The Development and Performance of Alternative Criteria for Lung Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: The recommendation for lung cancer screening (LCS) developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) may exclude some high-benefit people. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether alternative criteria can identify these high-benefit people. DESIGN: Model-based projections. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: People from the 1997-2014 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to develop alternative criteria using fast-and-frugal tree algorithms and from the 2014-2018 NHIS and the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for comparisons of USPSTF criteria versus alternative criteria. MEASUREMENTS: Life-years gained from LCS were estimated using the life-years gained from screening computed tomography (LYFS-CT) model. "High-benefit" was defined as gaining an average of at least 16.2 days of life from 3 annual screenings, which reflects high lung cancer risk and substantial life gains if lung cancer is detected by screening. RESULTS: The final alternative criteria were 1) people who smoked any amount each year for at least 40 years, or 2) people aged 60 to 80 years with at least 40 pack-years of smoking. The USPSTF and alternative criteria selected similar numbers of people for LCS. Compared with the USPSTF criteria, the alternative criteria had higher sensitivity (91% vs. 78%; P < 0.001) and specificity (86% vs. 84%; P < 0.001) for identifying high-benefit people. For racial and ethnic minorities, the alternative criteria provided greater gains in sensitivity than the USPSTF criteria (Black: 83% vs. 56% [P < 0.001]; Hispanic: 95% vs. 73% [P = 0.086]; Asian: 94% vs. 68% [P = 0.171]) at similar specificity. The alternative criteria identify high-risk, high-benefit groups excluded by the USPSTF criteria (those with a smoking duration of ≥40 years but <20 pack-years and a quit history of >15 years), many of whom are members of racial and ethnic minorities. LIMITATION: The results were based on model projections. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that simple alternative LCS criteria can identify substantially more high-benefit people, especially in some racial and ethnic groups. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Lung Precision Oncology Program.

Age at diagnosis for lung, colon, breast and prostate cancers: An international comparative study.

Differences in the average age at cancer diagnosis are observed across countries. We therefore aimed to assess international variation in the median age at diagnosis of common cancers worldwide, after adjusting for differences in population age structure. We used IARC's Cancer Incidence in Five Continents (CI5) Volume XI database, comprising cancer diagnoses between 2008 and 2012 from population-based cancer registries in 65 countries. We calculated crude median ages at diagnosis for lung, colon, breast and prostate cancers in each country, then adjusted for population age differences using indirect standardization. We showed that median ages at diagnosis changed by up to 10 years after standardization, typically increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and decreasing in high-income countries (HICs), given relatively younger and older populations, respectively. After standardization, the range of ages at diagnosis was 12 years for lung cancer (median age 61-Bulgaria vs 73-Bahrain), 12 years for colon cancer (60-the Islamic Republic of Iran vs 72-Peru), 10 years for female breast cancer (49-Algeria, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Republic of Korea vs 59-USA and others) and 10 years for prostate cancer (65-USA, Lithuania vs 75-Philippines). Compared to HICs, populations in LMICs were diagnosed with colon cancer at younger ages but with prostate cancer at older ages (both pLMICS-vs-HICs < 0.001). In countries with higher smoking prevalence, lung cancers were diagnosed at younger ages in both women and men (both pcorr < 0.001). Female breast cancer tended to be diagnosed at younger ages in East Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Our findings suggest that the differences in median ages at cancer diagnosis worldwide likely reflect population-level variation in risk factors and cancer control measures, including screening.

Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Risk-tailored screening has emerged as a promising approach to optimise the balance of benefits and harms of existing population cancer screening programs. It tailors screening (e.g., eligibility, frequency, interval, test type) to individual risk rather than the current one-size-fits-all approach of most organised population screening programs. However, the implementation of risk-tailored cancer screening in the population is challenging as it requires a change of practice at multiple levels i.e., individual, provider, health system levels. This scoping review aims to synthesise current implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population, identifying barriers, facilitators, and associated implementation outcomes. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified via database searches up to February 2023. Results were synthesised using Tierney et al. (2020) guidance for evidence synthesis of implementation outcomes and a multilevel framework. RESULTS: Of 4138 titles identified, 74 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies in this review focused on the implementation outcomes of acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness, reflecting the pre-implementation stage of most research to date. Only six studies included an implementation framework. The review identified consistent evidence that risk-tailored screening is largely acceptable across population groups, however reluctance to accept a reduction in screening frequency for low-risk informed by cultural norms, presents a major barrier. Limited studies were identified for cancer types other than breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation strategies will need to address alternate models of delivery, education of health professionals, communication with the public, screening options for people at low risk of cancer, and inequity in outcomes across cancer types.

Cancer Stage Compared With Mortality as End Points in Randomized Clinical Trials of Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Randomized clinical trials of cancer screening typically use cancer-specific mortality as the primary end point. The incidence of stage III-IV cancer is a potential alternative end point that may accelerate completion of randomized clinical trials of cancer screening. Objective: To compare cancer-specific mortality with stage III-IV cancer as end points in randomized clinical trials of cancer screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: This meta-analysis included 41 randomized clinical trials of cancer screening conducted in Europe, North America, and Asia published through February 19, 2024. Data extracted included numbers of participants, cancer diagnoses, and cancer deaths in the intervention and comparison groups. For each clinical trial, the effect of screening was calculated as the percentage reduction between the intervention and comparison groups in the incidence of participants with cancer-specific mortality and stage III-IV cancer. Exposures: Randomization to a cancer screening test or to a comparison group in a clinical trial of cancer screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points of cancer-specific mortality and incidence of stage III-IV cancer were compared using Pearson correlation coefficients with 95% CIs, linear regression, and fixed-effects meta-analysis. Results: The included randomized clinical trials tested benefits of screening for breast (n = 6), colorectal (n = 11), lung (n = 12), ovarian (n = 4), prostate (n = 4), and other cancers (n = 4). Correlation between reductions in cancer-specific mortality and stage III-IV cancer varied by cancer type (I2 = 65%; P = .02). Correlation was highest for trials that screened for ovarian (Pearson ρ = 0.99 [95% CI, 0.51-1.00]) and lung (Pearson ρ = 0.92 [95% CI, 0.72-0.98]) cancers, moderate for breast cancer (Pearson ρ = 0.70 [95% CI, -0.26 to 0.96]), and weak for colorectal (Pearson ρ = 0.39 [95% CI, -0.27 to 0.80]) and prostate (Pearson ρ = -0.69 [95% CI, -0.99 to 0.81]) cancers. Slopes from linear regression were estimated as 1.15 for ovarian cancer, 0.75 for lung cancer, 0.40 for colorectal cancer, 0.28 for breast cancer, and -3.58 for prostate cancer, suggesting that a given magnitude of reduction in incidence of stage III-IV cancer produced different magnitudes of change in incidence of cancer-specific mortality (P for heterogeneity = .004). Conclusions and Relevance: In randomized clinical trials of cancer screening, incidence of late-stage cancer may be a suitable alternative end point to cancer-specific mortality for some cancer types, but is not suitable for others. These results have implications for clinical trials of multicancer screening tests.

Protein Biomarkers in Lung Cancer Screening: Technical Considerations and Feasibility Assessment.

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, mainly due to late diagnosis and the presence of metastases. Several countries around the world have adopted nation-wide LDCT-based lung cancer screening that will benefit patients, shifting the stage at diagnosis to earlier stages with more therapeutic options. Biomarkers can help to optimize the screening process, as well as refine the TNM stratification of lung cancer patients, providing information regarding prognostics and recommending management strategies. Moreover, novel adjuvant strategies will clearly benefit from previous knowledge of the potential aggressiveness and biological traits of a given early-stage surgically resected tumor. This review focuses on proteins as promising biomarkers in the context of lung cancer screening. Despite great efforts, there are still no successful examples of biomarkers in lung cancer that have reached the clinics to be used in early detection and early management. Thus, the field of biomarkers in early lung cancer remains an evident unmet need. A more specific objective of this review is to present an up-to-date technical assessment of the potential use of protein biomarkers in early lung cancer detection and management. We provide an overview regarding the benefits, challenges, pitfalls and constraints in the development process of protein-based biomarkers. Additionally, we examine how a number of emerging protein analytical technologies may contribute to the optimization of novel robust biomarkers for screening and effective management of lung cancer.