and UK with inclusion periods in the years 1993 to 2001. The primary analysis of the study was conducted from January 19 to December 30, 2021. Intervention: Invitation to endoscopic screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality. Using pooled 15-year follow-up data, colonoscopy screening effectiveness was estimated assuming that the efficacy of colonoscopy in the proximal colon was similar to that observed in the distal colon in the sigmoidoscopy screening trials. The simulation model was validated using data from Norwegian participants in a colonoscopy screening trial. Results: This analysis included 358 204 individuals (181 971 women [51%]) aged 55 to 64 years at inclusion with a median follow-up time ranging from 15 to 17 years. Compared with usual care, colonoscopy prevented an estimated 50 (95% CI, 42-58) CRC cases per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 30% incidence reduction (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.75]), and prevented an estimated 15 (95% CI, 11-19) CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 32% mortality reduction (rate ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.61-0.76]). The additional benefit of colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy was 12 (95% CI, 10-14) fewer CRC cases and 4 (95% CI, 3-5) fewer CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to percentage point reductions of 6.9 (95% CI, 6.0-7.9) for CRC incidence and 7.6 (95% CI, 5.7-9.6) for CRC mortality. The number needed to switch from sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy screening was 560 (95% CI, 486-661) to prevent 1 CRC case and 1611 (95% CI, 1275-2188) to prevent 1 CRC death. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this comparative effectiveness study assessing long-term follow-up after CRC screening suggest that there was an additional preventive effect on CRC incidence and mortality associated with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening, but the additional preventive effect was less than what was achieved by introducing sigmoidoscopy screening where no screening existed. The results probably represent the upper limit of what may be achieved with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening.

Predictive Performance of Cell-Free Nucleic Acid-Based Multi-Cancer Early Detection Tests: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-screening tests that can detect multiple cancer types, or multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests, have emerged recently as a potential new tool in decreasing cancer morbidity and mortality. Most MCED assays are based on detecting cell-free tumor DNA (CF-DNA) in the blood. MCEDs offer the potential for screening for cancer organ sites with high mortality, both with and without recommended screening. However, their clinical utility has not been established. Before clinical utility can be established, the clinical validity of MCEDs, i.e., their ability to predict cancer status, must be demonstrated. In this study we performed a systematic review of the predictive ability for cancer of cell-free-nucleic acid-based MCED tests. CONTENT: We searched PubMed for relevant publications from January 2017 to February 2023, using MeSH terms related to multi-cancer detection, circulating DNA, and related concepts. Of 1811 publications assessed, 61 were reviewed in depth and 20 are included in this review. For almost all studies, the cancer cases were assessed at time of diagnosis. Most studies reported specificity (generally 95% or higher) and overall sensitivity (73% median). The median number of cancer types assessed per assay was 5. Many studies also reported sensitivity by stage and/or cancer type. Sensitivity generally increased with stage. SUMMARY: To date, relatively few published studies have assessed the clinical validity of MCED tests. Most used cancer cases assessed at diagnosis, with generally high specificity and variable sensitivity depending on cancer type and stage. The next steps should be testing in the intended-use population, i.e., asymptomatic persons.

Incidentally Detected Lung Cancer in Persons Too Young or Too Old for Lung Cancer Screening in a Mississippi Delta Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer risk in screening age-ineligible persons with incidentally detected lung nodules is poorly characterized. We evaluated lung cancer risk in two age-ineligible Lung Nodule Program (LNP) cohorts. METHODS: Prospective observational study comparing 2-year cumulative lung cancer diagnosis risk, lung cancer characteristics, and overall survival between low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening participants aged 50 to 80 years and LNP participants aged 35 to younger than 50 years (young) and older than 80 years (elderly). RESULTS: From 2015 to 2022, lung cancer was diagnosed in 329 (3.43%), 39 (1.07%), and 172 (6.87%) LDCT, young, and elderly LNP patients, respectively. The 2-year cumulative incidence was 3.0% (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 2.6%-3.4%) versus 0.79% (CI: 0.54%-1.1%) versus 6.5% (CI: 5.5%-7.6%), respectively, but lung cancer diagnosis risk was similar between young LNP and Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) 1 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.88 [CI: 0.50-1.56]) and Lung-RADS 2 (aHR = 1.0 [0.58-1.72]). Elderly LNP risk was greater than Lung-RADS 3 (aHR = 2.34 [CI: 1.50-3.65]), but less than 4 (aHR = 0.28 [CI: 0.22-0.35]). Lung cancer was stage I or II in 62.92% of LDCT versus 33.33% of young (p = 0.0003) and 48.26% of elderly (p = 0.0004) LNP cohorts; 16.72%, 41.03%, and 29.65%, respectively, were diagnosed at stage IV. The aggregate 5-year overall survival rates were 57% (CI: 48-67), 55% (CI: 39-79), and 24% (CI: 15-40) (log-rank p < 0.0001). Results were similar after excluding persons with any history of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: LNP modestly benefited persons too young or old for screening. Differences in clinical characteristics and outcomes suggest differences in biological characteristics of lung cancer in these three patient cohorts.

Changes in uptake of stool-based colorectal cancer screening during the Covid-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized and endoscopic colon screening includes a number of barriers that were exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. At-home stool-based screening (SBS) increased during the pandemic and potentially reached eligible adults hesitant to be screened by endoscopy. The purpose of this analysis was to examine the change in uptake of SBS during the pandemic among adults not screened within guidelines by endoscopy. METHODS: We used data from the 2019 and 2021 National Health Interview Surveys to estimate uptake of SBS among adults aged 50-75 years, without a previous diagnosis of CRC and without guideline-concordant endoscopic screening. We also examined provider recommendations for screening tests. To examine if changes in uptake differed during the pandemic by demographic and health characteristics, we combined survey years and ran logistic regression models with an interaction term for each factor and survey year. RESULTS: In our study population, SBS increased 74% overall from 2019 to 2021 (8.7% to 15.1%; p < 0.001), with the largest percent increase among those aged 50-52 years (3.5% to 9.9%; p < 0.001). Among those aged 50-52 years, the ratio of endoscopy to SBS changed from 83%/17% in 2019 to 55%/45% in 2021. Cologuard was the only screening test where recommendations by healthcare providers significantly increased from 2019 (10.6% to 16.1%; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Use and recommendations for SBS increased substantially during the pandemic. Increased awareness among patients could potentially improve future CRC screening rates if uptake of SBS occurs among those unable or unwilling to be screened by endoscopy.

Oncologists' perceived confidence and attitudes toward managing pre-existing chronic comorbidities during patients' active cancer treatment.

PURPOSE: To examine practicing oncologists' perceived confidence and attitudes toward management of pre-existing chronic conditions(PECC) during active cancer treatment(ACT). METHODS: In December 2018, oncologists in the National Cancer Institute's Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were invited to complete a was pilot-tested, IRB-approved online survey about their perceived confidence in managing PECC. Pearson chi-square test was used to identify oncologists' differences in perceived confidence to manage PECC and attitudes toward co-management of patients' PECC with non-oncologic care providers. Perceived confidence and attitudes were analyzed as a function of medical specialty while controlling demographic and medical practice variables. RESULTS: A total of 391 oncologists responded to the survey, 45.8% stated medical oncology as their primary specialty, 15.1% hematology oncology, 15.1% radiation oncology, 6.9% surgical oncology, and 17.1% other specialties such as gynecology oncology. Overall, 68.3% agreed (agree/strongly agree) that they were confident to manage PECC in the context of standard of care. However, only 46.6% and 19.7% remained confident when managing PECC previously managed by a primary care physician (PCP) and by a non-oncology subspecialist, respectively. Most oncologists (58.3%) agreed that patients' overall care was well coordinated, and 63.7% agreed that patients had optimal cancer and non-cancer care when PECC was co-managed with a non-oncology care provider. CONCLUSION: Most oncologists felt confident to manage all PECC during patients' ACT, but their perceived confidence decreased for PECC previously managed by PCPs or by non-oncology subspecialists. Additionally, they had positive attitudes toward co-management of PECC with non-oncologic care providers. These results indicate opportunities for greater collaboration between oncologists and non-oncology care providers to ensure comprehensive and coordinated care for cancer patients with PECC.

Diagnostic follow-up of indeterminate pulmonary nodules in the Medicare population.

BACKGROUND: Management of indeterminate pulmonary nodules (IPNs) is associated with redistribution of lung cancer to earlier stages, but most subjects with IPNs do not have lung cancer. The burden of IPN management in Medicare recipients was assessed. METHODS: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data were analyzed for IPNs, diagnostic procedures, and lung cancer status. IPNs were defined as chest computed tomography (CT) scans with accompanying International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes of 793.11 (ICD-9) or R91.1 (ICD-10). Two cohorts were defined: persons with IPNs during 2014-2017 comprised the IPN cohort, whereas those with chest CT scans without IPNs during 2014-2017 comprised the control cohort. Excess rates of various procedures due to reported IPNs over 2 years of follow-up (chest CT, positron emission tomography [PET]/PET-CT, bronchoscopy, needle biopsy, and surgical procedures) were estimated using multivariable Poisson regression models comparing the cohorts adjusted for covariates. Prior data on stage redistribution associated with IPN management were then used to define a metric of excess procedures per late-stage case avoided. RESULTS: Totals of 19,009 and 60,985 subjects were included in the IPN and control cohorts, respectively; 3.6% and 0.8% had lung cancer during follow-up. Excess procedures per 100 persons with IPNs over a 2-year follow-up were 63, 8.2, 1.4, 1.9, and 0.9 for chest CT, PET/PET-CT, bronchoscopy, needle biopsy, and surgery, respectively. Corresponding excess procedures per late-stage case avoided were 48, 6.3, 1.1, 1.5, and 0.7 based on an estimated 1.3 late-stage cases avoided per 100 IPN cohort subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The metric of excess procedures per late-stage case avoided can be used to measure the benefits-to-harms tradeoff of IPN management.

Recalibration of a Deep Learning Model for Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Images to Inform Lung Cancer Screening Intervals.

Importance: Annual low-dose computed tomographic (LDCT) screening reduces lung cancer mortality, but harms could be reduced and cost-effectiveness improved by reusing the LDCT image in conjunction with deep learning or statistical models to identify low-risk individuals for biennial screening. Objective: To identify low-risk individuals in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and estimate, had they been assigned a biennial screening, how many lung cancers would have been delayed 1 year in diagnosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study included participants with a presumed nonmalignant lung nodule in the NLST between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2004, with follow-up completed on December 31, 2009. Data were analyzed for this study from September 11, 2019, to March 15, 2022. Exposures: An externally validated deep learning algorithm that predicts malignancy in current lung nodules using LDCT images (Lung Cancer Prediction Convolutional Neural Network [LCP-CNN]; Optellum Ltd) was recalibrated to predict 1-year lung cancer detection by LDCT for presumed nonmalignant nodules. Individuals with presumed nonmalignant lung nodules were hypothetically assigned annual vs biennial screening based on the recalibrated LCP-CNN model, Lung Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (LCRAT + CT [a statistical model combining individual risk factors and LDCT image features]), and the American College of Radiology recommendations for lung nodules, version 1.1 (Lung-RADS). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included model prediction performance, the absolute risk of a 1-year delay in cancer diagnosis, and the proportion of people without lung cancer assigned a biennial screening interval vs the proportion of cancer diagnoses delayed. Results: The study included 10 831 LDCT images from patients with presumed nonmalignant lung nodules (58.7% men; mean [SD] age, 61.9 [5.0] years), of whom 195 were diagnosed with lung cancer from the subsequent screen. The recalibrated LCP-CNN had substantially higher area under the curve (0.87) than LCRAT + CT (0.79) or Lung-RADS (0.69) to predict 1-year lung cancer risk (P < .001). If 66% of screens with nodules were assigned to biennial screening, the absolute risk of a 1-year delay in cancer diagnosis would have been lower for recalibrated LCP-CNN (0.28%) than LCRAT + CT (0.60%; P = .001) or Lung-RADS (0.97%; P < .001). To delay only 10% of cancer diagnoses at 1 year, more people would have been safely assigned biennial screening under LCP-CNN than LCRAT + CT (66.4% vs 40.3%; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this diagnostic study evaluating models of lung cancer risk, a recalibrated deep learning algorithm was most predictive of 1-year lung cancer risk and had least risk of 1-year delay in cancer diagnosis among people assigned biennial screening. Deep learning algorithms could prioritize people for workup of suspicious nodules and decrease screening intensity for people with low-risk nodules, which may be vital for implementation in health care systems.

Evaluation of Lung Cancer Risk Among Persons Undergoing Screening or Guideline-Concordant Monitoring of Lung Nodules in the Mississippi Delta.

Importance: Guideline-concordant management of lung nodules promotes early lung cancer diagnosis, but the lung cancer risk profile of persons with incidentally detected lung nodules differs from that of screening-eligible persons. Objective: To compare lung cancer diagnosis hazard between participants receiving low-dose computed tomography screening (LDCT cohort) and those in a lung nodule program (LNP cohort). Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study included LDCT vs LNP enrollees from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2021, who were seen in a community health care system. Participants were prospectively identified, data were abstracted from clinical records, and survival was updated at 6-month intervals. The LDCT cohort was stratified by Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System as having no potentially malignant lesions (Lung-RADS 1-2 cohort) vs those with potentially malignant lesions (Lung-RADS 3-4 cohort), and the LNP cohort was stratified by smoking history into screening-eligible vs screening-ineligible groups. Participants with prior lung cancer, younger than 50 years or older than 80 years, and lacking a baseline Lung-RADS score (LDCT cohort only) were excluded. Participants were followed up to January 1, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Comparative cumulative rates of lung cancer diagnosis and patient, nodule, and lung cancer characteristics between programs, using LDCT as a reference. Results: There were 6684 participants in the LDCT cohort (mean [SD] age, 65.05 [6.11] years; 3375 men [50.49%]; 5774 [86.39%] in the Lung-RADS 1-2 and 910 [13.61%] in the Lung-RADS 3-4 cohorts) and 12 645 in the LNP cohort (mean [SD] age, 65.42 [8.33] years; 6856 women [54.22%]; 2497 [19.75%] screening eligible and 10 148 [80.25%] screening ineligible). Black participants constituted 1244 (18.61%) of the LDCT cohort, 492 (19.70%) of the screening-eligible LNP cohort, and 2914 (28.72%) of the screening-ineligible LNP cohort (P < .001). The median lesion size was 4 (IQR, 2-6) mm for the LDCT cohort (3 [IQR, 2-4] mm for Lung-RADS 1-2 and 9 [IQR, 6-15] mm for Lung-RADS 3-4 cohorts), 9 (IQR, 6-16) mm for the screening-eligible LNP cohort, and 7 (IQR, 5-11) mm for the screening-ineligible LNP cohort. In the LDCT cohort, lung cancer was diagnosed in 80 participants (1.44%) in the Lung-RADS 1-2 cohort and 162 (17.80%) in the Lung-RADS 3-4 cohort; in the LNP cohort, it was diagnosed in 531 (21.27%) in the screening-eligible cohort and 447 (4.40%) in the screening-ineligible cohort. Compared with Lung-RADS 1-2, the fully adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were 16.2 (95% CI, 12.7-20.6) for the screening-eligible cohort and 3.8 (95% CI, 3.0-5.0) for the screening-ineligible cohort; compared with Lung-RADS 3-4, the aHRs were 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0-1.5) and 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2-0.4), respectively. The stage of lung cancer was I to II in 156 of 242 patients (64.46%) in the LDCT cohort, 276 of 531 (52.00%) in the screening-eligible LNP cohort, and 253 of 447 (56.60%) in the screening-ineligible LNP cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the cumulative lung cancer diagnosis hazard of screening-age persons enrolled in the LNP was higher than that in a screening cohort, irrespective of smoking history. The LNP provided access to early detection for a higher proportion of Black persons.

Estimating stage-specific sensitivity for cancer screening tests.

OBJECTIVES: When evaluating potential new cancer screening modalities, estimating sensitivity, especially for early-stage cases, is critical. There are methods to approximate stage-specific sensitivity in asymptomatic populations, both in the prospective (active screening) and retrospective (stored specimens) scenarios. We explored their validity via a simulation study. METHODS: We fit natural history models to lung and ovarian cancer screening data that permitted estimation of stage-specific (early/late) true sensitivity, defined as the probability subjects screened in the given stage had positive tests. We then ran simulations, using the fitted models, of the prospective and retrospective scenarios. Prospective sensitivity by stage was estimated as screen-detected divided by screen-plus interval-detected cancers, where stage is defined as stage at detection. Retrospective sensitivity by stage was estimated based on cancers detected within specified windows before clinical diagnosis with stage defined as stage at clinical diagnosis. RESULTS: Stage-specific true sensitivities estimated by the lung cancer natural history model were 47% (early) and 63% (late). Simulation results for the prospective setting gave estimated sensitivities of 81% (early) versus 62% (late). In the retrospective scenario, early/late sensitivity estimates were 35%/57% (1-year window) and 27%/49% (2-year window). In the prospective scenario, most subjects with negative early-stage screens presented as other than early-stage interval cases. Results were similar for ovarian cancer, with estimated prospective sensitivity much greater than true sensitivity for early stage, 84% versus 25%. CONCLUSIONS: Existing methods for approximating stage-specific sensitivity in both prospective and retrospective scenarios are unsatisfactory; improvements are needed before they can be considered to be reliable.

GWAS Explorer: an open-source tool to explore, visualize, and access GWAS summary statistics in the PLCO Atlas.

The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial is a prospective cohort study of nearly 155,000 U.S. volunteers aged 55-74 at enrollment in 1993-2001. We developed the PLCO Atlas Project, a large resource for multi-trait genome-wide association studies (GWAS), by genotyping participants with available DNA and genomic consent. Genotyping on high-density arrays and imputation was performed, and GWAS were conducted using a custom semi-automated pipeline. Association summary statistics were generated from a total of 110,562 participants of European, African and Asian ancestry. Application programming interfaces (APIs) and open-source software development kits (SKDs) enable exploring, visualizing and open data access through the PLCO Atlas GWAS Explorer website, promoting Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Re-usable (FAIR) principles. Currently the GWAS Explorer hosts association data for 90 traits and >78,000,000 genomic markers, focusing on cancer and cancer-related phenotypes. New traits will be posted as association data becomes available. The PLCO Atlas is a FAIR resource of high-quality genetic and phenotypic data with many potential reuse opportunities for cancer research and genetic epidemiology.

Pulmonary Nodules, Lung Cancer Screening, and Lung Cancer in the Medicare Population.

BACKGROUND: Early detection of lung cancer through management of pulmonary nodules (PNs) may reduce lung cancer mortality. We assessed the relationship between PNs and lung cancer. RESEARCH QUESTION: How common are PNs in the Medicare population? What is the rate of lung cancer after detection of PNs? What is the relative proportion of early-stage lung cancer diagnosed after reporting of PNs vs through low-dose CT (LDCT) scan screening? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Program-Medicare database, we defined two cohorts: those in the 5% sample with ≥ 12 months of Medicare Parts A and B coverage from 2014 through 2019 (5% sample cohort) and those with a diagnosis of lung cancer from 2015 through 2017 with coverage for the prior 18-month period (lung cancer cohort). We defined PNs as chest CT scans with accompanying codes of 793.11 (International Classification of Diseases [ICD], Ninth Revision) or R91.1 (ICD, Tenth Revision) denoting a solitary PN. Patients in the lung cancer cohort were classified by whether they had undergone LDCT scan screening and whether they had a diagnosis of PN or neither (reference) within 18 months before diagnosis. We compared cancer stage and survival across groups. RESULTS: Of 627,547 patients in the 5% sample cohort, 5.0% demonstrated PNs over median of 5.0 years of follow-up. Cumulative 1- and 2-year lung cancer rates after initial PN diagnosis were 3.2% and 4.7%, respectively. Of 44,194 patients in the lung cancer cohort, 15.7%, 2.9%, and 81.4% were in the PN, LDCT scan, and reference groups, respectively. Of patients in the PN, LDCT scan, and reference groups, 58.1%, 50.3%, and 24.4% respectively, had disease of a localized stage. Among all patients with localized disease, 30.0% and 4.9% were in the PN and LDCT scan and groups, respectively. Three-year lung cancer-specific survival rates were 75.0%, 75.6%, and 49.4% for the PN, LDCT scan, and reference groups. INTERPRETATION: Patients with lung cancer who received a diagnosis after identification of PNs tended to have localized disease. Of all patients with localized disease, almost one-third had PNs that were diagnosed previously, compared with 5% of patients who had undergone LDCT scan screening. PNs represent a relatively common presentation of potentially curable lung cancer.

Study design considerations for trials to evaluate multicancer early detection assays for clinical utility.

Blood-based assays using various technologies and biomarkers are in commercial development for the purpose of detecting multiple cancer types concurrently at an early stage of disease. These multicancer early detection (MCED) assays have the potential to improve the detection of cancers, particularly those for which no current screening modality exists. However, the unknown clinical benefits and harms of using MCED assays for cancer screening necessitate the development and implementation of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to ascertain their clinical effectiveness. This was the consensus of experts at a National Cancer Institute-hosted workshop to discuss initial design concepts for such a trial. Using these assays to screen simultaneously for multiple cancers poses novel uncertainties for patient care compared with conventional screening tests for single cancers, such as establishing the diagnostic workup to confirm the presence of cancer at any organ site; clarifying appropriate follow-up for a positive assay for which there is no definitive diagnosis; identifying potential harms such as overdiagnosis of indolent disease; determining clinically effective and efficient strategies for disseminating MCED screening in real-world practice; and understanding the ethical implications, such as potentially alleviating or exacerbating existing health disparities. These assays present new and complex challenges for designing an RCT. Issues that emerged from the meeting centered around the need for a flexibly designed, clinical utility RCT to rigorously capture the evidence required to fully understand the net benefit of this promising technology. Specific topic areas were endpoints, screening protocols, recruitment, diagnostic pathway, pilot phase, data elements, specimen collection, and ethical considerations.

15-Year Benefits of Sigmoidoscopy Screening on Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality : A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) by sex and age in randomized trials is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 15-year effect of sigmoidoscopy screening on CRC incidence and mortality. DESIGN: Pooled analysis of 4 large-scale randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening. SETTING: Norway, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy. PARTICIPANTS: Women and men aged 55 to 64 years at enrollment. INTERVENTION: Sigmoidoscopy screening. MEASUREMENTS: Primary end points were cumulative incidence rate ratio (IRR) and mortality rate ratio (MRR) and rate differences after 15 years of follow-up comparing screening versus usual care in intention-to-treat analyses. Stratified analyses were done by sex, cancer site, and age at screening. RESULTS: Analyses comprised 274 952 persons (50.7% women), 137 493 in the screening and 137 459 in the usual care group. Screening attendance was 58% to 84%. After 15 years, the rate difference for CRC incidence was 0.51 cases (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.63 cases) per 100 persons and the IRR was 0.79 (CI, 0.75 to 0.83). The rate difference for CRC mortality was 0.13 deaths (CI, 0.07 to 0.19 deaths) per 100 persons, and the MRR was 0.80 (CI, 0.72 to 0.88). Women had less benefit from screening than men for CRC incidence (IRR for women, 0.84 [CI, 0.77 to 0.91]; IRR for men, 0.75 [CI, 0.70 to 0.81]; P = 0.032 for difference) and mortality (MRR for women, 0.91 [CI, 0.77 to 1.17]; MRR for men, 0.73 [CI, 0.64 to 0.83]; P = 0.025 for difference). There was no statistically significant difference in screening effect between persons aged 55 to 59 years and those aged 60 to 64 years. LIMITATION: Data from the U.K. trial were less granular because of privacy regulations. CONCLUSION: This pooled analysis of all large randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening demonstrates a significant and sustained effect of sigmoidoscopy on CRC incidence and mortality for 15 years. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Health Fund of South-East Norway.

Cervical cancer screening and predictors of screening by diabetes status.

PURPOSE: Women with diabetes have lower survival rates after a cervical cancer diagnosis compared to women without diabetes. Pap smears and human papilloma virus (HPV) testing are highly effective screening tests for cervical cancer, therefore, it is important to know the prevalence of guideline-concordant screening among women with diabetes and understand if their predictors of screening differ. The purpose of this analysis was to assess guideline-concordant cervical cancer screening and predictors by diabetes status. METHODS: We used the 2019 National Health Interview Survey data, limited to women aged 21-65 years without a previous diagnosis of cancer, a hysterectomy, or diagnosed with diabetes in the year prior to the survey. We considered the Pap and HPV tests together and concordance as being tested within the past 3 years as part of a routine exam. We calculated weighted, adjusted prevalence, and prevalence ratios (PRs) of screening concordance comparing women with diabetes to those without. RESULTS: The unadjusted prevalence of concordant screening was 66.5% for women with diabetes compared to 73.3% for women without diabetes (PR = 0.91 95% CI 0.84-0.98). In the fully adjusted model adjusting for factors known to be associated with diabetes and access to healthcare, the association was attenuated and no longer statistically significant (PR = 0.96 95% CI 0.89-1.04). CONCLUSION: Cervical cancer screening concordance was lower in women with diabetes compared to those without overall but the deficit appears to be due primarily to underlying differences in sociodemographic characteristics and access to healthcare and not diabetes independently.