Early Increases in Blood Pressure and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma and Thyroid Cancer Treated With VEGFR TKIs.

BACKGROUND: Although VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are a preferred systemic treatment approach for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and thyroid carcinoma (TC), treatment-related cardiovascular (CV) toxicity is an important contributor to morbidity. However, the clinical risk assessment and impact of CV toxicities, including early significant hypertension, among real-world advanced cancer populations receiving VEGFR TKI therapies remain understudied. METHODS: In a multicenter, retrospective cohort study across 3 large and diverse US health systems, we characterized baseline hypertension and CV comorbidity in patients with RCC and those with TC who are newly initiating VEGFR TKI therapy. We also evaluated baseline patient-, treatment-, and disease-related factors associated with the risk for treatment-related early hypertension (within 6 weeks of TKI initiation) and major adverse CV events (MACE), accounting for the competing risk of death in an advanced cancer population, after VEGFR TKI initiation. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2020, 987 patients (80.3% with RCC, 19.7% with TC) initiated VEGFR TKI therapy. The baseline prevalence of hypertension was high (61.5% and 53.6% in patients with RCC and TC, respectively). Adverse CV events, including heart failure and cerebrovascular accident, were common (occurring in 14.9% of patients) and frequently occurred early (46.3% occurred within 1 year of VEGFR TKI initiation). Baseline hypertension and Black race were the primary clinical factors associated with increased acute hypertensive risk within 6 weeks of VEGFR TKI initiation. However, early significant "on-treatment" hypertension was not associated with MACE. CONCLUSIONS: These multicenter, real-world findings indicate that hypertensive and CV morbidities are highly prevalent among patients initiating VEGFR TKI therapies, and baseline hypertension and Black race represent the primary clinical factors associated with VEGFR TKI-related early significant hypertension. However, early on-treatment hypertension was not associated with MACE, and cancer-specific CV risk algorithms may be warranted for patients initiating VEGFR TKIs.

Study protocol for a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial testing virtual tobacco treatment in oncology practices [Smokefree Support Study 2.0].

BACKGROUND: Persistent smoking among patients diagnosed with cancer is associated with adverse clinical outcomes, yet an evidence-based tobacco use intervention has not been well-integrated into cancer care in community oncology settings. This paper describes the protocol of a nation-wide clinical trial conducted by the ECOG-ACRIN National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) Research Base to assess the effectiveness of a virtual tobacco treatment intervention and the process of implementing tobacco treatment in NCORP community oncology settings. METHODS/DESIGN: This two-arm, multisite (n: 49 NCORP sites) hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial compares the effectiveness of a Virtual Intervention Treatment (VIT) versus an Enhanced Usual Control (EUC) among English and Spanish speaking patients recently diagnosed with cancer, reporting current smoking and receiving care at a participating NCORP Community or Minority/Underserved Site. The VIT includes up to 11 virtual counseling sessions with a tobacco treatment specialist and up to 12 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The EUC arm receives a referral to the NCI Quitline. The primary study outcome is biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence. Moderators of treatment effect will be assessed. The study evaluates implementation processes from participating NCORP site staff via survey, administrative, and focus group data, including reach, acceptability, appropriateness, fidelity, feasibility, adoption, cost and sustainability outcomes. DISCUSSION: This trial will generate findings about the effectiveness of an evidence-based virtual tobacco treatment intervention targeting patients diagnosed with cancer and illuminate barriers and facilitators that influence implementing tobacco treatment into community oncology settings nationally. In the era of COVID-19, virtual care solutions are vital for maximizing access and utilization of tobacco treatment delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03808818) on January 18th, 2019; Last update posted: May 21st, 2020.

Medical Care Costs Were Similar Across the Low-dose Computed Tomography and Chest X-Ray Arms of the National Lung Screening Trial Despite Different Rates of Significant Incidental Findings.

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) reported lung cancer and all-cause mortality reductions for low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) versus chest x-ray (CXR) screening. Although LDCT lung screening has received a grade B from the United States Preventive Services Task Force and is a covered service under most health plans, concerns remain on the costs engendered by screening, and the impact of the high rate of significant incidental finding (SIF) detection on those costs. METHODS: We linked American College of Radiology Imaging Network NLST and Medicare fee-for-service claims data for participants from 23 sites for 2002-2009. We performed participant-level analyses using generalized linear regression models to estimate the adjusted annual mean of the 3-year total medical costs per person in each study arm and within screen outcome categories (ever positive with abnormalities suspicious for lung cancer, always negative for abnormalities suspicious for lung cancer, but with SIFs, and always negative without SIFs). RESULTS: The adjusted annual mean total per person costs were not significantly different between screening arms [LDCT, $11,029 (95% confidence interval, $10,107-$11,951); CXR, $10,905 (95% confidence interval, $10,059-$11,751)], despite higher proportions of individuals with SIFs in the LDCT versus the CXR arm (18% vs. 4%; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We found little difference in total annual per person costs between LDCT-screened and CXR-screened Medicare participants, despite the higher number of SIFs in the LDCT arm of the study.

Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed that screening with low-dose computed tomography (CT) as compared with chest radiography reduced lung-cancer mortality. We examined the cost-effectiveness of screening with low-dose CT in the NLST. METHODS: We estimated mean life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs per person, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for three alternative strategies: screening with low-dose CT, screening with radiography, and no screening. Estimations of life-years were based on the number of observed deaths that occurred during the trial and the projected survival of persons who were alive at the end of the trial. Quality adjustments were derived from a subgroup of participants who were selected to complete quality-of-life surveys. Costs were based on utilization rates and Medicare reimbursements. We also performed analyses of subgroups defined according to age, sex, smoking history, and risk of lung cancer and performed sensitivity analyses based on several assumptions. RESULTS: As compared with no screening, screening with low-dose CT cost an additional $1,631 per person (95% confidence interval [CI], 1,557 to 1,709) and provided an additional 0.0316 life-years per person (95% CI, 0.0154 to 0.0478) and 0.0201 QALYs per person (95% CI, 0.0088 to 0.0314). The corresponding ICERs were $52,000 per life-year gained (95% CI, 34,000 to 106,000) and $81,000 per QALY gained (95% CI, 52,000 to 186,000). However, the ICERs varied widely in subgroup and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We estimated that screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT would cost $81,000 per QALY gained, but we also determined that modest changes in our assumptions would greatly alter this figure. The determination of whether screening outside the trial will be cost-effective will depend on how screening is implemented. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; NLST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).

Racial Differences in Tobacco Cessation and Treatment Usage After Lung Screening: An Examination of the National Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: Black smokers have demonstrated greater lung cancer disease burden and poorer smoking cessation outcomes compared with whites. Lung cancer screening represents a unique opportunity to promote cessation among smokers; however, little is known about the differential impact of screening on smoking behaviors among black and white smokers. Using data from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), we examined the racial differences in smoking behaviors after screening. METHODS: We examined racial differences in smoking behavior and cessation activity among 6,316 white and 497 black (median age, 60 and 59 years, respectively) NLST participants who were current smokers at screening using a follow-up survey on 24-hour and 7-day quit attempts, 6-month continuous abstinence, and the use of smoking cessation programs and aids at 12 months after screening. Using multiple regression analyses, we examined the predictors of 24-hour and 7-day quit attempts and 6-month continuous abstinence. RESULTS: At 12 months after screening, blacks were more likely to report a 24-hour (52.7% vs. 41.2%, p < .0001) or 7-day (33.6% vs. 27.2%, p = .002) quit attempt. However, no significant racial differences were found in 6-month continuous abstinence (5.6% blacks vs. 7.2% whites). In multiple regression, black race was predictive of a higher likelihood of a 24-hour (odds ratio [OR], 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.0) and 7-day (OR, 1.5, 95% CI, 1.1-1.8) quit attempt; however, race was not associated with 6-month continuous abstinence. Only a positive screening result for lung cancer was significantly predictive of successful 6-month continuous abstinence (OR, 2.3, 95% CI, 1.8-2.9). CONCLUSION: Although blacks were more likely than whites to have 24-hour and 7-day quit attempts, the rates of 6-month continuous abstinence did not differ. Targeted interventions are needed at the time of lung cancer screening to promote abstinence among all smokers. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Among smokers undergoing screening for lung cancer, blacks were more likely than whites to have 24-hour and 7-day quit attempts; however, these attempts did not translate to increased rates of 6-month continuous abstinence among black smokers. Targeted interventions are needed at the time of lung cancer screening to convert quit attempts to sustained smoking cessation among all smokers.

Results of initial low-dose computed tomographic screening for lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the largest contributor to mortality from cancer. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed that screening with low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) rather than with chest radiography reduced mortality from lung cancer. We describe the screening, diagnosis, and limited treatment results from the initial round of screening in the NLST to inform and improve lung-cancer-screening programs. METHODS: At 33 U.S. centers, from August 2002 through April 2004, we enrolled asymptomatic participants, 55 to 74 years of age, with a history of at least 30 pack-years of smoking. The participants were randomly assigned to undergo annual screening, with the use of either low-dose CT or chest radiography, for 3 years. Nodules or other suspicious findings were classified as positive results. This article reports findings from the initial screening examination. RESULTS: A total of 53,439 eligible participants were randomly assigned to a study group (26,715 to low-dose CT and 26,724 to chest radiography); 26,309 participants (98.5%) and 26,035 (97.4%), respectively, underwent screening. A total of 7191 participants (27.3%) in the low-dose CT group and 2387 (9.2%) in the radiography group had a positive screening result; in the respective groups, 6369 participants (90.4%) and 2176 (92.7%) had at least one follow-up diagnostic procedure, including imaging in 5717 (81.1%) and 2010 (85.6%) and surgery in 297 (4.2%) and 121 (5.2%). Lung cancer was diagnosed in 292 participants (1.1%) in the low-dose CT group versus 190 (0.7%) in the radiography group (stage 1 in 158 vs. 70 participants and stage IIB to IV in 120 vs. 112). Sensitivity and specificity were 93.8% and 73.4% for low-dose CT and 73.5% and 91.3% for chest radiography, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The NLST initial screening results are consistent with the existing literature on screening by means of low-dose CT and chest radiography, suggesting that a reduction in mortality from lung cancer is achievable at U.S. screening centers that have staff experienced in chest CT. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; NLST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).

Results of the two incidence screenings in the National Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial was conducted to determine whether three annual screenings (rounds T0, T1, and T2) with low-dose helical computed tomography (CT), as compared with chest radiography, could reduce mortality from lung cancer. We present detailed findings from the first two incidence screenings (rounds T1 and T2). METHODS: We evaluated the rate of adherence of the participants to the screening protocol, the results of screening and downstream diagnostic tests, features of the lung-cancer cases, and first-line treatments, and we estimated the performance characteristics of both screening methods. RESULTS: At the T1 and T2 rounds, positive screening results were observed in 27.9% and 16.8% of participants in the low-dose CT group and in 6.2% and 5.0% of participants in the radiography group, respectively. In the low-dose CT group, the sensitivity was 94.4%, the specificity was 72.6%, the positive predictive value was 2.4%, and the negative predictive value was 99.9% at T1; at T2, the positive predictive value increased to 5.2%. In the radiography group, the sensitivity was 59.6%, the specificity was 94.1%, the positive predictive value was 4.4%, and the negative predictive value was 99.8% at T1; both the sensitivity and the positive predictive value increased at T2. Among lung cancers of known stage, 87 (47.5%) were stage IA and 57 (31.1%) were stage III or IV in the low-dose CT group at T1; in the radiography group, 31 (23.5%) were stage IA and 78 (59.1%) were stage III or IV at T1. These differences in stage distribution between groups persisted at T2. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose CT was more sensitive in detecting early-stage lung cancers, but its measured positive predictive value was lower than that of radiography. As compared with radiography, the two annual incidence screenings with low-dose CT resulted in a decrease in the number of advanced-stage cancers diagnosed and an increase in the number of early-stage lung cancers diagnosed. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; NLST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).

The Relations Between False Positive and Negative Screens and Smoking Cessation and Relapse in the National Lung Screening Trial: Implications for Public Health.

INTRODUCTION: Lung screening is an opportunity for smoking cessation and relapse prevention, but smoking behaviors may differ across screening results. Changes in smoking were evaluated among 18 840 current and former smokers aged 55-74 scheduled to receive three annual lung screenings. METHODS: Participants were randomized to low-dose computed tomography or single-view chest radiography in the American College of Radiology/National Lung Screening Trial. Outcome measures included point and sustained (6-month) abstinence and motivation to quit among smokers; and relapse among smokers who quit during follow-up, recent quitters (quit < 6 months), and long-term former smokers (quit ≥ 6 months). RESULTS: During five years of follow-up, annual point prevalence quit rates ranged from 11.6%-13.4%; 48% of current smokers reported a quit attempt and 7% of long-term former smokers relapsed. Any false positive screening result was associated with subsequent increased point (multivariable hazard ratio HR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.13, 1.35) and sustained (HR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.15, 1.43) abstinence among smokers. Recent quitters with ≥1 false positive screen were less likely to relapse (HR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.54, 0.96). Screening result was not associated with relapse among long-term former smokers or among baseline smokers who quit during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A false positive screen was associated with increased smoking cessation and less relapse among recent quitters. Consistently negative screens were not associated with greater relapse among long-term former smokers. Given the Affordable Care Act requires most health plans to cover smoking cessation and lung screening, the impact and cost-effectiveness of lung screening could be further enhanced with the addition of smoking cessation interventions.

Did death certificates and a death review process agree on lung cancer cause of death in the National Lung Screening Trial?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Randomized controlled trials frequently use death review committees to assign a cause of death rather than relying on cause of death information from death certificates. The National Lung Screening Trial, a randomized controlled trial of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography versus chest X-ray for heavy and/or long-term smokers ages 55-74 years at enrollment, used a committee blinded to arm assignment for a subset of deaths to determine whether cause of death was due to lung cancer. METHODS: Deaths were selected for review using a pre-determined computerized algorithm. The algorithm, which considered cancers diagnosed during the trial, causes and significant conditions listed on the death certificate, and the underlying cause of death derived from death certificate information by trained nosologists, selected deaths that were most likely to represent a death due to lung cancer (either directly or indirectly) and deaths that might have been erroneously assigned lung cancer as the cause of death. The algorithm also selected deaths that might be due to adverse events of diagnostic evaluation for lung cancer. Using the review cause of death as the gold standard and lung cancer cause of death as the outcome of interest (dichotomized as lung cancer versus not lung cancer), we calculated performance measures of the death certificate cause of death. We also recalculated the trial primary endpoint using the death certificate cause of death. RESULTS: In all, 1642 deaths were reviewed and assigned a cause of death (42% of the 3877 National Lung Screening Trial deaths). Sensitivity of death certificate cause of death was 91%; specificity, 97%; positive predictive value, 98%; and negative predictive value, 89%. About 40% of the deaths reclassified to lung cancer cause of death had a death certificate cause of death of a neoplasm other than lung. Using the death certificate cause of death, the lung cancer mortality reduction was 18% (95% confidence interval: 4.2-25.0), as compared with the published finding of 20% (95% confidence interval: 6.7-26.7). CONCLUSION: Death review may not be necessary for primary-outcome analyses in lung cancer screening trials. If deemed necessary, researchers should strive to streamline the death review process as much as possible.

Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening.

BACKGROUND: The aggressive and heterogeneous nature of lung cancer has thwarted efforts to reduce mortality from this cancer through the use of screening. The advent of low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) altered the landscape of lung-cancer screening, with studies indicating that low-dose CT detects many tumors at early stages. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was conducted to determine whether screening with low-dose CT could reduce mortality from lung cancer. METHODS: From August 2002 through April 2004, we enrolled 53,454 persons at high risk for lung cancer at 33 U.S. medical centers. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo three annual screenings with either low-dose CT (26,722 participants) or single-view posteroanterior chest radiography (26,732). Data were collected on cases of lung cancer and deaths from lung cancer that occurred through December 31, 2009. RESULTS: The rate of adherence to screening was more than 90%. The rate of positive screening tests was 24.2% with low-dose CT and 6.9% with radiography over all three rounds. A total of 96.4% of the positive screening results in the low-dose CT group and 94.5% in the radiography group were false positive results. The incidence of lung cancer was 645 cases per 100,000 person-years (1060 cancers) in the low-dose CT group, as compared with 572 cases per 100,000 person-years (941 cancers) in the radiography group (rate ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.23). There were 247 deaths from lung cancer per 100,000 person-years in the low-dose CT group and 309 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the radiography group, representing a relative reduction in mortality from lung cancer with low-dose CT screening of 20.0% (95% CI, 6.8 to 26.7; P=0.004). The rate of death from any cause was reduced in the low-dose CT group, as compared with the radiography group, by 6.7% (95% CI, 1.2 to 13.6; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Screening with the use of low-dose CT reduces mortality from lung cancer. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; National Lung Screening Trial ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).

Quality of life following surgery for head and neck cancer: Evidence from ACRIN 6685.

BACKGROUND: This study examined the trajectory of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for patients with clinical stage N0 HNSCC enrolled in ACRIN 6685 who underwent elective neck dissection(s). METHODS: HRQoL of 230 patients in the ACRIN 6685 trial was measured prospectively up to 2 years following surgery using the University of Washington Quality of Life instrument. RESULTS: General Health Within the Last 7 Days did not differ significantly from baseline at any follow-up. General Health Relative to Before Cancer fell significantly by 5.8 points following surgery (p = 0.048), and then returned to 3.0 points above baseline at 1 year (p = 0.65). For Overall Quality of Life, HRQoL fell significantly by 4.3 points following surgery (p = 0.031) and then returned to levels not significantly different from baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with stage N0 HNSCC experience significant declines in HRQoL immediately following surgery, including neck dissection, which recovers to near or better than baseline within 1-2 years.

Patient-Reported Financial Burden of Treatment for Colon or Rectal Cancer.

Importance: The longitudinal experience of patients is critical to the development of interventions to identify and reduce financial hardship. Objective: To evaluate financial hardship over 12 months in patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) undergoing curative-intent therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, longitudinal cohort study was conducted between May 2018 and July 2020, with time points over 12 months. Participants included patients at National Cance Institute Community Oncology Research Program sites. Eligibility criteria included age at least 18 years, newly diagnosed stage I to III CRC, not started chemotherapy and/or radiation, treated with curative intent, and able to speak English. Data were analyzed from December 2022 through April 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was financial hardship, measured using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST), which assesses the psychological domain of financial hardship (range, 0-44; higher score indicates better financial well-being). Participants completed 30-minute surveys (online or paper) at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: A total of 450 participants (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [12.0] years; 240 [53.3%] male) completed the baseline survey; 33 participants (7.3%) were Black and 379 participants (84.2%) were White, and 14 participants (3.1%) identified as Hispanic or Latino and 424 participants (94.2%) identified as neither Hispanic nor Latino. There were 192 participants (42.7%) with an annual household income of $60 000 or greater. There was an improvement in financial hardship from diagnosis to 12 months of 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2 to 0.3) points per month (P < .001). Patients with better quality of life and greater self-efficacy had less financial toxicity. Each 1-unit increase in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (rapid version) score was associated with an increase of 0.7 (95% CI, 0.5 to 0.9) points in COST score (P < .001); each 1-unit increase in self-efficacy associated with an increase of 0.6 (95% CI, 0.2 to 1.0) points in COST score (P = .006). Patients who lived in areas with lower neighborhood socioeconomic status had greater financial toxicity. Neighborhood deprivation index was associated with a decrease of 0.3 (95% CI, -0.5 to -0.1) points in COST score (P = .009). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that interventions for financial toxicity in cancer care should focus on counseling to improve self-efficacy and mitigate financial worry and screening for these interventions should include patients at higher risk of financial burden.

Financial Hardship Among Patients With Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: The degree of cancer patients' financial hardship is dynamic and can change over time. Objective: To assess longitudinal changes in financial hardship among patients with early-stage colorectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prospective longitudinal cohort study, English-speaking adult patients with a new diagnosis of stage I to III colorectal cancer being treated with curative intent at National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practices between May 2018 and July 2020 and who had not started chemotherapy and/or radiation were included. Data analysis was conducted from March to December 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients completed surveys at baseline as well as at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after enrollment. Cost-related care nonadherence and material hardship, as adopted by Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, were measured. Factors associated with financial hardship were assessed using longitudinal multivariable logistic regression models with time interaction. Results: A total of 451 patients completed baseline questions, with 217 (48.1%) completing the 24-month follow-up. Mean (SD) age was 61.0 (12.0) years (210 [46.6%] female; 33 [7.3%] Black, 380 [84.3%] White, and 33 [7.3%] American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, multiracial, or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals or those who did not report race or who had unknown race). Among 217 patients with data at baseline and 24 months, 19 (8.8%) reported cost-related care nonadherence at baseline vs 20 (9.2%) at 24 months (P = .84), and 125 (57.6%) reported material hardship at baseline vs 76 (35.0%) at 24 months (P < .001). In multivariable analysis, lower financial worry (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93), higher education (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.77), and older age (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98) were associated with lower nonadherence. Receipt of chemotherapy was associated with higher material hardship (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.15-6.29), while lower financial worry was associated with lower material hardship (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96). Over 24 months, female sex was associated with lower nonadherence (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.96), while higher education was associated with higher nonadherence (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03-1.17). Being employed was associated with lower material hardship (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93), while receipt of care at safety-net hospitals was associated with higher hardship (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.17). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with early-stage colorectal cancer, material hardship was more common than cost-related cancer care nonadherence and decreased over time, while nonadherence remained unchanged. Early and longitudinal financial screening and referral to intervention are recommended to mitigate financial hardship.

Examining whether lung screening changes risk perceptions: National Lung Screening Trial participants at 1-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) research team reported reduced lung cancer mortality among current and former smokers with a minimum 30 pack-year history who were screened with spiral computed tomography scans compared with chest x-rays. The objectives of the current study were to examine, at 1-year follow-up: 1) risk perceptions of lung cancer and smoking-related diseases and behavior change determinants, 2) whether changes in risk perceptions differed by baseline screening result; and 3) whether changes in risk perceptions affected smoking behavior. METHODS: A 25-item risk perception questionnaire was administered to a subset of participants at 8 American College of Radiology Imaging Network/NLST sites before initial and 1-year follow-up screens. Items assessed risk perceptions of lung cancer and smoking-related diseases, cognitive and emotional determinants of behavior change, and knowledge of smoking risks. RESULTS: Among 430 NLST participants (mean age, 61.0 years; 55.6% men; 91.9% white), half were current smokers at baseline. Overall, risk perceptions and associated cognitive and emotional determinants of behavior change did not change significantly from prescreen trial enrollment to 1-year follow-up and did not differ significantly by screening test result. Changes in risk perceptions were not associated with changes in smoking status (9.7% of participants quit, and 6.6% relapsed) at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Lung screening did not change participants' risk perceptions of lung cancer or smoking-related disease. A negative screening test, which was the most common screening result, did not appear to decrease risk perceptions nor provide false reassurance to smokers.

Impact of Neck PET/CT Positivity on Survival Outcomes-Visual and Quantitative Assessment: Results From ACRIN 6685.

INTRODUCTION: FDG PET/CT was prospectively studied in 287 cN0 head and neck cancer patients in ACRIN 6685, and additional analysis of neck FDG uptake upon recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) was performed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred eight had analyzable data. Survival analysis was performed to compare RFS and OS based on neck FDG visual assessment (VA) and SUV max . For SUV max , the optimal thresholds were calculated using conditional inference trees on a randomly selected 70% training data set and validated using the remaining 30% of data. Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests were generated for the patient groups based on VA and optimal SUV max thresholds, and the hazards ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were also calculated. Hypothesis testing was set at a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 73.9% of bilateral cN0 and 50.0% of unilateral cN0 were alive at the end of the study with the remaining being dead or lost to follow-up. Overall survival median follow-up time was 24.0 months (interquartile range, 15.8-25.3; range, 0-37.0). A total of 63.3% of bilateral cN0 and 42.5% of unilateral cN0 patients remained disease free during the study. Recurrence-free survival median follow-up time was 23.9 months (interquartile range, 12.4-25.2; range, 0-35.6). Visual assessment of necks by our panel of radiologists was significantly associated with RFS (HR [95% CI], 2.30 [1.10-4.79]; P = 0.02), but not with OS (HR [95% CI], 1.64 [0.86-3.14]; P = 0.13). The optimal SUV max thresholds were 2.5 for RFS and 5.0 for OS. For SUV max assessment, applying the optimal thresholds to the 30% test data yielded HRs (95% CIs) of 2.09 (0.61-7.14; P = 0.23) for RFS and 3.42 (1.03-11.41; P = 0.03) for OS. The SUV max threshold of 5.0 was significantly associated with RFS (HR [95% CI], 5.92 [1.79-19.57]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Neck FDG uptake by VA is significant for RFS. An SUV max threshold of 5.0 is significantly associated with OS and RFS.

Significant Incidental Findings in the National Lung Screening Trial.

Importance: Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung screening has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality. Significant incidental findings (SIFs) have been widely reported in patients undergoing LDCT lung screening. However, the exact nature of these SIF findings has not been described. Objective: To describe SIFs reported in the LDCT arm of the National Lung Screening Trial and classify SIFs as reportable or not reportable to the referring clinician (RC) using the American College of Radiology's white papers on incidental findings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective case series study of 26 455 participants in the National Lung Screening Trial who underwent at least 1 screening examination with LDCT. The trial was conducted from 2002 to 2009, and data were collected at 33 US academic medical centers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Significant incident findings were defined as a final diagnosis of a negative screen result with significant abnormalities that were not suspicious for lung cancer or a positive screen result with emphysema, significant cardiovascular abnormality, or significant abnormality above or below the diaphragm. Results: Of 26 455 participants, 10 833 (41.0%) were women, the mean (SD) age was 61.4 (5.0) years, and there were 1179 (4.5%) Black, 470 (1.8%) Hispanic/Latino, and 24 123 (91.2%) White individuals. Participants were scheduled to undergo 3 screenings during the course of the trial; the present study included 75 126 LDCT screening examinations performed for 26 455 participants. A SIF was reported for 8954 (33.8%) of 26 455 participants who were screened with LDCT. Of screening tests with a SIF detected, 12 228 (89.1%) had a SIF considered reportable to the RC, with a higher proportion of reportable SIFs among those with a positive screen result for lung cancer (7632 [94.1%]) compared with those with a negative screen result (4596 [81.8%]). The most common SIFs reported included emphysema (8677 [43.0%] of 20 156 SIFs reported), coronary artery calcium (2432 [12.1%]), and masses or suspicious lesions (1493 [7.4%]). Masses included kidney (647 [3.2%]), liver (420 [2.1%]), adrenal (265 [1.3%]), and breast (161 [0.8%]) abnormalities. Classification was based on free-text comments; 2205 of 13 299 comments (16.6%) could not be classified. The hierarchical reporting of final diagnosis in NLST may have been associated with an overestimate of severe emphysema in participants with a positive screen result for lung cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: This case series study found that SIFs were commonly reported in the LDCT arm of the National Lung Screening Trial, and most of these SIFs were considered reportable to the RC and likely to require follow-up. Future screening trials should standardize SIF reporting.

Utilization of Diagnostic Procedures After Lung Cancer Screening in the National Lung Screening Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine utilization patterns of diagnostic procedures after lung cancer screening among participants enrolled in the National Lung Screening Trial. METHODS: Using a sample of National Lung Screening Trial participants with abstracted medical records, we assessed utilization of imaging, invasive, and surgical procedures after lung cancer screening. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation by chained equations. For each procedure type, we examined utilization within a year after the screening or until the next screen, whichever came first, across arms (low-dose CT [LDCT] versus chest X-ray [CXR]) and by screening results. We also explored factors associated with having these procedures using multivariable negative binomial regressions. RESULTS: After baseline screening, our sample had 176.5 and 46.7 procedures per 100 person-years for those with a false-positive and negative result, respectively. Invasive and surgical procedures were relatively infrequent. Among those who screened positive, follow-up imaging and invasive procedures were 25% and 34% less frequent in those screened with LDCT, compared with CXR. Postscreening utilization of invasive and surgical procedures was 37% and 34% lower at the first incidence screen compared with baseline. Participants with positive results at baseline were six times more likely to undergo additional imaging than those with normal findings. DISCUSSION: Use of imaging and invasive procedures to evaluate abnormal findings varied by screening modality, with a lower rate for LDCT than CXR. Invasive and surgical workup were less prevalent after subsequent screening examinations compared with baseline screening. Utilization was associated with older age but not gender, race or ethnicity, insurance status, or income.

18F-FDG PET/CT Staging of Head and Neck Cancer: Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy-Results from Multicenter ACRIN 6685 Clinical Trial.

To our knowledge, no prior multicenter clinical trial has reported interobserver agreement of 18F-FDG PET/CT scans for staging of clinical N0 neck in head and neck cancer. Methods: A total of 287 participants were recruited. For visual analysis, positive nodal uptake of 18F-FDG was defined as uptake visually greater than activity seen in the blood pool. Results: The negative predictive value of the 18F-FDG PET/CT for N0 clinical neck was 86% or above for visual assessment (95% CI, 86%-88%) for the 2 central readers and above 90% (95% CI, 90%-95%) for SUVmax for central reads and site reads dichotomized at the optimal cutoff value of 1.8 and the prespecified cutoff value of 3.5, respectively. The κ coefficients between the 2 expert readers and between central reads and site reads varied between 0.53 and 0.78. Conclusion: The NPV of the 18F-FDG PET/CT for N0 clinical neck was 86% or above for visual assessment and above 90% for SUVmax cut points of 1.8 and 3.5 with moderate to substantial agreements.

FDG-PET/CT and Pathology in Newly Diagnosed Head and Neck Cancer: ACRIN 6685 Trial, FDG-PET/CT cN0.

OBJECTIVE: FDG-PET/CT (fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography) is effective to assess for occult neck nodal disease. We report risks and patterns of nodal disease based on primary site and nodal level from data on the dissected cN0 per the results from ACRIN 6685. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective nonrandomized enrollment included participants with first-time head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and at least 1 cN0 neck side to be dissected. SETTING: Twenty-four ACRIN-certified centers internationally (American College of Radiology Imaging Network). METHODS: A total of 287 participants were enrolled. Preoperative FDG-PET/CT findings were centrally reviewed and compared with pathology. Incidence, relative risk, pattern of lymph node involvement, and impact upon neck dissection were reported. RESULTS: An overall 983 nodal levels were dissected (n = 261 necks, n = 203 participants). The highest percentages of ipsilateral positive nodes by primary location and nodal level were oral cavity (level I, 17/110, 15.5%), pharynx (level II, 6/30, 20.0%), and larynx (level VI, 1/3, 33.3%). CONCLUSION: Levels at greatest risk for nodal disease in cN0 in terms of ipsilateral neck dissection are level I (oral cavity), II (pharynx), and VI (larynx). These data should be considered when treating patients presenting with cN0. This is the first study to comprehensively report the incidence, location, and risk of metastases in cN0 in the FDG-PET/CT era.

Micronodules Detected on Computed Tomography During the National Lung Screening Trial: Prevalence and Relation to Positive Studies and Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) all cases with a 4-mm nodule (micronodule) and no other findings were classified as a negative study. The prevalence and malignant potential of micronodules in the NLST is evaluated to understand if this classification was appropriate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In the NLST a total of 53,452 participants were enrolled with 26,722 undergoing low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening. To determine whether a micronodule developed into a lung cancer, a list from the NLST database of those participants who developed lung cancer and had a micronodule recorded was selected. The CT images of this subset were reviewed by experienced, fellowship-trained thoracic radiologists (R.F.M., C.C., P.M.B., and D.R.A.), all of whom participated as readers in the NLST. RESULTS: There were 26,722 participants who underwent CT in the NLST, of which 11,326 (42%) participants had at least one CT with a micronodule. Five thousand five hundred sixty (49%) of these participants had at least one positive CT examination, of which 409 (3.6%) subsequently were diagnosed with lung cancer. Of the 409 lung cancer cases with a micronodule recorded, there were 13 cases in which a micronodule developed into lung cancer. Considering the 13 cases, they represent 1.2% (13 of 1089) of the lung cancers diagnosed in the CT arm of the NLST and 0.11% (13 of 11,326) of the total micronodule cases. Additionally they represent 0.23% (13 of 5560) of the micronodule and at least one positive CT examination cases and 3.2% (13 of 409) of the micronodule cases diagnosed with lung cancer. The average size of the nodule at baseline (recorded as maximum diameter by perpendicular diameter) was 3.0 × 2.5 mm (ranges 2 x 4 mm and 2 x 4 mm) and at the positive CT the nodule was 11.1 × 8.6 mm (ranges, 6 x 20 mm and 5 x 14 mm); a difference of average change in size of 8.1 × 6.1 mm. The average number of days from first CT with a micronodule recorded to positive CT was 459 days (range, 338 - 723 days), the mean time from first CT with micronodule to lung cancer diagnosis was 617 days (range, 380 - 1140 days) and the mean time from positive CT to lung cancer diagnosis was 160 days (range, 18 - 417 days). Histologically, there was one small cell carcinoma and 12 non-small cell with stages of IA in 8 (62%), stage IB in 2 (15%), and 1 each stage IIIA, IIIB, and IV. The overall survival of NSCLC cases with a micronodule was not significantly different than the survival of the CT subset diagnosed with NSCL (p = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Micronodules are common among lung cancer-screened participants and are capable of developing into lung cancer; however, following micronodules by annual CT screening surveillance is appropriate and does not impact overall survival or outcome.