Risk model-based management for second primary lung cancer among lung cancer survivors through a validated risk prediction model.

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

Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening and Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the US.

Importance: The revised 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for lung cancer screening have been shown to reduce disparities in screening eligibility and performance between African American and White individuals vs the 2013 guidelines. However, potential disparities across other racial and ethnic groups in the US remain unknown. Risk model-based screening may reduce racial and ethnic disparities and improve screening performance, but neither validation of key risk prediction models nor their screening performance has been examined by race and ethnicity. Objective: To validate and recalibrate the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial 2012 (PLCOm2012) model-a well-established risk prediction model based on a predominantly White population-across races and ethnicities in the US and evaluate racial and ethnic disparities and screening performance through risk-based screening using PLCOm2012 vs the USPSTF 2021 criteria. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a population-based cohort design, the Multiethnic Cohort Study enrolled participants in 1993-1996, followed up through December 31, 2018. Data analysis was conducted from April 1, 2022, to May 19. 2023. A total of 105 261 adults with a smoking history were included. Exposures: The 6-year lung cancer risk was calculated through recalibrated PLCOm2012 (ie, PLCOm2012-Update) and screening eligibility based on a 6-year risk threshold greater than or equal to 1.3%, yielding similar eligibility as the USPSTF 2021 guidelines. Outcomes: Predictive accuracy, screening eligibility-incidence (E-I) ratio (ie, ratio of the number of eligible to incident cases), and screening performance (sensitivity, specificity, and number needed to screen to detect 1 lung cancer). Results: Of 105 261 participants (60 011 [57.0%] men; mean [SD] age, 59.8 [8.7] years), consisting of 19 258 (18.3%) African American, 27 227 (25.9%) Japanese American, 21 383 (20.3%) Latino, 8368 (7.9%) Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and 29 025 (27.6%) White individuals, 1464 (1.4%) developed lung cancer within 6 years from enrollment. The PLCOm2012-Update showed good predictive accuracy across races and ethnicities (area under the curve, 0.72-0.82). The USPSTF 2021 criteria yielded a large disparity among African American individuals, whose E-I ratio was 53% lower vs White individuals (E-I ratio: 9.5 vs 20.3; P < .001). Under the risk-based screening (PLCOm2012-Update 6-year risk ≥1.3%), the disparity between African American and White individuals was substantially reduced (E-I ratio: 15.9 vs 18.4; P < .001), with minimal disparities observed in persons of other minoritized groups, including Japanese American, Latino, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. Risk-based screening yielded superior overall and race and ethnicity-specific performance to the USPSTF 2021 criteria, with higher overall sensitivity (67.2% vs 57.7%) and lower number needed to screen (26 vs 30) at similar specificity (76.6%). Conclusions: The findings of this cohort study suggest that risk-based lung cancer screening can reduce racial and ethnic disparities and improve screening performance across races and ethnicities vs the USPSTF 2021 criteria.

Predictive Model to Guide Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging Surveillance in Patients With Metastatic Lung Cancer: Impact on Real-World Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Brain metastasis is common in lung cancer, and treatment of brain metastasis can lead to significant morbidity. Although early detection of brain metastasis may improve outcomes, there are no prediction models to identify high-risk patients for brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance. Our goal is to develop a machine learning-based clinicogenomic prediction model to estimate patient-level brain metastasis risk. METHODS: A penalized regression competing risk model was developed using 330 patients diagnosed with lung cancer between January 2014 and June 2019 and followed through June 2021 at Stanford HealthCare. The main outcome was time from the diagnosis of distant metastatic disease to the development of brain metastasis, death, or censoring. RESULTS: Among the 330 patients, 84 (25%) developed brain metastasis over 627 person-years, with a 1-year cumulative brain metastasis incidence of 10.2% (95% CI, 6.8 to 13.6). Features selected for model inclusion were histology, cancer stage, age at diagnosis, primary site, and RB1 and ALK alterations. The prediction model yielded high discrimination (area under the curve 0.75). When the cohort was stratified by risk using a 1-year risk threshold of > 14.2% (85th percentile), the high-risk group had increased 1-year cumulative incidence of brain metastasis versus the low-risk group (30.8% v 6.1%, P < .01). Of 48 high-risk patients, 24 developed brain metastasis, and of these, 12 patients had brain metastasis detected more than 7 months after last brain MRI. Patients who missed this 7-month window had larger brain metastases (58% v 33% largest diameter > 10 mm; odds ratio, 2.80, CI, 0.51 to 13) versus those who had MRIs more frequently. CONCLUSION: The proposed model can identify high-risk patients, who may benefit from more intensive brain MRI surveillance to reduce morbidity of subsequent treatment through early detection.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening by the 2021 USPSTF Guidelines Versus Risk-Based Criteria: The Multiethnic Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised its lung cancer screening guidelines to expand screening eligibility. We evaluated screening sensitivities and racial and ethnic disparities under the 2021 USPSTF criteria vs alternative risk-based criteria in a racially and ethnically diverse population. METHODS: In the Multiethnic Cohort, we evaluated the proportion of ever-smoking lung cancer cases eligible for screening (ie, screening sensitivity) under the 2021 USPSTF criteria and under risk-based criteria through the PLCOm2012 model (6-year risk ≥1.51%). We also calculated the screening disparity (ie, absolute sensitivity difference) for each of 4 racial or ethnic groups (African American, Japanese American, Latino, Native Hawaiian) vs White cases. RESULTS: Among 5900 lung cancer cases, 43.3% were screen eligible under the 2021 USPSTF criteria. Screening sensitivities varied by race and ethnicity, with Native Hawaiian (56.7%) and White (49.6%) cases attaining the highest sensitivities and Latino (37.3%), African American (38.4%), and Japanese American (40.0%) cases attaining the lowest. Latino cases had the greatest screening disparity vs White cases at 12.4%, followed by African American (11.2%) and Japanese American (9.6%) cases. Under risk-based screening, the overall screening sensitivity increased to 75.7%, and all racial and ethnic groups had increased sensitivities (54.5%-91.9%). Whereas the screening disparity decreased to 5.1% for African American cases, it increased to 28.6% for Latino cases and 12.8% for Japanese American cases. CONCLUSIONS: In the Multiethnic Cohort, racial and ethnic disparities decreased but persisted under the 2021 USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines. Risk-based screening through PLCOm2012 may increase screening sensitivities and help to reduce disparities in some, but not all, racial and ethnic groups. Further optimization of risk-based screening strategies across diverse populations is needed.

The Survival Impact of Second Primary Lung Cancer in Patients With Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer survivors have a high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC), but little is known about the survival impact of SPLC diagnosis. METHODS: We analyzed data from 138 969 patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER), who were surgically treated for initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) in 1988-2013. Each patient was followed from the date of IPLC diagnosis to SPLC diagnosis (for those with SPLC) and last vital status through 2016. We performed multivariable Cox regression to evaluate the association between overall survival and SPLC diagnosis as a time-varying predictor. To investigate potential effect modification, we tested interaction between SPLC and IPLC stage. Using data from the Multiethnic Cohort Study (MEC) (n = 1540 IPLC patients with surgery), we evaluated the survival impact of SPLC by smoking status. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: A total of 12 115 (8.7%) patients developed SPLC in SEER over 700 421 person-years of follow-up. Compared with patients with single primary lung cancer, those with SPLC had statistically significantly reduced overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.06 to 2.17; P < .001). The effect of SPLC on reduced survival was more pronounced among patients with early stage IPLC vs advanced-stage IPLC (HR = 2.14, 95% CI = 2.08 to 2.20, vs HR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.21 to 1.70, respectively; Pinteraction < .001). Analysis using MEC data showed that the effect of SPLC on reduced survival was statistically significantly larger among persons who actively smoked at initial diagnosis vs those who formerly or never smoked (HR = 2.31, 95% CI = 1.48 to 3.61, vs HR = 1.41, 95% CI = 0.98 to 2.03, respectively; Pinteraction = .04). CONCLUSIONS: SPLC diagnosis is statistically significantly associated with decreased survival in SEER and MEC. Intensive surveillance targeting patients with early stage IPLC and active smoking at IPLC diagnosis may lead to a larger survival benefit.

Robustness of lateral tongue bracing under bite block perturbation.

Lateral tongue bracing is a lingual posture in which the sides of the tongue are held against the palate and upper molars, and has been observed cross-linguistically. However, it is unknown whether lateral bracing makes adjustments to external perturbation like other body postures. The present study aims to test the robustness of lateral tongue bracing with three experiments. The first baseline experiment was an analysis of an electropalatogram database and the results showed lateral bracing being continuously maintained. The second experiment applied an external perturbation during speech production. A bite block was held between participants' teeth while intra-oral video was used to record contact between the sides of the tongue and upper molars during speech. The results indicated that lateral bracing was maintained most of the time during speech. The third experiment included simulations investigating the activation of tongue muscles relevant to lateral bracing at different degrees of jaw opening. The results show that bracing requires higher activation of bracing agonists and lower activation of bracing antagonists as jaw opening increases. Our results suggest that lateral tongue bracing is actively maintained and robust under external perturbation and further indicate it serves as an essential lingual posture during speech production.

Smoking Cessation After Lung Cancer Diagnosis and the Risk of Second Primary Lung Cancer: The Multiethnic Cohort Study.

Background: Smoking cessation reduces lung cancer mortality. However, little is known about whether diagnosis of lung cancer impacts changes in smoking behaviors. Furthermore, the effects of smoking cessation on the risk of second primary lung cancer (SPLC) have not been established yet. This study aims to examine smoking behavior changes after initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) diagnosis and estimate the effect of smoking cessation on SPLC risk following IPLC diagnosis. Methods: The study cohort consisted of 986 participants in the Multiethnic Cohort Study who were free of lung cancer and active smokers at baseline (1993-1996), provided 10-year follow-up smoking data (2003-2008), and were diagnosed with IPLC in 1993-2017. The primary outcome was a change in smoking status from "current" at baseline to "former" at 10-year follow-up (ie, smoking cessation), analyzed using logistic regression. The second outcome was SPLC incidence after smoking cessation, estimated using cause-specific Cox regression. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results: Among 986 current smokers at baseline, 51.1% reported smoking cessation at 10-year follow-up. The smoking cessation rate was statistically significantly higher (80.6%) for those diagnosed with IPLC between baseline and 10-year follow-up vs those without IPLC diagnosis (45.4%) during the 10-year period (adjusted odds ratio = 5.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.38 to 7.98; P < .001). Incidence of SPLC was statistically significantly lower among the 504 participants who reported smoking cessation at follow-up compared with those without smoking cessation (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.14 to 0.67; P = .003). Conclusion: Lung cancer diagnosis has a statistically significant impact on smoking cessation. Quitting smoking after IPLC diagnosis may reduce the risk of developing a subsequent malignancy in the lungs.

Tobacco Smoking and Risk of Second Primary Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer survivors are at high risk of developing a second primary lung cancer (SPLC). However, SPLC risk factors have not been established and the impact of tobacco smoking remains controversial. We examined the risk factors for SPLC across multiple epidemiologic cohorts and evaluated the impact of smoking cessation on reducing SPLC risk. METHODS: We analyzed data from 7059 participants in the Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) diagnosed with an initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) between 1993 and 2017. Cause-specific proportional hazards models estimated SPLC risk. We conducted validation studies using the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (N = 3423 IPLC cases) and European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (N = 4731 IPLC cases) cohorts and pooled the SPLC risk estimates using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 163 MEC cases (2.3%) developed SPLC. Smoking pack-years (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.18 per 10 pack-years, p < 0.001) and smoking intensity (HR = 1.30 per 10 cigarettes per day, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with increased SPLC risk. Individuals who met the 2013 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's screening criteria at IPLC diagnosis also had an increased SPLC risk (HR = 1.92; p < 0.001). Validation studies with the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial and European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition revealed consistent results. Meta-analysis yielded pooled HRs of 1.16 per 10 pack-years (pmeta < 0.001), 1.25 per 10 cigarettes per day (pmeta < 0.001), and 1.99 (pmeta < 0.001) for meeting the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's criteria. In MEC, smoking cessation after IPLC diagnosis was associated with an 83% reduction in SPLC risk (HR = 0.17; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco smoking is a risk factor for SPLC. Smoking cessation may reduce the risk of SPLC. Additional strategies for SPLC surveillance and screening are warranted.

Metabolomic profiling for second primary lung cancer: A pilot case-control study.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer survivors have a high risk of developing a second primary lung cancer (SPLC). While national screening guidelines have been established for initial primary lung cancer (IPLC), no consensus guidelines exist for SPLC. Furthermore, the factors that contribute to SPLC risk have not been established. This study examines the potential for using serum metabolomics to identify metabolite biomarkers that differ between SPLC cases and IPLC controls. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this pilot case-control study, we applied an untargeted metabolomics approach based on ultrahigh performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectroscopy (UPLC-MS/MS) to serum samples of 82 SPLC cases and 82 frequency matched IPLC controls enrolled in the Boston Lung Cancer Study. Random forest and unconditional logistic regression models identified metabolites associated with SPLC. Candidate metabolites were integrated into a SPLC risk prediction model and the model performance was evaluated through a risk stratification approach. RESULTS: The untargeted analysis detected 1008 named and 316 unnamed metabolites among all study participants. Metabolites that were significantly associated with SPLC (False Discovery Rate q-value < 0.2) included 5-methylthioadenosine (odds ratio [OR] = 2.04, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.39-3.01; P = 2.8 × 10-4) and phenylacetylglutamine (OR = 2.65, 95 % CI 1.56-4.51; P = 3.2 × 10-4), each exhibiting approximately 1.5-fold increased levels among SPLC cases versus IPLC controls. In stratifying the study participants across quartiles of estimated SPLC risk, the risk prediction model identified a significantly higher proportion of SPLC cases in the fourth compared to the first quartile (68.3 % versus 39.0 %; P = 0.044). CONCLUSION: SPLC cases may have distinct metabolomic profiles compared to those in IPLC patients without SPLC. A risk stratification approach integrating metabolomics may be useful for distinguishing patients based on SPLC risk. Prospective validation studies are needed to further evaluate the potential for leveraging metabolomics in SPLC surveillance and screening.