RESUMEN
Advances in biomarker-driven therapies for patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) both provide opportunities to improve the treatment (and thus outcomes) for patients and pose new challenges for equitable care delivery. Over the last decade, the continuing development of new biomarker-driven therapies and evolving indications for their use have intensified the importance of interdisciplinary communication and coordination for patients with or suspected to have lung cancer. Multidisciplinary teams are challenged with completing comprehensive and timely biomarker testing and navigating the constantly evolving evidence base for a complex and time-sensitive disease. This guide provides context for the current state of comprehensive biomarker testing for NSCLC, reviews how biomarker testing integrates within the diagnostic continuum for patients, and illustrates best practices and common pitfalls that influence the success and timeliness of biomarker testing using a series of case scenarios.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/terapia , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/diagnóstico , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/terapia , Biomarcadores de TumorRESUMEN
Background: Advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy targeting the lung periphery has developed at an accelerated pace over the last two decades, whereas evidence to support introduction of innovative technologies has been variable and deficient. A major gap relates to variable reporting of diagnostic yield, in addition to limited comparative studies. Objectives: To develop a research framework to standardize the evaluation of advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy techniques for peripheral lung lesions. Specifically, we aimed for consensus on a robust definition of diagnostic yield, and we propose potential study designs at various stages of technology development. Methods: Panel members were selected for their diverse expertise. Workgroup meetings were conducted in virtual or hybrid format. The cochairs subsequently developed summary statements, with voting proceeding according to a modified Delphi process. The statement was cosponsored by the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians. Results: Consensus was reached on 15 statements on the definition of diagnostic outcomes and study designs. A strict definition of diagnostic yield should be used, and studies should be reported according to the STARD (Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) guidelines. Clinical or radiographic follow-up may be incorporated into the reference standard definition but should not be used to calculate diagnostic yield from the procedural encounter. Methodologically robust comparative studies, with incorporation of patient-reported outcomes, are needed to adequately assess and validate minimally invasive diagnostic technologies targeting the lung periphery. Conclusions: This American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians statement aims to provide a research framework that allows greater standardization of device validation efforts through clearly defined diagnostic outcomes and robust study designs. High-quality studies, both industry and publicly funded, can support subsequent health economic analyses and guide implementation decisions in various healthcare settings.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Pulmonares , Médicos , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Consenso , Broncoscopía/métodos , Técnica Delphi , Pulmón/patología , Atención Dirigida al PacienteRESUMEN
Rationale: Strict adherence to procedural protocols and diagnostic definitions is critical to understand the efficacy of new technologies. Electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy (ENB) for lung nodule biopsy has been used for decades without a solid understanding of its efficacy, but offers the opportunity for simultaneous tissue acquisition via electromagnetic navigational transthoracic biopsy (EMN-TTNA) and staging via endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS). Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic yield of EBUS, ENB, and EMN-TTNA during a single procedure using a strict a priori definition of diagnostic yield with central pathology adjudication. Methods: A prospective, single-arm trial was conducted at eight centers enrolling participants with pulmonary nodules (<3 cm; without computed tomography [CT]- and/or positron emission tomography-positive mediastinal lymph nodes) who underwent a staged procedure with same-day CT, EBUS, ENB, and EMN-TTNA. The procedure was staged such that, when a diagnosis had been achieved via rapid on-site pathologic evaluation, the procedure was ended and subsequent biopsy modalities were not attempted. A study finding was diagnostic if an independent pathology core laboratory confirmed malignancy or a definitive benign finding. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic yield of the combination of CT, EBUS, ENB, and EMN-TTNA. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 160 participants at 8 centers with a mean nodule size of 18 ± 6 mm were enrolled. The diagnostic yield of the combined procedure was 59% (94 of 160; 95% confidence interval [CI], 51-66%). Nodule regression was found on same-day CT in 2.5% of cases (4 of 160; 95% CI, 0.69-6.3%), and EBUS confirmed malignancy in 7.1% of cases (11 of 156; 95% CI, 3.6-12%). The yield of ENB alone was 49% (74 of 150; 95% CI, 41-58%), that of EMN-TTNA alone was 27% (8 of 30; 95% CI, 12-46%), and that of ENB plus EMN-TTNA was 53% (79 of 150; 95% CI, 44-61%). Complications included a pneumothorax rate of 10% and a 2% bleeding rate. When EMN-TTNA was performed, the pneumothorax rate was 30%. Conclusions: The diagnostic yield for ENB is 49%, which increases to 59% with the addition of same-day CT, EBUS, and EMN-TTNA, lower than in prior reports in the literature. The high complication rate and low diagnostic yield of EMN-TTNA does not support its routine use. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03338049).
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2013, making approximately 8 million Americans eligible for screening. The demographic characteristics and adherence of persons screened in the United States have not been reported at the population level. OBJECTIVE: To define sociodemographic characteristics and adherence among persons screened and entered into the American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry (LCSR). DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: United States, 2015 to 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Persons receiving a baseline LDCT for LCS from 3625 facilities reporting to the LCSR. MEASUREMENTS: Age, sex, and smoking status distributions (percentages) were computed among persons who were screened and among respondents in the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) who were eligible for screening. The prevalence between the LCSR and the NHIS was compared with prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% CIs. Adherence to annual screening was defined as having a follow-up test within 11 to 15 months of an initial LDCT. RESULTS: Among 1 159 092 persons who were screened, 90.8% (n = 1 052 591) met the USPSTF eligibility criteria. Compared with adults from the NHIS who met the criteria (n = 1257), screening recipients in the LCSR were older (34.7% vs. 44.8% were aged 65 to 74 years; PR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.20 to 1.39]), more likely to be female (41.8% vs. 48.1%; PR, 1.15 [CI, 1.08 to 1.23]), and more likely to currently smoke (52.3% vs. 61.4%; PR, 1.17 [CI, 1.11 to 1.23]). Only 22.3% had a repeated annual LDCT. If follow-up was extended to 24 months and more than 24 months, 34.3% and 40.3% were adherent, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Underreporting of LCS and missing data may skew demographic characteristics of persons reported to be screened. Underreporting of adherence may result in underestimates of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Approximately 91% of persons who had LCS met USPSTF eligibility criteria. In addition to continuing to target all eligible adults, men, those who formerly smoked, and younger eligible patients may be less likely to be screened. Adherence to annual follow-up screening was poor, potentially limiting screening effectiveness. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Pulmonares , Humanos , Adulto , Masculino , Femenino , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Pulmonares/epidemiología , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Estudios de Cohortes , Fumar/epidemiología , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X/métodos , Tamizaje MasivoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Pharmacotherapies remain a central focus of successful tobacco control, but uptake remains very low. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness of a primary care nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) sampling intervention. DESIGN: A Markov cohort simulation model was constructed to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses. Clinical trial results were used to initialize the Markov model. All other model parameters were derived from the literature. The study was conducted over a lifetime horizon, from the payers' budgetary perspective. PARTICIPANTS: Smokers with a primary care visit. INTERVENTION: Medication sampling, which provided short, starter packets of NRT (nicotine patch and lozenge) to smokers in the primary care setting. MAIN MEASURES: Lifetime healthcare expenditures, quality-adjusted life years, and life years. KEY RESULTS: Medication sampling was the dominant strategy compared to standard care. Our intervention cost $75, yielding a discounted lifetime savings of $1065 in healthcare expenditures, and increased both discounted quality-adjusted life years and discounted life years by 0.01. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that medication sampling remained dominant in plausible ranges except when it failed to increase cessation relative to standard care. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed that medication sampling was dominant in 94.1% of the simulated cases, with an implementation cost of $74 (95% CI $73-$76) and discounted lifetime savings in health expenditures of $1061 (- $1106 to - $1,017), increasing quality-adjusted life years by 0.008 (0.0085-0.0093) and life years by 0.008 (0.0081-0.0089). CONCLUSION: Medication sampling, an easily implementable, scalable and low-cost intervention to encourage smoking cessation, is cost saving and improves quality of life.
Asunto(s)
Alcoholismo , Cese del Hábito de Fumar , Humanos , Cese del Hábito de Fumar/métodos , Dispositivos para Dejar de Fumar Tabaco , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Fumar , Calidad de Vida , Atención Primaria de SaludRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Bronchoscopic lung biopsy is typically performed using transbronchial forceps. However, this method is limited by small sample size and presence of crush artifact. Cryobiopsy offers the potential to overcome these limitations with larger artifact-free samples but has not been widely adopted due to concerns over increased rates of bleeding and pneumothorax. A new, smaller 1.1-mm cryoprobe has been developed that operates in a similar fashion to forceps, though the safety profile of this cryoprobe has not yet been prospectively studied. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the safety of transbronchial biopsy using a novel 1.1-mm cryoprobe. METHODS: This prospective, single-arm study enrolled patients referred for transbronchial biopsy. All procedures were performed using the 1.1-mm cryoprobe with oversheath. The primary outcome was the composite of significant complications related to the cryobiopsy procedure (bleeding Grade ≥3, pneumothorax Grade ≥2, and respiratory failure). Bleeding and pneumothorax were graded according to previously published scales. RESULTS: Fifty participants from two academic medical centers underwent transbronchial cryobiopsy. Indications for biopsy included evaluation of lung transplant allograft (50%), diffuse lung disease (44%), and pulmonary parenchymal lesion (6%). There were two pneumothoraces (4%), neither of which required aspiration or chest tube placement. There were no Grade 3 or 4 bleeding events. Mild bleeding (Grade ≤2) was observed in 25 cases (50%). No complications occurred that met the a priori primary outcome of bleeding Grade ≥3, pneumothorax Grade ≥2, and respiratory failure. CONCLUSIONS: Transbronchial cryobiopsy using a 1.1-mm cryoprobe is feasible with an acceptable safety profile.
Asunto(s)
Congelación de Extremidades , Neumotórax , Insuficiencia Respiratoria , Humanos , Broncoscopía/efectos adversos , Broncoscopía/métodos , Estudios Prospectivos , Estudios de Factibilidad , Neumotórax/epidemiología , Neumotórax/etiología , Biopsia/efectos adversos , Biopsia/métodos , Pulmón/patología , Hemorragia/epidemiología , Hemorragia/etiología , Congelación de Extremidades/complicaciones , Congelación de Extremidades/patologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer survivors need more options to improve quality of life (QoL). It is unclear to what extent patients with advanced stage disease are willing to participate in home-based physical activity (PA) and if these interventions improve QoL. The goal of our study was to determine interest in participating in our 3-month home-based walking regimen in patients with advanced stage lung cancer. We used a randomized design to evaluate for potential benefit in PA and patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: We performed an open-label, 1:1 randomized trial in 40 patients with stage III/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) evaluating enrollment rate, PA, QoL, dyspnea, depression, and biomarkers. Compared to usual care (UC), the intervention group (IG) received an accelerometer, in-person teaching session, and gain-framed text messages for 12 weeks. RESULTS: We enrolled 56% (40/71) of eligible patients. Participants were on average 65 years and enrolled 1.9 years from diagnosis. Most patients were women (75%), and receiving treatment (85%) for stage IV (73%) adenocarcinoma (83%). A minority of patients were employed part-time or full time (38%). Both groups reported low baseline PA (IG mean 37 (Standard deviation (SD) 46) vs UC 59 (SD 56) minutes/week; p = 0.25). The IG increased PA more than UC (mean change IG + 123 (SD 212) vs UC + 35 (SD 103) minutes/week; p = 0.051)). Step count in the IG was not statistically different between baseline (4707 step/day), week 6 (5605; p = 0.16), and week 12 (4606 steps/day; p = 0.87). The intervention improved EORTC role functioning domain (17 points; p = 0.022) with borderline improvement in dyspnea (- 13 points; p = 0.051) compared to UC. In patients with two blood samples (25%), we observed a significant increase in soluble PD-1 (219.8 (SD 54.5) pg/mL; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot trial using a 3-month, home-based, mobile health intervention enrolled over half of eligible patients with stage III and IV NSCLC. The intervention increased PA, and may improve several aspects of QoL. We also identified potential biomarker changes relevant to lung cancer biology. Future research should use a larger sample to examine the effect of exercise on cancer biomarkers, which may mediate the association between PA and QoL. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03352245 ).
Asunto(s)
Biomarcadores de Tumor/metabolismo , Ejercicio Físico/fisiología , Neoplasias Pulmonares/terapia , Calidad de Vida/psicología , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Proyectos PilotoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Bronchoscopy for the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions continues to present clinical challenges, despite increasing experience using newer guided techniques. Robotic bronchoscopic platforms have been developed to potentially improve diagnostic yields. Previous studies in cadaver models have demonstrated increased reach into the lung periphery using robotic systems compared to similarly sized conventional bronchoscopes, although the clinical impact of additional reach is unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to evaluate the performance of a robotic bronchoscopic system's ability to reach and access artificial tumor targets simulating peripheral nodules in human cadaveric lungs. METHODS: Artificial tumor targets sized 10-30 mm in axial diameter were implanted into 8 human cadavers. CT scans were performed prior to procedures and all cadavers were intubated and mechanically ventilated. Electromagnetic navigation, radial probe endobronchial ultrasound, and fluoroscopy were used for all procedures. Robotic-assisted bronchoscopy was performed on each cadaver by an individual bronchoscopist to localize and biopsy peripheral lesions. RESULTS: Sixty-seven nodules were evaluated in 8 cadavers. The mean nodule size was 20.4 mm. The overall diagnostic yield was 65/67 (97%) and there was no statistical difference in diagnostic yield for lesions <20 mm compared with lesions measuring 21-30 mm, the presence of a concentric or eccentric radial ultrasound image, or relative distance from the pleura. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic bronchoscopic system was successful at biopsying 97% of peripheral pulmonary lesions 10-30 mm in size in human cadavers. These findings support further exploration of this technology in prospective clinical trials in live human subjects.
Asunto(s)
Broncoscopía/métodos , Biopsia por Aspiración con Aguja Fina Guiada por Ultrasonido Endoscópico/métodos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/patología , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/métodos , Nódulo Pulmonar Solitario/patología , Biopsia , Cadáver , Endosonografía , Femenino , Humanos , MasculinoRESUMEN
Computed tomography lung cancer screening reduces lung cancer mortality. However, screening is underutilized. This study assesses the extent to which providers discuss lung cancer screening with their patients, as a lack of discussion and counseling may serve as a potential cause of low utilization rates. Data from 1667 adults aged 55-80 years sampled in the 2017 Health Information National Trends Survey was utilized. A weighted multivariable logistic regression model was fit with past-year discussion about lung cancer screening with a provider as the outcome. The adjusted odds of discussion were higher for current cigarette smokers compared to non-cigarette smokers (adjusted odds ratio = 3.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75 to 8.74). Despite higher odds, the absolute prevalence was low with only 18% (95% CI, 11.8 to 24.2%) of current adult smokers reporting a past-year discussion. Knowledge of screening from trusted sources of medical information, such as doctors, can increase screening rates and may ultimately reduce lung cancer mortality.
Asunto(s)
Detección Precoz del Cáncer/estadística & datos numéricos , Comunicación en Salud , Personal de Salud/psicología , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Participación del Paciente , Fumadores/psicología , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Consejo , Toma de Decisiones , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/psicología , Femenino , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/epidemiología , Neoplasias Pulmonares/prevención & control , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina , Prevalencia , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to reduce the risk of lung cancer death in healthy individuals, but the impact of coexisting chronic illnesses on LCS outcomes has not been well defined. Consideration of the complex relationship between baseline risk of lung cancer, treatment-related harms, and risk of death from competing causes is crucial in determining the balance of benefits and harms of LCS. OBJECTIVES: To summarize evidence, identify knowledge and research gaps, prioritize topics, and propose methods for future research on how best to incorporate comorbidities in making decisions regarding LCS. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of international clinicians and researchers reviewed available data on the effects of comorbidities on LCS outcomes, focusing on the juxtaposition of lung cancer risk and competing risks of death, consideration of benefits and risks in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, communication of risk, and treatment of screen-detected lung cancer. RESULTS: This statement identifies gaps in knowledge regarding how comorbidities and competing causes of death impact outcomes in LCS, and we have developed questions to help guide future research efforts to better inform patient selection, education, and implementation of LCS. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need for further research that can help guide clinical decision-making with patients who may not benefit from LCS owing to coexisting chronic illness. This statement establishes a research framework to address essential questions regarding how to incorporate and communicate risks of comorbidities into patient selection and decisions regarding LCS.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedad Crónica , Comorbilidad , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/normas , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Tamizaje Masivo/normas , Selección de Paciente , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Toma de Decisiones , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Sociedades MédicasRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Bronchoscopy is frequently nondiagnostic in patients with pulmonary lesions suspected to be lung cancer. This often results in additional invasive testing, although many lesions are benign. We sought to validate a bronchial-airway gene-expression classifier that could improve the diagnostic performance of bronchoscopy. METHODS: Current or former smokers undergoing bronchoscopy for suspected lung cancer were enrolled at 28 centers in two multicenter prospective studies (AEGIS-1 and AEGIS-2). A gene-expression classifier was measured in epithelial cells collected from the normal-appearing mainstem bronchus to assess the probability of lung cancer. RESULTS: A total of 639 patients in AEGIS-1 (298 patients) and AEGIS-2 (341 patients) met the criteria for inclusion. A total of 43% of bronchoscopic examinations were nondiagnostic for lung cancer, and invasive procedures were performed after bronchoscopy in 35% of patients with benign lesions. In AEGIS-1, the classifier had an area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.83), a sensitivity of 88% (95% CI, 83 to 92), and a specificity of 47% (95% CI, 37 to 58). In AEGIS-2, the classifier had an AUC of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.80), a sensitivity of 89% (95% CI, 84 to 92), and a specificity of 47% (95% CI, 36 to 59). The combination of the classifier plus bronchoscopy had a sensitivity of 96% (95% CI, 93 to 98) in AEGIS-1 and 98% (95% CI, 96 to 99) in AEGIS-2, independent of lesion size and location. In 101 patients with an intermediate pretest probability of cancer, the negative predictive value of the classifier was 91% (95% CI, 75 to 98) among patients with a nondiagnostic bronchoscopic examination. CONCLUSIONS: The gene-expression classifier improved the diagnostic performance of bronchoscopy for the detection of lung cancer. In intermediate-risk patients with a nondiagnostic bronchoscopic examination, a negative classifier score provides support for a more conservative diagnostic approach. (Funded by Allegro Diagnostics and others; AEGIS-1 and AEGIS-2 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01309087 and NCT00746759.).
Asunto(s)
Broncoscopía , Perfilación de la Expresión Génica , Expresión Génica , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Área Bajo la Curva , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/genética , Estudios Prospectivos , Curva ROC , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , FumarRESUMEN
RATIONALE: The findings of the NLST (National Lung Screening Trial) are the basis for screening high-risk individuals according to age and smoking history. Although screening is covered for eligible Medicare beneficiaries, the generalizability of the NLST in the elderly population has been questioned. OBJECTIVES: Compare outcomes of patients diagnosed with stage 1 non-small cell lung cancer in the NLST to a nationally representative cohort of elderly patients Methods: Analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare and NLST datasets for patients with stage 1 disease aged 65 to 74 years. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Lung cancer-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and 30-, 60-, and 90-day treatment mortality were measured. When compared with the NLST group undergoing surgery for stage 1 non-small cell lung cancer, those in the SEER-Medicare NLST eligible cohort had no difference in adjusted odds ratios for 30-, 60-, and 90-day surgical mortality (P values = 0.97, 0.65, and 0.46, respectively). Although the 5-year cancer-specific survival did not differ between cohorts (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84 NLST vs. SEER-Medicare NLST eligible; P = 0.21), the adjusted HR estimate for all-cause mortality was better in the NLST cohort (HR, 0.71; P < 0.01). For patients who did not receive surgery for early-stage disease (presumably for curative intent), the outcomes were far worse (13.1, 18.9, 23.9%, for 30-, 60-, and 90-day treatment mortality, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients with minimal comorbid conditions meeting the inclusion criteria of the NLST who underwent surgery had excellent postoperative outcomes and similar lung cancer-specific 5-year survivorship. In those with significant comorbidities or those not undergoing surgery, competing causes of death may diminish the benefit, and there is no evidence to recommend screening in this group.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/diagnóstico por imagen , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Evaluación Geriátrica/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico por imagen , Tamizaje Masivo/métodos , Anciano , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Evaluación Geriátrica/métodos , Humanos , Masculino , Riesgo , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos XRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Molecular biomarkers have the potential to improve the current state of early lung cancer detection. The goal of this project was to develop a policy statement that provides guidance about the level of evidence required to determine that a molecular biomarker, used to support early lung cancer detection, is appropriate for clinical use. METHODS: An ad hoc project steering committee was formed, to include individuals with expertise in the early detection of lung cancer and molecular biomarker development, from inside and outside of the Assembly on Thoracic Oncology. Key questions, generated from the results of a survey of the project steering committee, were discussed at an in-person meeting. Results of the discussion were summarized in a policy statement that was circulated to the steering committee and revised multiple times to achieve consensus. RESULTS: With a focus on the clinical applications of lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation, the policy statement outlines categories of results that should be reported in the early phases of molecular biomarker development, discusses the level of evidence that would support study of the clinical utility, describes the outcomes that should be proven to consider a molecular biomarker clinically useful, and suggests study designs capable of assessing these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The application of molecular biomarkers to assist with the early detection of lung cancer has the potential to substantially improve our ability to select patients for lung cancer screening, and to assist with the characterization of indeterminate lung nodules. We have described relevant considerations and have suggested standards to apply when determining whether a molecular biomarker for the early detection of lung cancer is ready for clinical use.
Asunto(s)
Biomarcadores de Tumor , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Humanos , Sociedades Médicas , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
RATIONALE: Smoking cessation counseling in conjunction with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening is recommended in multiple clinical practice guidelines. The best approach for integrating effective smoking cessation interventions within this setting is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To summarize evidence, identify research gaps, prioritize topics for future research, and propose standardized tools for use in conducting research on smoking cessation interventions within the LDCT lung cancer screening setting. METHODS: The American Thoracic Society convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in tobacco dependence treatment and/or LDCT screening. During an in-person meeting, evidence was reviewed, research gaps were identified, and key questions were generated for each of three research domains: (1) target population to study; (2) adaptation, development, and testing of interventions; and (3) implementation of interventions with demonstrated efficacy. We also identified standardized measures for use in conducting this research. A larger stakeholder panel then ranked research questions by perceived importance in an online survey. Final prioritization was generated hierarchically on the basis of average rank assigned. RESULTS: There was little consensus on which questions within the population domain were of highest priority. Within the intervention domain, research to evaluate the effectiveness in the lung cancer screening setting of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions shown to be effective in other contexts was ranked highest. In the implementation domain, stakeholders prioritized understanding strategies to identify and overcome barriers to integrating smoking cessation in lung cancer screening settings. CONCLUSIONS: This statement offers an agenda to stimulate research surrounding the integration and implementation of smoking cessation interventions with LDCT lung cancer screening.
Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica , Neoplasias Pulmonares/complicaciones , Tamizaje Masivo , Cese del Hábito de Fumar/métodos , Tabaquismo/complicaciones , Tabaquismo/terapia , Humanos , Sociedades Médicas , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
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.).
Asunto(s)
Detección Precoz del Cáncer/economía , Esperanza de Vida , Neoplasias Pulmonares/mortalidad , Pulmón/diagnóstico por imagen , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Radiografía Torácica/economía , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X/economía , Anciano , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Femenino , Costos de la Atención en Salud , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Pulmonares/economía , Neoplasias Pulmonares/cirugía , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Fumar , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
RATIONALE: Smoking is the largest contributor to lung cancer risk, and those who continue to smoke after diagnosis have a worse survival. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces mortality in high-risk individuals. Smoking cessation is an essential component of a high-quality screening program. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effects of smoking history and abstinence on mortality in high-risk individuals who participated in the NLST (National Lung Screening Trial). METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial (NLST). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Measurements included self-reported demographics, medical and smoking history, and lung cancer-specific and all-cause mortality. Cox regression was used to study the association of mortality with smoking status and pack-years. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were examined for differences in survival based on trial arm and smoking status. Current smokers had an increased lung cancer-specific (hazard ratio [HR], 2.14-2.29) and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.79-1.85) compared with former smokers irrespective of screening arm. Former smokers in the control arm abstinent for 7 years had a 20% mortality reduction comparable with the benefit reported with LDCT screening in the NLST. The maximum benefit was seen with the combination of smoking abstinence at 15 years and LDCT screening, which resulted in a 38% reduction in lung cancer-specific mortality (HR, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Seven years of smoking abstinence reduced lung cancer-specific mortality at a magnitude comparable with LDCT screening. This reduction was greater when abstinence was combined with screening, highlighting the importance of smoking cessation efforts in screening programs.
Asunto(s)
Detección Precoz del Cáncer/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/epidemiología , Cese del Hábito de Fumar/estadística & datos numéricos , Fumar/epidemiología , Anciano , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Humanos , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Pulmón/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Pulmonares/mortalidad , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Mortalidad , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos XRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), screening with low-dose computed tomography (CT) resulted in a 20% reduction in lung-cancer mortality among participants between the ages of 55 and 74 years with a minimum of 30 pack-years of smoking and no more than 15 years since quitting. It is not known whether the benefits and potential harms of such screening vary according to lung-cancer risk. METHODS: We assessed the variation in efficacy, the number of false positive results, and the number of lung-cancer deaths prevented among 26,604 participants in the NLST who underwent low-dose CT screening, as compared with the 26,554 participants who underwent chest radiography, according to the quintile of 5-year risk of lung-cancer death (ranging from 0.15 to 0.55% in the lowest-risk group [quintile 1] to more than 2.00% in the highest-risk group [quintile 5]). RESULTS: The number of lung-cancer deaths per 10,000 person-years that were prevented in the CT-screening group, as compared with the radiography group, increased according to risk quintile (0.2 in quintile 1, 3.5 in quintile 2, 5.1 in quintile 3, 11.0 in quintile 4, and 12.0 in quintile 5; P=0.01 for trend). Across risk quintiles, there were significant decreasing trends in the number of participants with false positive results per screening-prevented lung-cancer death (1648 in quintile 1, 181 in quintile 2, 147 in quintile 3, 64 in quintile 4, and 65 in quintile 5). The 60% of participants at highest risk for lung-cancer death (quintiles 3 through 5) accounted for 88% of the screening-prevented lung-cancer deaths and for 64% of participants with false positive results. The 20% of participants at lowest risk (quintile 1) accounted for only 1% of prevented lung-cancer deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Screening with low-dose CT prevented the greatest number of deaths from lung cancer among participants who were at highest risk and prevented very few deaths among those at lowest risk. These findings provide empirical support for risk-based targeting of smokers for such screening. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute.).
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico por imagen , Pulmón/diagnóstico por imagen , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X , Anciano , Reacciones Falso Positivas , Femenino , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/mortalidad , Neoplasias Pulmonares/prevención & control , Masculino , Tamizaje Masivo , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dosis de Radiación , Riesgo , FumarRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) used risk factors for lung cancer (e.g., ≥30 pack-years of smoking and <15 years since quitting) as selection criteria for lung-cancer screening. Use of an accurate model that incorporates additional risk factors to select persons for screening may identify more persons who have lung cancer or in whom lung cancer will develop. METHODS: We modified the 2011 lung-cancer risk-prediction model from our Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial to ensure applicability to NLST data; risk was the probability of a diagnosis of lung cancer during the 6-year study period. We developed and validated the model (PLCO(M2012)) with data from the 80,375 persons in the PLCO control and intervention groups who had ever smoked. Discrimination (area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve [AUC]) and calibration were assessed. In the validation data set, 14,144 of 37,332 persons (37.9%) met NLST criteria. For comparison, 14,144 highest-risk persons were considered positive (eligible for screening) according to PLCO(M2012) criteria. We compared the accuracy of PLCO(M2012) criteria with NLST criteria to detect lung cancer. Cox models were used to evaluate whether the reduction in mortality among 53,202 persons undergoing low-dose computed tomographic screening in the NLST differed according to risk. RESULTS: The AUC was 0.803 in the development data set and 0.797 in the validation data set. As compared with NLST criteria, PLCO(M2012) criteria had improved sensitivity (83.0% vs. 71.1%, P<0.001) and positive predictive value (4.0% vs. 3.4%, P=0.01), without loss of specificity (62.9% and. 62.7%, respectively; P=0.54); 41.3% fewer lung cancers were missed. The NLST screening effect did not vary according to PLCO(M2012) risk (P=0.61 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the PLCO(M2012) model was more sensitive than the NLST criteria for lung-cancer detection.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico por imagen , Tamizaje Masivo , Selección de Paciente , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , Fumar , Área Bajo la Curva , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Radiografía Torácica , Factores de Riesgo , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos XRESUMEN
Lung cancer patients are at high risk of suffering due to severe and refractory symptoms, concomitant respiratory comorbidity, frequent disease progression, and treatment that can worsen and compromise quality of life. Palliative care (PC) has shown multiple benefits to cancer patients such as better quality of life, higher patient and family satisfaction, improved disease understanding, less symptom burden, fewer depressive symptoms, less aggressive end of life care, and even improved survival with early implementation. For these reasons, multiple societies have recognized PC as an essential component of lung cancer care, and early PC is recommended for patients with metastatic disease or refractory symptoms. Unfortunately, utilization of PC is both low and often near the end of life, increasing risk for suffering. Misconceptions about PC often underlie delayed referral to PC. This review summarizes the literature for utilization of PC in lung cancer and focuses on patient benefits, misconceptions, barriers, and implementation.